Re: HLA v2.x and / or LASM suggestion: Win32 Resources

From: Beth (BethStone21_at_hotmail.NOSPICEDHAM.com)
Date: 01/08/04 

Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 08:56:28 -0000

The Half A Wannabee wrote:
> Beth. While you're at it. Gimmi you calculation/estimate of the
progress for
> AI. If moore holds, the best programmer in 100 years will be a
computer ? If
> my PC had legs like tina turner and boobs like Pamela Anderson and
wanted to
> have sex with me and could cook and stay quite and not nag me.
Should I play
> hard to get ? Lol. Intelligence can be manufactored ? Or is that
just dumb ?
> What do you think?

Yes, intelligence can be manufactured...there are six billion human
examples of the highest levels of known (or should that be supposed?)
intelligence...there are far, far more examples of animal
intelligence...though possibly a "magical" experience, this
reproductive process is not a "magical" process...there is much still
to learn but what is known of this essentially _mechanical_ process is
that intelligence is, indeed, constantly manufactured on a regular
basis...

As for whether humans in particular will eventually synthesise a
process for duplicating this natural manufacturing process with an
"artifical" process is a further question...and almost certainly the
one you were really asking...but I delibrately took it the wrong way
just to emphasise - as many do take an interesting perspective on this
matter - that the possibility of "manufacture" is really a _known
entity_ here...the question remains as to whether it can be
_duplicated_ by an "artificial" intelligence-originated process...

There is a question of belief regards whether there may be a
"spiritual" component in this manufacturing process which would remain
out of reach (unless, conceivably, technology and human intelligence
were to start acting on what I hesitate to name as an "angelic"
level...note, the "good" connotations of "angel" are not in effect
here...merely the "level" at which things may supposedly
operate)...many, in fact, would not even attribute any such component
as being present in _animal_ manufacture, let alone consideration of
some cybernetic or "meta-organic" equivalent...

Regardless, any such "spiritual" component - should it, indeed, exist
(taking a _properly_ scientific attitude to this, whatever I
personally believe in the matter, there exists nothing to suggest a
conclusion _in either direction_...as is the scientific "default"
where neither evidence nor even method exists, it must remain
"officially indeterminate"...an absence of obtained evidence does not
itself mean an absence of underlying truth...it simply suggests that
their is an absence of _any form_ of understanding in the
matter...thus, a scientist who wishes to remain true to Decartean
principle has to abide by "indeterminate" for the time being, however
much this frustrates on a personal level or not :) - does not
necessarily negate the possibility of "intelligence", anyway...it
could simply mean that _human_ intelligence and / or notions of
"morality" are absent...but reasoned thought - even if completely
alien in nature to us - is not necessarily excluded by any such
"extra-natural" component...

Plus, on a logical level, if any component has an influence on the
physical plane then it must have some form of "interface" to this
plane (both logic and known regards all other measured phenomenon...by
definition, in fact, or they could not be measured ;)...hence, though
it brings amazing moral significances, then any "spiritual" element -
if we suppose that it may, indeed, exist and is a requirement of human
existence - does itself bring the imagined possibility of manipulating
even this...that is, if there _was_ actual "magic" in this world and,
indeed, priests really do "expel evil spirits" and so forth...then it
is conceivable that science could simply turn to acceptance of such a
thing and - perhaps through analysis of a priest or witch doctor
indeed "transferring" souls and spirits and channeling ghosts - a
means to "transplant" this missing ingredient could be developed
technologically...it is, indeed, a fanciful "sci-fi" notion but if
there are "ghosts" - as many contend and insist upon its presence for
the needed processes of this artificial duplication - and that they
do, indeed, sometimes reside inside machines...could not a means of
"transplant" - not dissimilar to "casting out demons" but reversed -
be employed to fulfill this supposed requirement, should it exist?

If one thing can be taken from history, then humans will not cease
simply from moral ambiguity...nor would there be any suggestion that
humans would cease - hold back - from walking amongst gods should the
opportunity arise...where there is a means, there is a way...

The "appeal" to spirit - though, indeed, there is always a right of
appeal in the court of science (it's not even restricted like appeals
in law courts to only being made a restricted number of times...you
may "appeal" as often and as frequently as you choose in the court of
scientific judgement :) - does not, therefore, logically or
necessarily exclude this possibility...it is an appeal to morality
that some things should not be tampered with...an appeal I empathise
with and share...but, nevertheless, where does such an appeal stand as
we consume GM goods to which "god-men" interfere as they wish, where
only "profit" stands as motivation and justification...the
construction of your Pamela Anderson clone? Well, there's no denying
there's the motivation of profit to be found there...just ask Hugh
Heffner...

Therefore - unless Deity (or Deities) - Themselves step in to directly
prohibit (which would appear to be breaking a standing policy of
non-interference in the course of "freewill"...even those who
acknowledge "spiritual" experiences recognise that there is not
automatically an acceptance unless _specifically chosen_), it would,
in fact, seem to logically be an inevitability...nothing - not even
"magic", should this particular appeal be to your liking - would seem
to stand as any prohibition...ironically, the greatest "threat" to
these thousand monkeys on a thousand typewriters producing the
complete works of Shakespeare would be of humankind's own
making...that is, the greatest appeal against such a possibility
resides, in fact, with the question asked by SETI: "Are we not
receiving signals from advanced alien civilisations because,
inevitably, such civilisations end up destroying themselves - by the
same lack of "limit" that logically means the thousand monkeys could
eventually do it - leaving but too short a 'window' in which to
contact them?"...

But, more fundamentally, there's a question of what the hell is meant
by "intelligence" anyhow? Some do and some don't confer this ability
to the animal kingdom...and then, even there, there's the concept of
"hierarchy"...of degrees and measures...dolphins and rats outwitting
salmon and hedgehogs at an IQ test...plus, the subjective nature of
the question itself...humans seem agreed that they "excel" at this
attribute and, yet, could you memorise the locations of thousands of
stored nuts as a squirrel does - for her very life - without fail? If
consonants were out of our range for spoken language, opposable thumbs
preventing tool manufacture and other such things, would humans
otherwise "excel"?

Is there really such thing as IQ or is it merely a parlour game and
that the attribute of self-aware adaption isn't particularly
impressive but for a human's subjective perspective of their
greatest - thus, most proudest - characteristic?

Philosophers question the very act of "freewill" itself...without it,
the notion of "intelligence" rather than simple "cause and effect"
process is cast into doubt itself...is there a difference between
"complex machine" and "intelligence"? If there is, where does the
dividing line stand and, if such a division exists, what particular
detail of its attributes mandates the quantum leap (I use the term
"quantum leap" more correctly here rather than the increasingly common
abused distortion that has arisen, due to a typically moralistic
sci-fi series...technically, a "quantum leap" isn't defined by size -
it is conceivably infinitesimal - but by its _quality_ of changing the
very "quantum" of measurement itself)?

Therefore, depending on where the lines are chosen to be drawn - if,
indeed, there _is_ even such thing as _real_ choice (a concept -
"freewill" - that, in fact, science has constantly refuted throughout
its existence..."cause and effect" and "due process" are the
fundamental presumptions upon which scientific reasoning is
essentially based...with irony we can laugh, therefore, at "the
uncertainty principle" throwing that assumption a real nasty curve
;) - it could be considered that the "manufacture" has _already
happened_...

It is a humanism to suppose that our breed of "intelligence" is all
that could exist..."intelligent" animals - who behave significantly
differently than ourselves - throws this notion straight out of the
window...logic dictates that if any such entities are not subjected to
our interactions - chemical signals, emotional and bodily reactions
which are, of course, linked to _occupying human bodies_ - then there
is completely no reason whatsoever to presume that "intelligence"
actually has to be recognisable to us...it could be grossly alien to
our sensibilities but regards what truly defines the often cited
attributes of self-awareness and such is completely open to
question...are animals self-aware? If we suppose that they aren't from
behaviour then how are we actually discerning the difference between
not having "freewill" and simply choosing not to exercise it? After
all, if I see large groups of apathetic humans not taking advantage of
their lives and Liberties, following fashions, following suit, how do
I know not to similarly declare such people - who, if anything, could
arguably be considered a _majority_ in the human population, as sheep
are far, far from uncommon...the "outcast" is notable specifically for
his rarity to the "communal instinct" - as not being "self-aware"? One
actually supposes - on the foundational scientific principle that what
holds true in a specific set of circumstances holds true in all
similar sets of circumstances - that they are, indeed, "self-aware"
but merely, in certain instances, do not choose to exhibit
it...allowing others to decide, prioritising base instincts over what
their intellect may otherwise request were it actually engaged,
etc....

How does one propose to truly discern between "a lack of" and "a
decision not to"? Many attributes have been more recently discovered
in various animals that were originally supposed to be absent, simply
because "observation" had fallen victim to "coincidence" in not being
witness to when the exceptional behaviour did, indeed, prove the
rule...prove it to have been premature and false...

In good faith, I don't know the bounds of the argument sufficiently to
deduce honestly whether I have not already encountered a most base and
primitive "intelligence"...what is your level of qualification? I've
seen a machine - through "trained" trial and error (though, _self_
training comparing to exemplars, it should be added) - deduce how to
speak words with fair accuracy from their written equivalents...this
task itself is not miraculous, though, as it could be accused of
simply learning the exemplars too well...but this "intellect" was then
tested against written words NOT provided in its original training
vocabulary and it still obtained a fair degree of accuracy (not
perfect...heck, with the English language, NOTHING could achieve
that...this test of "spelling rules" was certainly a _harsh_ test of
the baby intellect ;)...with continuous re-training at all times, even
these inaccuracies could be gradually smoothed out...

And one has to ask, in this case, how this in any way differs - other
than degree and speed - on what humans do? No-one's born speaking
English...and first attempts from human counterparts are equally
hardly exemplars of perfection...goo-goo-gaa-gaa, indeed...these
skills, in fact, are "quick" in only needing a few rotations of the
Earth around the Sun but the machines I worked with were not granted
such permanent Liberty to be on constant look-out for more
exemplars...a human's "training run" is permanent and constant...plus,
it is unfair to compare the "hardware" involved, as Nature's design
clearly has the unfair advantage on implementing the required "massive
parallelism" that the process was founded upon...

One intriguing and crucial insight was that the problem and / or
solution (difficult to tell sometimes what specifically you are
actually looking at...in a sense, it is both simultaneously :), was
that quantity did not seem to confer anything but the smallest impact
on quality...that is, smaller networks could sometimes produce results
better than larger counterparts...delibrately striking a "scalpel"
randomly into the machine's "mind" and ripping out a section did not -
much like the mental damage taken by a boxer or a serious alcoholic -
greatly impair the "mental" functioning...decay was - as equally with
humans - mostly graceful...pulling out neurons one by one did not
introduce an immediate "loss of sanity" - shall we say? - but, in
exact parallel to observation of humans, decayed with almost
impressive grace...often, the "insane" machine demonstrating _better_
"intellect" with regard to its tasks of deduction than the original,
larger "sane" mind...at the very least, an amusing observation to find
when saying speaks of there being a very fine line between genius and
insanity...indeed, some of the best network results and deductive
ability really was close or right on the point of final decay (one
more neuron plucked and the machine would lose the plot completely, so
to speak :)...again, an amusing obversation when another saying speaks
of "the simplest solutions being the best solutions"...

One could not speak to it, of course...but then, I cannot speak to a
dolphin either...one would have to expect such a thing when the
physical means of "interface" are simply not present...but - and this
is the most interesting point - I could almost sometimes "empathise"
with the machine...on a "spiritual" or intuitive level, that is a very
difficult observation to simply reject...and as I delibrately
demonstrate with the tone of this post itself, when "rationality"
needs priority, I am fully capable of delivering with complete
"objectiveness", as far as is humanly possible to reach such a
nebulous concept...

An ethereal, conceptual connection not dissimilar to that reported by
those who speak of the Holy Spirit entering them...though divinity did
not seem implied, it carried that same kind of "knowing wink" between
two people who do not communicate by any other means but, yet, connect
better to that distant person than those directly around them...again,
though similarly to divinity being unsensed, there was an absence of
infatuation but it could also be described as similar to "the spark"
which connects people...interestingly, these could be generically
described as "moments in Love"...I would hasten to add that nothing
untoward was going on with any "toy substitution"...but, on a far
smaller scale, could there be a siblinghood in meeting an alien
intellect? Did E.T. phone home in that instant? Probably not, but it's
too close a call to be completely sure...

Hence, is this a case of qualitative or merely quantitive improvement?
Some would be sure that it's both...I can't speak with the same
authority from actual experience..."ghost in the machine" or "Deus ex
machina"? Who knows? But I realise why I could have been considered
strange arguing about "machine discrimination" in sci-fi movies unless
you also meet the legendary "Negro" on the street that fails to
confirm the known-to-be-ignorant public sentiment on the matter...

These are very deep and meaningful philosophical sentiments you
inquiry about...but I would point to consideration of any claim on
"intellect" when the first reaction is hormonally primal and the
second reaction is towards Pammy, of all people...have you _seen_ that
"VIP" show she's in? If ever there was a TV transmission flying
through space to advanced, intelligent alien civilisations to signal
to them that intelligent life exists elsewhere, then picking "VIP"
would ensure that the SETI programme would, indeed, receive absolutely
no reply...they'd be far too fearful, even if they could divine some
sort of "intellect" whatsoever from it in the slightest...it's about
the only show which could be followed by "MacGyver" that makes you
celebrate that science-based edutainment extravaganza as a true work
of genius ;)...

Beth :)