Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai,alt.consciousness
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news3.near.net!noc.near.net!paperboy.wellfleet.com!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!jussieu.fr!univ-lyon1.fr!swidir.switch.ch!CERN.ch!dxal18.cern.ch!hallam
From: hallam@dxal18.cern.ch (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: Thought Question: A kinder and gentler net??
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dxal18.cern.ch
Message-ID: <D3HLvw.7oK@news.cern.ch>
Sender: news@news.cern.ch (USENET News System)
Reply-To: hallam@dxal18.cern.ch
Organization: Wot!!! Me ????
References: <3gh2i9$8l6@ixnews3.ix.netcom.com> <1995Jan29.223330.864@news.media.mit.edu> <3gmb7s$2oh@prime.mdata.fi> <1995Feb1.043233.3279@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: Sat, 4 Feb 1995 17:57:31 GMT
Lines: 99
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.alife:2207 comp.ai.philosophy:25208 comp.ai:27078


In article <1995Feb1.043233.3279@news.media.mit.edu>, minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky) writes:

|>In article <3gmb7s$2oh@prime.mdata.fi> jsand@mits.mdata.fi (Jan Sand) writes:
|>>Marvin Minsky <minsky@media.mit.edu> wrote:
|> [snip]
|>>Mr. Minsky, I am grateful for the clarification and hope that it will
|>>squelch what looked like the inception of a snarling party. These things
|>
|>Thanks. Actually, perhaps we have the same problem: I think that I get
|>a lot of good ideas as side effects of getting angry at people for one
|>thing or another.  In fact, the theory of emotional exploitation in
|>section 4.4 of The Society of Mind is an example of an idea about
|>*that* which is "based on itself".  It doesn't work on the net, of
|>course, because it wastes the time of other people--but I still can't
|>help doing it sometimes, late at night, etc.

Having had cause to read up a lot on dilectic of late I am convinced that
we are not in fact logical beings at all and that our discussion and belief
have their roots primarily in emotion and accepting views that conform with
our own.

Logic has a small part to play in this interchange. It is a powerfull medium
of communication because it is a widely accepted form. If we take two 
propositions, one of which depends on many contentious concerns and another
which attempts to exclude contention, the latter we will expect to find much
wider acceptance. With every culturally dependent notion we employ in our
arguments we further restrict their acceptability.


A prime example of this is seen in the US congress where politicians regularly
employ language that to the US citizen may appear `patriotic' but to the 
foreigner sounds narrow minded bigotry. Most countries do not base their
foreign policy on the use of threats precisely because they rarely work. Even
when faced with overwhelming force and no possibiliy of victory the human 
animal prefers to fight for the most ludicrous of causes than retreat. 
Unfortunately the US tends to be drawn into the threatening mode rather often 
because threats issued against external agents do have an internal effect.


The relevance of all this is that the Web and the Net are political agents.
They act across national boundaries and create a feedback that was not
previously present. This in itself brings various groups to the realisation
that they have conflicting interests. The question is not how those conflicts
are to be avoided but how they are to be resolved, either through argument
or through the political process leading to ecconomic embargoes, boycotts
and wars.


I would much rather have a war in cyberspace than a a real one.


Interestingly there is little chance that a war in cyberspace might become
a real one. Consider that a Cyber-Conflict tends to bring into the debate
the true points at issue rather more frequently than is the case in normal
political debate. Consider for example the Cuban situation which according to 
the press reports is difficult to understand, how can such a small country
survive against so large an opponent. The answer is simple, because the enemy
is so large the very act of being successful in defiance is itself a victory.
In such a dispute psychological weapons such as a trade boycott are entirely
ineffective. Yet it is politically incorrect to provide such an analysis and
it is rarely given in the US press. In the UK it is perfectly acceptable to 
make such a suggestion even in right wing reactionary circles. The critical
distinction being that the UK did not suffer a humilliation at the hands of
the Cubans.

On the Cuban issue, logic tells us that a policy of active engagement would be
far more threatening to the installed regime. The profits to be made from 
tourism would provide the nomenclatura with a vested interest in abandoning
the communist regime. Emotion however holds the floor and prevents such an
analysis being heard.


A kinder, gentler net? I'm not sure that I want one.


Truth does not exist, the best we can hope to achieve is that we arrive
at an agreement and understanding of each others personal truths. Accepting
that truth if it has any meaning at all is an individual matter does not
mean that we are bound to accept the ravings of each and every net.lunatic.
What it means is that we must respect the views of others even if they are 
founded in emotion and not logic. If however like myself you prefer the cold
hard world of reason and logic to the warm, unreasoning world of emotion, 
remember that we have the advantage. By accepting the rule of logic we can
communicate our view with more precision to a wider audience than the
peddlar of emotional blackmail. 


If we built a Strong-AI being should it be a creature of logic or emotion?
Perhaps we should have built two and then decided which was more interesting.

I agree with the conclusion of Douglas Adams however, the first thing that
a strong-AI being would do is to get itself firmly entrenched in the chat
show circuit.

--
Phillip M. Hallam-Baker

Not Speaking for anyone else.
