Long ago I got to musing about, "How do you define God?". Now I
tried to do it from measuring the attributes of God, but how
would you measure them?

Think about Arthur C. Clarks dictum, "Any sufficiently advanced
technology is indistinguishable from magic".

I got to wondering, could you reasonably say, a being so
superior to us that we cannot even understand it's nature or
measure it's abilities be reasonably be called a god? If no, why
not? After all, that seems to be beyond what the measure of the
ancient gods was. All they had to be was immortal and have some
powers beyond human. Any being with a life expectancy of a
thousand years would be immortal as far as anyone of the human
race could tell.

Last night I went to the store to pick up a few items we needed.
On my way back to my car I saw a man carrying a leaking box,
which turned out to be a case of beer that had broken open and
spilled glass bottles on the ground. He was carrying the case
back to the store, I would guess to complain about it breaking
open.

One of the bottles was lying on the driveway broken. My first
thought was, if they don't get someone out here to clean that up
someone could get a flat tire. Then I speculated on the
advancement of security monitoring, and video cameras, and that
before too long they would have a computer monitoring such
things, and it would be programmed to recognize some images as
including actions indicating a problem. In this case, an item
being dropped, and a portion of the contents being left on the
ground. From that it would deduce a hazard left in the parking
lot, and automatically dispatch cleanup.

In turn, that lead to a consideration of artificial
intelligence. Just where do you draw the line between programmed
responses and artifical intelligence? If a computer monitor
noted a customer falling in the parking lot, it could monitor
that person for indications of injury, and either put a
responder on alert, or dispatch one just in case. However, if
that same monitor saw someone lying on the bench at a bus stop
near the highway passing the store, would it dispatch a
responder, or just file it as someone sleeping on the bench?

Next step, if the computer, on a sweep, detected someone lying
in the driveway why would it not flag that as a person sleeping
on the driveway, instead of injured? A child might tell you,
daddy's asleep and he won't wake up, when daddy is dead. It's
easier to program the computer to identify the difference, a
person horizontal on the driveway for more than 15 seconds calls
for a responder. A child learns the difference over years.

The computer can even be programmed to include the ultimately
determined causes of phenomena it observes into it's decisions.
It could even be programmed to use time lapses between observed
situations and results. If every person who falls but is
uninjured gets up within 30 seconds, allow a 30 second delay
before calling a responder. If the person falling clutches his
chest before or while falling is identified repeatedly as a
heart attack, or even found to be one in googling that behavior,
all such cases get an immediate responder dispatch. Noting the
behavior of the person falling would be part of the programming,
but the results would be included by the computer.

Oh, and putting out an arm while falling would mean close
scrutiny for broken bones, and the resulting actions associated
with broken bones. Such observations could be shared among
security computers, thus 'educating' them with what one system
has learned.

So, my musing analysis leads to this question, when you reach
the point where you can't actually tell if a computer's response
is just a program line, or actual intelligence, can that be
considered the dividing line between programming and artificial
intelligence?

All that from one broken case of beer. Oh and one bottle was
left on the driveway unbroken. I picked it up because I thought,
if a car hits that it could get a flat tire.

Sad that, I don't like beer. Nor does my wife. Truly sad.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... The best thing about the future is, it comes one day at a time.
* Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Hi, BOB KLAHN!
I read your message from 27.10.2014 13:41

<skipped>

BK> So, my musing analysis leads to this question, when you reach the
BK> point where you can't actually tell if a computer's response is
BK> just a program line, or actual intelligence, can that be considered
BK> the dividing line between programming and artificial intelligence?

A strange question. How do you suppose to create artificial intelligence without programming? So, according to atheists there is a natural
intelligence (intelligence of a crow, for instance) and there is
artificial intelligence that by definition must be made by some
intelligent force. Programming is equal word to making.

Bye, BOB!
Alexander Koryagin
fido7.debate 2014
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
* Origin: Pushkin's BBS (2:5020/2140.2)

Hello Alexander,

So, my musing analysis leads to this question, when you reach the
point where you can't actually tell if a computer's response is
just a program line, or actual intelligence, can that be considered
the dividing line between programming and artificial intelligence?

A strange question.

Like the other Bob (Robert Heinlein), Bob is a stranger
in a strange land. And everybody knows how strange that
Bob was. Had a fetish for redheads. A real fetish.
Redheads and cats. Especially the cat who walks through
walls.

How do you suppose to create artificial intelligence
without programming?

"Whatever you do, you'll regret it."
- Allan McLeod Gray 1905-1975

So, according to atheists there is a natural
intelligence (intelligence of a crow, for instance)

"In waking a tiger, use a long stick."
- Mao Tse-Tung 1893-1976

and there is artificial intelligence that by definition must be made by

some

intelligent force.

"Women are meant to be loved, not to be
understood." - Oscar Wilde 1854-1900

Programming is equal word to making.

"The mice voted to bell the cat." - Aesop

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)

BK>> So, my musing analysis leads to this question, when you reach the
BK>> point where you can't actually tell if a computer's response is
BK>> just a program line, or actual intelligence, can that be considered
BK>> the dividing line between programming and artificial intelligence?

A strange question. How do you suppose to create artificial
intelligence without programming? So, according to atheists

Well, they would. The question is, when is the programming good
enough to be intelligence?

there is a natural intelligence (intelligence of a crow,
for instance) and there is artificial intelligence that by
definition must be made by some intelligent force.
Programming is equal word to making.

Fortunately, I do not believe Bill Gates is much of a
programmer. It would be hell to think of Bill Gates as
equivalent to God.

BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... An idea that is not dangerous is unworthy of being called an idea...
* Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Hi, BOB KLAHN!
I read your message from 12.11.2014 21:06

BK>>> So, my musing analysis leads to this question, when you reach the
BK>>> point where you can't actually tell if a computer's response is
BK>>> just a program line, or actual intelligence, can that be
BK>>> considered the dividing line between programming and artificial
BK>>> intelligence?

Suppose you have two logical tasks. They can be done both by a human or
a robot. The dividing line that exists between a human and robot lies
not in the logic. A live being can feel happiness, emotions, love -- in
short things that cannot be programmed or defined as an algorithm.

So, there is no difference between programming and artificial
intelligence. And we can also say that human feelings have nothing to do
with intelligence, and human feelings never will be programmed in
robots. Because the core of the matter is a human consciousness, that is
an incorporial thing. More of that, nobody understand it, not speaking
about reproduction.

AK>> A strange question. How do you suppose to create artificial
AK>> intelligence without programming? So, according to atheists
BK> Well, they would. The question is, when is the programming good
BK> enough to be intelligence?

Making robots is easy. They can do (repeat) any intelligent tasks. But
nobody knows how to create consciousness and awareness of self. Or to understand what is inspiration....

Bye, BOB!
Alexander Koryagin
fido7.debate 2014
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
* Origin: Pushkin's BBS (2:5020/2140.2)

BK>>>> So, my musing analysis leads to this question, when you reach the
BK>>>> point where you can't actually tell if a computer's response is
BK>>>> just a program line, or actual intelligence, can that be
BK>>>> considered the dividing line between programming and artificial
BK>>>> intelligence?

Suppose you have two logical tasks. They can be done both
by a human or a robot. The dividing line that exists
between a human and robot lies not in the logic. A live
being can feel happiness, emotions, love -- in short things
that cannot be programmed or defined as an algorithm.

I don't know whether or not they could someday be programmed,
however, I do see where an artificial intelligence could be a
sociopath.

So, there is no difference between programming and
artificial intelligence. And we can also say that human
feelings have nothing to do with intelligence, and human

That is a possible part of the definition.

feelings never will be programmed in robots. Because the

If you programmed the responses to mimic human feelings to the
point where no one could tell the difference, would there be a
difference?

core of the matter is a human consciousness, that is an
incorporial thing. More of that, nobody understand it, not
speaking about reproduction.

That is why I am musing on the questions. We do not know much
about it, thus how do we judge it?

AK>>> A strange question. How do you suppose to create artificial
AK>>> intelligence without programming? So, according to atheists

BK>> Well, they would. The question is, when is the programming good
BK>> enough to be intelligence?

Making robots is easy. They can do (repeat) any intelligent
tasks. But nobody knows how to create consciousness and
awareness of self. Or to understand what is inspiration....

Not yet. Does intelligence require awareness of self? All that I
don't believe anyone knows, but a lot of self anointed
philosophers will proclaim thier truths as if they were truths.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Cthulhu is a pawn of Barney!
* Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)

Hi, Bob Klahn!
I read your message from 14.11.2014 16:08

BK>>>>> So, my musing analysis leads to this question, when you reach
BK>>>>> the point where you can't actually tell if a computer's
BK>>>>> response is just a program line, or actual intelligence, can
BK>>>>> that be considered the dividing line between programming and
BK>>>>> artificial intelligence?

AK>> Suppose you have two logical tasks. They can be done both by a
AK>> human or a robot. The dividing line that exists between a human
AK>> and robot lies not in the logic. A live being can feel happiness,
AK>> emotions, love -- in short things that cannot be programmed or
AK>> defined as an algorithm.

BK> I don't know whether or not they could someday be programmed,
BK> however, I do see where an artificial intelligence could be a
BK> sociopath.

Robot will never enjoy to kill humans. But it can be erroneously
programed and make mistakes. For instance, in its program there can be
stated that if someones kill people by thousands they are terrorists and
must be killed. And this robot can make a mistake and kill a pack of
American soldiers. ;-) Or a robot can decide erroneously that the
country under the nuclear attack and start a nuclear war. But all this
have nothing to do with bad behavior or evil intelligence of the robot.

Intelligence cannot be evil. Human feelings can.

AK>> So, there is no difference between programming and artificial
AK>> intelligence. And we can also say that human feelings have nothing
AK>> to do with intelligence, and human

BK> That is a possible part of the definition.

AK>> feelings never will be programmed in robots. Because the

BK> If you programmed the responses to mimic human feelings to the
BK> point where no one could tell the difference, would there be a
BK> difference?

If a wax copy of a human resembles him very much -- does it mean that
there is no difference? If this wax puppet move its brows and lips will
it make it more human? No, of course.

AK>> core of the matter is a human consciousness, that is an
AK>> incorporial thing. More of that, nobody understand it, not
AK>> speaking about reproduction.

BK> That is why I am musing on the questions. We do not know much about
BK> it, thus how do we judge it?

There are some great mystical facts that cannot be either explained or understood by humans. For instance, human cannot explain eternity and
eternal things. A human thinks that there must be the beginning, and in
the same time he affirms constantly that every form of matter is born by another form of matter.

AK>> Making robots is easy. They can do (repeat) any intelligent tasks.
AK>> But nobody knows how to create consciousness and awareness of
AK>> self. Or to understand what is inspiration....

BK> Not yet. Does intelligence require awareness of self?

No it doesn't. Every computer program can be called an intelligent object.

BK> All that I don't believe anyone knows, but a lot of self anointed
BK> philosophers will proclaim their truths as if they were truths.

It seems to me that many good philosophers just conjectured things.

Bye, Bob!
Alexander Koryagin
fido7.debate 2014
--- FIDOGATE 5.1.7ds
* Origin: Pushkin's BBS (2:5020/2140.2)

...

BK>>>>>> that be considered the dividing line between programming and
BK>>>>>> artificial intelligence?

AK>>> Suppose you have two logical tasks. They can be done both by a
AK>>> human or a robot. The dividing line that exists between a human
AK>>> and robot lies not in the logic. A live being can feel happiness,
AK>>> emotions, love -- in short things that cannot be programmed or
AK>>> defined as an algorithm.

BK>> I don't know whether or not they could someday be programmed,
BK>> however, I do see where an artificial intelligence could be a
BK>> sociopath.

Robot will never enjoy to kill humans. But it can be
erroneously programed and make mistakes. For instance, in

Or be programmed that way deliberately.

its program there can be stated that if someones kill
people by thousands they are terrorists and must be killed.
And this robot can make a mistake and kill a pack of
American soldiers. ;-) Or a robot can decide erroneously
that the country under the nuclear attack and start a
nuclear war. But all this have nothing to do with bad
behavior or evil intelligence of the robot.

That was the thinking behind the movie "War Games".

Intelligence cannot be evil. Human feelings can.

Intelligence alone has no motivation.

...

AK>>> feelings never will be programmed in robots. Because the

BK>> If you programmed the responses to mimic human feelings to the
BK>> point where no one could tell the difference, would there be a
BK>> difference?

If a wax copy of a human resembles him very much -- does it
mean that there is no difference? If this wax puppet move
its brows and lips will it make it more human? No, of
course.

The question is, if you can't tell the difference, can you say
there is a difference.

...

BK>> That is why I am musing on the questions. We do not know much about
BK>> it, thus how do we judge it?

There are some great mystical facts that cannot be either
explained or understood by humans. For instance, human

Cannot yet... but Evolution is still working.

cannot explain eternity and eternal things. A human thinks

Give us enough time and we will see what happens.

that there must be the beginning, and in the same time he
affirms constantly that every form of matter is born by
another form of matter.

Ah, we contradict ourselves in our certainty. True.

...

BK>> Not yet. Does intelligence require awareness of self?

No it doesn't. Every computer program can be called an
intelligent object.

Some I have worked on have been called a lot worse than that.

BK>> All that I don't believe anyone knows, but a lot of self anointed
BK>> philosophers will proclaim their truths as if they were truths.

It seems to me that many good philosophers just conjectured
things.

I agree.


BOB KLAHN bob.klahn@sev.org http://home.toltbbs.com/bobklahn

... Assembler Code: BCS: Branch and Crash System
* Silver Xpress V4.5/P [Reg]
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
* Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)