Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.indirect.com!spaceboy
From: spaceboy@indirect.com (s p a c e b o y)
Subject: Re: Computers--Next stage in evolution?  Hmmmmmm.....
Message-ID: <D3qB10.sx@indirect.com>
Sender: usenet@indirect.com (Internet Direct Usenet News)
Organization: Internet Direct, indirect.com
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 10:41:24 GMT
References: <3gpddj$t2b@usenet.rpi.edu> <D3DKGJ.Luy@indirect.com> <3h9avu$35t@tribune.usask.ca>
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Followup-To: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.alife
Lines: 173
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:27276 comp.ai.philosophy:25367 comp.ai.alife:2303

Henry Choy (Henry_Choy@engr.usask.ca) wrote:
: s p a c e b o y (spaceboy@indirect.com) wrote:
: : Demetrius L. Davis (davisd@pleiades.cs.rpi.edu) wrote:

: : This has always been the most interesting aspect of a-life to me.  Much 
: : of the research whose goals are to create an electronic brain seem 
: : focused on using the human brain as a model.  I have heard people argue 
: : that the brain is far too complex to emulate (i agree) and it will never 
: : be done, and others couter that it can be done easily using simpler, 
: : smaller models and evolving these systems.  I question the very heart of 
: : this research.  Just a few opinions:

My opinion.

: : 	Intelligence occurred in humans as a fluke.

: Perhaps the complexity of the DNA making up humans is an energetically
: low form as far as DNA for intelligent species go. Hence the weirdness
: of humans. Oh well, at least we're not stupid.

Perhaps. Your opinion.  Granted.

: :  Evolution's long time 
: : tools "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest"

: These tools are also flukes. Life's a fluke as far as the definition
: of fittest goes. Fit is as fit does.

Hey, another opinion. 

: : gained a 
: : formidable opponent when humans gained consciousness.  Ancient man was 
: : not the fittest of the earths beasts

: You don't know that.

An equally powerful opinion (judging by your way of reasoning) is that 
"You don't know that I don't know that".. Read last sentence of opening 
paragraph... OPINION is a prominent word not KNOW.

: Survival of the fittest doesn't mean survival of the very fittest. It
: means survival of the sufficiently fit.

There are degrees of everything.  Except Boolean operators (unless 
you're in the Analog lab).

The point was: Physical brute force can yield to "cunning" or 
intelligence.  In each species you will have degrees of 
"fitness" or survivability.  The lifeforms which survive must improve 
and adapt and become more "fit" whatever fitness might be.  Therefore 
they fall into the life category and not death category.

: You ever find a philosophical question answered?

Yes to a certain degree.  If you look at the fact that humans have 
attained a knowledge level built upon "answering" philosophical 
questions.  The Earth is round, it was born from the same cloud of gas 
and dust which formed our Sun, and we are hurling through a vast Universe 
which we seek to know more about.  If I BELIEVE this to be fact does that 
make me better than you? No.  If you don't agree with the answers our
history of great scientists or "seekers" have provided, fine.  But maybe 
you do.  Also fine.

The old "do we ever really know anything" has been quite played out and 
is the definitive "dead end" to any attainment of knowledge.

: : If I am curious as to whats inside an unopened door I must research and 
: : weigh the consequences of opening and not opening such a door.  

: Shoot, nothing is guaranteed, not even gravity, which might flick off
: tomorrow as if it blew a fuse.

I suppose you consider gravity something for philosophical debate. Fine 
but I don't see the similarity.  Perhaps what I was pointing out was a 
little trivial. "Look before you leap" was the gist of it.
  
: To say that researching the unknown is like opening a door on the risk
: of letting in maneaters is totally cautious (naive?). Sometimes
: though, you have to experiment to verify the theory (even the theory
: on the deadliness of the research).

Naive?  Hmm are you involved in any kind of research yourself? I assure 
you MOST research on the unknown is quite cautious even to the point of 
anal-retentiveness (ask my University physics prof.).  However this 
differs in one important way.  At this particular point in my post I 
began to look at research which could directly affect everyone such as 
creation of biological agents, weapons, and <fill in blank>.  I realize 
that there are no answers to these questions of "should we".  Since we 
can't answer them and never will, does that give us the go-ahead?  In 
many cases people say yes for the sake of doing research and making 
money.  Gee, shoot me if I don't agree with this reasoning. 

: : Scientists in these bio fields have ignored this question for noble 
: : reasons like fighting disease and advancing our knowledge about 
: : ourselves, and not-so-noble like making money.

: Ignored? No way! You don't see people using themselves for guinea pigs
: do you?

Actually, its now an everday occurance.  It depends on your definition of 
a guinea pig.  I guess ignored is a strong word.  

Hmmm...If I walk into a busy intersection against the light am I being a 
"guinea pig" in someones book?  Perhaps a forensic scientist?

: :  I question for which of 
: : these reseaons (or a similar one) a-life research is done.

: Is one reason more justifiable than the other to let maneaters in the
: room? No.

Unless you are a fatalist?

: Instead, you would like to know if you have vicious creatures lurking
: behind the door before you open it.
: Right now, you can't tell what's there until you take a peek.

Using your other senses might help.

: Indeed what is worth the risk?

Many "is the gun loaded" questions are answerable.  But the ones that 
aren't could have dire consequences.  Thats all I was trying to say 
nothing more.

: :  OF course this is all words 
: : over a page and I don't believe a-life research will reach this stage 
: : in any of our lifetimes.

Read this sentence VERY carefully.  Now I think that maybe it should have 
been typed first??  (Dissecting a post can really skew its meaning huh?)
Do you criticize the fiction you read with the same conviction? Seems 
futile.  I merely intended to explore some questions with some of my 
opinions.  I see now that I should have included an index and several 
pages of references.  I really hate responding in this way. (I know I 
know.. then why do I do it.. dunno.  onwards..)  Mathematical proofs 
state a series of completely obvious statements and expressions to build 
up to a singular idea.  I guess mine were vague enough to elicit a 
response based upon their individual merit.  Like most things statements 
don't hold up without their supporting arguments.  I won't leave them 
as open in the future.

Gee folks, when I eluded to "biological" forms of life in my opinions I 
was merely trying to show a relative way of thinking towards future forms 
of A-life.  That's all.  This is A-Philo (too bad the original post was 
cross-posted I guess... wooops.) after all.


: : To understand where the true intelligence and power lie in nature read "The
: : Hot Zone" by Richard Preston.  I guarantee it will be the most graphic and 
: : frightening view of how nature "maintains the balance" you will have read 
: : in quite a while.  Probably the most gross thing you will want to read 
: : over and over again.

THIS IS A GREAT BOOK! (opinion please don't hurt me)

: Maybe. You know what? I read Christine over and over again when I was
: young and foolish. 

Congratulations.  That was fiction. This book isn't fiction.  You should 
read this book and pray it doesn't happen again.  A fictional account of a 
car being possessed by demons?  Young and foolish?  Nah..

: Henry Choy
: choy@cs.usask.ca

: Anything worth doing is worth overdoing.  - R. Heinlein
:           is worth doing well. - Philip Dormer Stanhope, Earl of Chesterfield

I agree.  Overdone quite well.  Worth doing?  A prime candidate for a 
philosophical answer I think.  Not my forte' obviously.

s p a c e b o y @ i n d i r e c t . c o m
