Re: Sandia Team Develops Cognitive Machines

George Neuner wrote:
> 
> On 27 Aug 2003 17:52:56 -0700, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Eray Ozkural
> exa) wrote:
> 
> >George Neuner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> >>
> >> Human consciousness led to the hatred of humans and contempt for other
> >> life forms which humans considered inferior.  Simian consciousness we
> >> can't directly compare to human, but most researchers agree it exists
> >> and apes wage war against and kill their own kind and have been shown
> >> to abuse other animals for amusement.
> >>
> >> Why do you believe a super human consciousness would be different?
> >
> >Mostly because it's not "consciousness" that causes such hatred in
> >these cases. Doesn't it look like the effect of a more primitive
> >construct in those animal minds (human and primate) ?
> >
> >In fact, I don't think any human more intelligent than a dog will be a
> >fascist.
> >
> >At any rate, even if that is not true, I don't think there is any
> >reason to believe the opposite.
> 
> You're right to point out that consciousness doesn't *cause* hatred.
> My point was more that distrust of things different (to whatever
> degree) is an inherent trait of humans that consciousness and
> intelligence has consistently failed to override.
> 
> I don't have much trouble believing that a machine consciousness,
> should it ever come to pass, would quickly conclude that humans are
> inferior (for any number of reasons).  Without the ability to feel
> emotion, such a conclusion would not be a problem as indifference,
> contempt and hatred are emotional frames of reference.  But current
> work toward making machines more people friendly is aimed at endowing
> them with the ability to model and mimic human emotion.  

Goedel's theorem and a few others, make it somewhat clear that
logic or any other closed system, cannot exist without paradoxes. 
Those paradoxes would produce unpredictable behaviour in certain
situations. "I always lie."  Do you trust me ?

Any system based on logic and very proficient at it 
would eventually conclude that logic, by itself, 
would not be a sufficient basis for comprehending every aspect of the universe
but is non-the-less an essential foundation for understanding the world 
well enough to unnaturally control it.

If however a machine were based on an less than perfect representation of logic, 
it would likely develop some irrational behaviours like HAL 9000 in 2001 
and the emotions in many humans. 

Even if it were based on a more perfect logic it could develop some 
irrational behaviours, albeit more rarely.

> If a thinking
> machine can be made to model emotion, how far is it actually from
> "feeling" emotion?

I don't know. If we were turned into cyborgs with an extreme makeover, 
at what point would we stop feeling our emotions ? 
We already are cyborgs though. We depend on machines to survive.
Because of science, logic, technology there are threads of people 
alive today that evolution would have been otherwise wiped out long ago
by merely nature. Maybe you and I ? Logic is less random than nature.

> 
> George