Re: The Doing Affector [is: "hypnotising" the machine]

"Dave Ulmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> "Rick Craik" <rick@@icebergideas..com> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

[snip]

> > In summary, I think your view of knowledge is based
> > upon using learning shortcuts ("hypnotising" the machine).
> >
> > Regards,
> > Rick
> >
> >
> >
> Me thinks we still don't understand each other. Of course I have been
> presenting my material in the simplist possible way, maybe too simple.

Well I have to grab hold of that thought and run with it.
Simple is fine. I understand those parts. The "too simple" is
where I am finding that I can not tease apart some of your concepts
with you. When things are pried apart, they are glossed over with
the same old glossy paint job.

>
> Hypnosis brings up some interesting thoughts. My idea is that it
> invokes the subjects 'sleeping affector' or simply disables its
> normal 'doing affector', and while disabled in this way false
> knowledge may be inserted into the systems memory. When
> the system re-awakes its doing affector begins doing
> the false instructions.
>
> Normally humans have intelligent systems running that act like
> 'firewalls' to prevent false instructions from entering its doing
> affector.

Am I discussing things with a "firewall". Does my "teasing" seem to
have the characteristics of "false instructions"?

>
> Also intelligent systems are very complex in that they all have ten
> knowledge contexts; Name, Authors, Purpose, Environment, Language,
> Configuration, Operation, Owners, Market, and Value that are continually
> accessed for pertinant knowledge that affects their operation.
>
> But, remember knowledge is the stuff that can be written in a book and has
> no life to itself.

This is consistent. I maintain that your definition of knowledge contains
my definition of knowledge plus my definition of intelligence;
Therefore, that books have no knowledge because they have no
intelligence. But you have belittled the concept of intelligence to the
point where it has no placeholder in your schema.

How about thinking of your schema's intelligence value as a 1,
where a book's value is a 0 (no life)? This should not affect the
consistency of your schema, but gives me a place to peel off
some of the old (assumptions) paint.

Regards,
Rick