LadyAttis

Introspection isn't objective. So that I don't go with. Also on apes being volitional. Well they do what they want to do. And when we teach them sign language, atleast what they want to learn, they'll invent their own forms of sign language to infer an insult to the teacher[think of kids that say doo-doo head and etc. Also this trait is noticed in children who have to learn sign language as well]. According to whom? Just because it's a big and changing field doesn't mean it's science. From what I gather, you haven't studied science nor understand the basis of science. If you want static models and absolute paradigms go to a little place that has a book on an alter, it's called a Church. If you want science, you goto a university where people debate and make experiments. Has Rand ever done any experiments? What about case studies? Any statistical research like surveys? To my knowledge she was a brilliant writer and even poet but no scientist. No reality teaches us we don't know much about the brain, you're rationalizing ignorance. -- Bridget

Yea, sorta my view too. But would it be said by that token when the government uses force to rectify an error[the criminal's act of force/fraud] that it is counter-point? Or would it be reactionary, and thus there would still be an imbalance due to the intial event of the criminal? -- Bridget

Actually Apes have volitional thinking like humans. Chimps have the most like that of humans. Um Behaviorism of BF Skinner and Ed Thorndike is scientific by default. You really need to read up on the basics of Psychology. There's two major fields of study. 1. Behaviorism[instead of trying to figure out the thought processes of an organism, a behaviorist tries to figure out how an organism responds to stimulus...this eventually lead to...] 2. Cognitivism[A body of work in psychology that has validated that all organisms, even mice, has internal processes going on in the brain that tend to be independent of stimulus response. This has been observed with mice acting on 'mental maps' of mazes that were altered but were similar to previous mazes they're encountered]... So really you claim two major movements in psychology aren't scientific? What rubbish, come back and prove that claim or you can simply retract your claim. I think you really don't get science. Still consciousness isn't merely some magical property of 'organic matter.' It's obviously a natural phenomena built on natural premises. You can't devoid consciousness from the constraints of reality. To do so is to be a transcendentalist and not an objectivist with regard to acceptance of reality. -- Bridget

o_O Do you agree to these terms? -- Bridget

So um it must make itself e.g. 'volition[to act on its own]'? That's a big arbitrary. By that same token, human thought isn't volitional but a system that reacts to previous actions, casuality. That's pretty much what you leave yourself with if you can't accept that AI can and maybe very soon think like us. You haven't validated this. You could easily say that apes and young children mimic as well from their parents. But that isn't so if you accept Operant Conditioning of Behaviorist Psychology. A response to a stimulus that produces a viable action but not directly dictated by the stimulus itself. Conscious means to be aware at the very basic level. Even fish to a point are aware or conscious. Please please please before you think you know the basics of psychology, use the terminology correctly. And again you haven't defined this volitional thingy attached to the concept of mere awareness. Awareness by itself means nothing unless you add the concept of sapience, or thinking. Cameras are aware, they can even take your picture with the proper stimulus[you pressing its shutter button]. You really need to straighten many of these arguments of yours out. -- Bridget

Well my question is how would you treat an AI? If it was advanced enough to be like in a similar fashion to us. You seem to be assuming I'm talking about current AI. Also quantum computers would have vastly superior ways to write a system of logic that would operate more true to the idea of intelligence and etc. Current computers can barely be used to form contextual information systems. -- Bridget

I think though currently with our federal laws on search and seizures in shambles. I wonder if the Senate or anyone else has the courage to fix some of the problems in it. Like what the DEA does. If you didn't know your plane or vehicle had someone stash some narcs onto it. The DEA will still take the property and even sell it later, on the grounds of the cost of the 'investigation.' What utter tripe! -- Bridget

LOL. Well on a serious front the fact we're getting better at AI and etc doesn't really leave much room with regard to it being called arbitrary nor fantasy. Although we're just master insect-like robotics, it doesn't mean that sooner or later, with the advent of quantum computers[and their fine ability as we know from use, to factor numbers and etc] will open the door to forming rational machines if you could call them rational and a machine at the same time. To me it's very important to lay down the basic views of how intelligence of a non-human form would be treated to ensure also to a greater extent that fellow humans will get the basics of Rand's views with regard to human rights and etc. If you understand where I'm going with all this... -- Bridget

Basically I have a more Asimovian view of robots and AI with regard to that they're not going to be inherently diabolical[sp?] critters out to kill our species off. In some ways, I've wondered if we'll be the ones killing the AI's off. Even though many of us here, being objective in thought or full-blown Objectivists wouldn't consider harming another entity unless it becomes a clear and present threat to our persons doesn't mean those that don't think objectively and are Non-Objectvists won't try to wipe out this potentially new form of intelligence. I really think in some ways with the furtherance of fundumentalism/transcedentalistic-thought[as I call it] will lead us to an eventual new Holocaust. The Holocaust of the machine. I wonder what you all think about that? And the possibilities with regard to how such AIs would react under such a situation... o.O -- Bridget

I do, I wasn't bashing anyone. So don't get jumpy. ^__^ -- Bridget

NP, I should've kept my mouth shut around him after he asked me to do some stupid quiz that was loaded against anyone that read Kelley's work and etc. o_O I think he had like a hatred complex or somethin. -- Bridget

Well as for memory it's a pretty complex thing in psychology as I've learned in class. I found that basically memory is mostly contextual. It changes with new things we learn. It's really neat I'll have to draw out the current 'model' of memory. But remember, they just got a model, that doesn't mean it's 1-to-1 as a theory. o_O It's sorta complex to explain. -- Bridget

Still he really set me off with the reference that Quantum Mechanics puts primacy on consciousness. It never does, unless you believe Niels Bohr's unscientific CI paper. >.< And Bohm's 'Holomovement', which neither are accepted as scientific. o.O -- Bridget

I have a question to why a person named Bearster2 on the irc chat banned me? I'm not really going to keep posting if people ban me just because they don't get a few physics in QM. -- Bridget

My favorites include: 1. Sex Pistols, gotta love royalty disparaging punk bands! 2. Beastie Boys, just for their fun lyrics. Before little Eminem, there were these guys and still are #1 in my book! 3. Any indy punk I can find online. 4. Any indy RnB/Rap I can find online. That's about it. I really don't get like religious with music. I just listen to what I can find that is decent. But for pop bands. I would say Sevendust and Powerman 5k are my two favorites at the present. -- Bridget

It's more scarey since it's household owners that get the biggest jip from the government. Especially on road construction and so-called 'environmental affairs.' -- Bridget

I'm just too lazy to type the o in caps. But I also read from other sources like Max Stirner and John Locke. So I'm not a strict adherent to anything but Reason. -- Bridget

Right now I'm studying CompSci. I'm going to go back to physics a little bit to work on quantum computers. I think they'll become more relevent very soon. Especially with AI. -- Bridget

Well I'm new here so I best introduce myself. I'm Attis, a fellow objectivist. I've been studying it for quite some time. Along with other influential egoistic view points; Max Stirner, Locke and etc. I must say I'm glad to find another good objectivist forum. Some sorta die off during finals being it seems a good sum of us are college students lol! ^__^ If you have any questions, ask me. -- Bridget