Re: [Full-Disclosure] Empirical data surrounding guards and firewalls.

• Previous message: list_at_nolog.org: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: open telnet port"
• Maybe in reply to: evol_at_ruiner.halo.nu: "[Full-Disclosure] Empirical data surrounding guards and firewalls."
• Next in thread: Yaakov Yehudi: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] Empirical data surrounding guards and firewalls."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]

To: full-disclosure@lists.netsys.com
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 01:40:06 -0400

<note: the original mail was rejected 'cos it contained the phrase 'hard
core'... what retard setup the filters for this list?>

First off, it bears remembering that I said 'computer programs' not
'artificial organisms'.

> You clearly don't know very much about AI, or sentience. You clearly
> were unable to exercise understanding of the definition of sentience.

On the contrary! I have defined sentience and can therefore confidently
operate using that word. Your point is therefore proven incorrect, but
if you wish I could post a delicate dissection of why I think you are
wrong. I believe it is you who have failed to grasp the definition and
more importantly the spirit of the word 'sentience'.

> To perceive by the senses. Well not that there are for one common
> example, PS2 games which actively do this with vision

That is not perception. Perception is a faculty reserved for those with
awareness. Without awareness it is merely operating on data using
techniques/algorithms that approximate the behaviour of life, if not
operating in an altogether simpler fashion. Even if something were
alive, that would not necessarily mean it could perceive.

> Of course maybe you should learn a little about AI and its techniques
> before you try and bad mouth it. There are far more running
> applications of various fields of AI than you are aware of.

Oh, I've learned of it and that is why I dismiss the lofty claims that
many of its proponents advance. It is of incredible value, yes, but
c'mon... if people have trouble getting simple vision recognition
systems to work as well as a healthy human being, than I feel I can
safely say the mysteries of the mind lay outside the reach of mankind
for the time being and into the foreseeable future.

They've become overawed of their simulacra, and mistake the quacking of
a duck for the proof of it's very duckness. I understand completely as
it is a very seductive field and extremely hard work; I believe this
leads them to overestimate the true magnitude of any advance.

> Neural Networks exhibit sentience by their very nature. There exist
> (logical computer) programs which utilize a data structure
> representing and functioning as a neural network.

Neural networks are nothing more than behaviour models that can learn.
'Learn' doesn't mean anything more in this context than
predictive/future behaviour based on trial and error. It's guestimation!
Considering that until recently the role of glial cells in brain
operation and mental processing was vastly underestimated, I would find
it unlikely (yet amusing) if the AI researcher's model/approximation of
living neuronal behaviour somehow proved to be a stunning vindication of
neural networks as the sole, or most important, fundament for sentience.

Ok, let's define 'sentience' for once and for all. I'll take the output
of 'dict sentience' and pick the definition that best encapsulates what
I think sentience is:

 From WordNet (r) 2.0 [wn]:
  sentience
       n 1: state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness; "the
            crash intruded on his awareness" [syn: {awareness}]
       2: the faculty through which the external world is apprehended;
          "in the dark he had to depend on touch and on his senses
          of smell and hearing" [syn: {sense}, {sensation}, {sentiency},
           {sensory faculty}]
       3: the readiness to perceive sensations; elementary or
          undifferentiated consciousness; "gave sentience to slugs
          and newts"- Richard Eberhart [ant: {insentience}]

"state of elementary or undifferentiated consciousness" might be
construed as lending credence to your argument but in this case I think
it concerns the division, or lack thereof, between the id, ego, and
superego of Freudian interpretation. Freud might be considered by many
to be somewhat specious or overrated, but if I could just find that damn
Scientific American article, I'd show you that evidence exists that
correlates Freud's interpretation/model with empiric physiological
evidence. I can't believe that I'm admitting Freud was anywhere near
being right, or even useful, but what can I do but accept the evidence
as it stands? :) Ah, here it is:
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=00074EE5-1AFE-1085-94F483414B7F0000

you'll have to subscribe to read the full article, but as you seem
interested in this topic I'd suggest trying to track down a copy of the
May 2004 issue. It's worth it! But I digress.

You are clearly a novitiate in the deeper understandings of philosophy
if you think that an object, by merely exhibiting the properties of
something, means that it is equal to something. I would enjoin you to
familiarize yourself with the Chinese Room argument.

The extraordinary claims you may make regarding AI require extraordinary
proof, not just your conjecture that because they exercise capabilities
or qualities similar to sentient, and therefore living, beings that they
must, by definition, be living or sentient beings. Furthermore, there is
nothing rigorously scientific about the Turing Test. It is entirely
subjective as it is based on the opinion of the interrogator. As far as
an objective test of intelligence it *is* a sham. Sham, by the way,
defined as "False; counterfeit; pretended; feigned; unreal; as, a sham
fight.". Now I'm just being pedantic.

Minds such as Marvin Minsky and Roger Penrose have tackled this debate
in far deeper and rigorous fashion, and have not, in my opinion,
advanced significantly further than the Greek philosophers did millenia
ago. While that statement could be considered fallacious as an appeal to
authority, it goes to show that the problem is far harder to tackle than
most (all?) people, myself included, realize. Minsky practically comes
right out and says this at the end of his essay "Why People Think
Computers Can't"

> "Fail" the Turing Test? I was not sure this could be applicable to a
> human

If something is not subject to falsification then it can not be
considered an arbiter of truth. At the very least, it can not be
considered scientific as it cannot be used to establish a hypothesis
that can be confirmed or denied.

I say this all as a former machine intelligence and AI
heavy believer. To make an even simpler reduction of the argument, if
people
ever create something that is truly sentient, self conscious, aware,
alive... then certainly it is no longer artificial, now is it? Life is
life. Whether man created a scaffold to entice, house and tend that
spark of life is another matter, but that life I do not think is a
property we can claim to have endowed it with since we cannot even
accurately describe what it is or how it came to be. I think therefore I
am, regardless of whatever I was before or what I was made of.

School's out.

Regards,
Byron

_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.netsys.com/full-disclosure-charter.html

• Previous message: list_at_nolog.org: "Re: [Full-Disclosure] Re: open telnet port"
• Maybe in reply to: evol_at_ruiner.halo.nu: "[Full-Disclosure] Empirical data surrounding guards and firewalls."
• Next in thread: Yaakov Yehudi: "RE: [Full-Disclosure] Empirical data surrounding guards and firewalls."
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]