Re: OT:- Windows 2100

Tech-Archive recommends: Repair Windows Errors & Optimize Windows Performance


kpg wrote:

As OTHMAN once said in microsoft.public.cert.exam.mcse

# Name resolution details: file://c:\temp\203991.htm (9/19/2006
10:09:26 AM) #
I shudder to think of the uproar our descendants will be living
through worrying about the Y2K1C issue :)

Why didn't you read the article about Could a machine think?

for more info:
http://www.royalinstitutephilosophy.org/think/article.php?num=2

I read it. It was stupid. I have seen much better treatment of
the subject elsewhere. Come on, a hypothetical conversation
with a machine (that does not exist) arguing if it can think.
What a stupid premise. I personally think it is possible (but not
with our current technology or understanding) to build a "silicon"
based (if you will) brain that can indeed think (at least as well
as some humans). But it will never be human, because there is
more to use than a brain - you know, the whole 2.5 billion years
of evolution (ha, you thought I was going to say a soul!).

Besides STNG already said all there is to say about robots having
souls. Personally, I don't think robots or infidels have souls.

May take is this; sure you can fling all the wires, circuits and
sensors together, but until the machine is programmed and powered,
it's just a bunch o' bits; there is no intelligence. Additionally
we cannot forget the inherent programming in circuit boards, that
controls, what happens to the energy, flowing around it's medium.

No matter how brilliant the AI, it will always be based on the
intelligence of the initial programmer. This is taking into account
that some sophisticated AI can generate it's own code, and it's own
'reasoning'.

Imagine, machines became so sophisticated that they could create
themselves, learn themselves, and power themselves. All - totally
feasible in my book.

Despite the fact that they can reproduce, learn and power themselves,
the initial intelligence came from the programmer, therefore the
machines entire understanding would be 'fundamentally' based on the
initial programmers take on the world.

Now this is all fine and well if the initial programmer is a well
adjusted individual, and programmed the initial machine's
fundamentals with a balanced understanding...

But let's imagine the programmer was a certain MCNGP, with a little
flavoured twist, and hard coded the initial machine with screwed up
fundamentals. I.e. sensing light caused some kind or adverse action,
i.e. triggering full volume vocal dumps of "look at me I'm a fat
heap of junk". The machine might otherwise appear intelligent, but
don't take it outside.

The fundamental programming/intelligence is human.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Java
    ... >> understood by most it is necessary to teach those fundamentals. ... > dependence on the mere programmer. ... > as far as the people, like Ellison, empowered and enriched by the work ... > of countless Oracle developers. ...
    (comp.programming)
  • Re: A complete program book for a small project.
    ... Fundamentals is an excellent book for what you want. ... Definitely a must have if you come from FPD and want great advice about a ... > I am a very experienced foxpro2.6 programmer. ...
    (microsoft.public.fox.programmer.exchange)
  • Re: Latest Joel article
    ... > has great fundamentals but absolutely no grasp of OO is also not very ... Prev by Date: ...
    (borland.public.delphi.non-technical)
  • Re: Lisp-like macros for C?
    ... Lisp allows you to ... programmer. ... power of C to preprocess C programs. ... PL/I has a preprocessor with syntax ...
    (comp.lang.c)
  • Re: RS-232 random number generator
    ... >> and get power from CTS or RTS or something, these are guaranteed to be able ... >specified RS-232 driver chip can sink/source a few milliamps. ... >RS-232 properly so you have no idea what the port can or can't drive. ... a VERY simple PIC programmer via the par port. ...
    (sci.crypt)