[iDC] if AI were a reality, which, currently, it is not

[Paul Prueitt]

I am thankful for this note, as it clarifies some things.

The issue that we seem to disagree over is seen in the word "currently:

> The only way that would be possible is if AI were a reality, which,
> currently, it is not.

The argument that Penrose and Robert Rosen and others make, is that,  
like creating life from abstractions; abstractions may only be a part  
of intelligence.  One need actual substance, and the silicon  
computing paradigm does not have that substance.  In fact Pribram and  
I and others regard the necessary substance as something that deals  
with emergence, locality and non-locality in a way seen in the  
emergence of function in biological systems.

There is no future to AI.  What there is is a recognition of the  
things you are saying about the nature of the problem in data  
interoperability and the aggregation of information into a  
synthesized presentation (un touched by a centralized control).

The nature of the Church that you may have membership in is  
illustrated by the statement:

>  We do, however, have the ability to
> program computers using whatever algorithm we feel is most  
> meaningful and
> most able to send us the information we want.  Perhaps you are mad  
> because
> the other people are not doing it for you in the way you most  
> desire.  In
> which case I say learn to program.

First, I am not mad, not upset and not insane.  I am insistent about  
a specific point of what I and others regard as science.  I am also  
insistent that the programmer class should not be forced on all of  
us .  Suppose we take your statement at face value and evolve a  
culture where the right to vote depends on one's programing ability?

Why not let them eat cake?






On Mar 17, 2008, at 10:43 AM, subbies at redheadedstepchild.org wrote:

> Sigh.  I'm no disciple of anyone but myself, thanks.
>
> As for "the point is that interpretation by a human in context is  
> where
> meaning is defined" - I would completely agree with this, which is
> precisely why I think you're tilting at windmills.  In spite of that
> pretty statement you made, the ROOT of your argument is in fact a
> complaint that machines are not currently capable of human nuance,  
> that
> they are not able to glean meaning from data.
>
> To glean meaning is not the purpose of machines.  To glean meaning  
> is the
> purpose of humans.  The purpose of machines is to assist humans  
> with tasks
> that are too herculean for them to complete unaided.  Given the vast
> amount of data presented to us, interpreting it all, unaided, in  
> its naked
> glory, is quite impossible.  To that end, machines are needed to sift.
> But they are not, nor should they be, employed to derive meaning  
> from the
> data.  The only way that would be possible is if AI were a reality,  
> which,
> currently, it is not.
>
> Your statement that machines will push information to us like TV is
> ludicrous.  We have no control over what the television gives us  
> beyond
> changing the pre-programmed channel.  We do, however, have the  
> ability to
> program computers using whatever algorithm we feel is most  
> meaningful and
> most able to send us the information we want.  Perhaps you are mad  
> because
> the other people are not doing it for you in the way you most  
> desire.  In
> which case I say learn to program.  You are only as much a slave to  
> the
> W3C as you allow yourself to be.
> -Alexis
>
> + --------
>    redheadedstepchild.org
>         ------- +
>
> On Mon, 17 Mar 2008, Paul Prueitt wrote:
>
> ::Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2008 09:50:49 -0500
> ::From: Paul Prueitt <psp at ontologystream.com>
> ::To: subbies at redheadedstepchild.org
> ::Cc: Sandy Klausner <klausner at coretalk.net>, idc at mailman.thing.net,
> ::    susan.turnbull at gsa.gov
> ::Subject: Re: [iDC] please make comments regarding semantic  
> overlay term
> ::
> ::
> ::On Mar 17, 2008, at 7:49 AM, subbies at redheadedstepchild.org wrote:
> ::
> ::>  Semantic standards are not designed
> ::> to aid humans in understanding the data that passes across the  
> web - they
> ::> are designed to assist machines in parsing the data and  
> delivering it to
> ::> humans.
> ::
> ::
> ::Oh my.   So in the near future we will be the receivers of  
> massive amounts of
> ::data, that the system pushes on us; but which is not organized to be
> ::meaningful to us.
> ::
> ::Hummm.. sounds like we already have that, it is called TV.  The  
> Internet could
> ::be and is more.  The potential is for true social networking  
> driven by a
> ::demand economy.  The demand side is what we do not now have fully  
> operational.
> ::Balance balance balance.   Supply side by itself is ruining  
> American, and the
> ::world.
> ::
> ::There is an organization to the ads and the TV programming, and  
> there is value
> ::sometimes; but mostly this just feeds the addiction that is  
> wasting the Earth,
> ::its resources and its people in the pursuit of consumption.
> ::
> ::The point is that interpretation by a human in context is where  
> meaning is
> ::defined; unless you are one of the disciples of the Current  
> Church of IT
> ::(CCIT) Incorporated.
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::
> ::