|
|
|
|
Garden Gnome <andret@rpi.edu>
Sat, 31 Aug 1996 09:22 -0400
Jeff,
You may be right about Dennet's theory of consciousness as a whole.
Like I said, I'd have to read it again (and maybe again after
that) to be sure I hadn't missed anything. When I got to the end
it still seemed like the explanation of consciousness was, "Keep
adding complexity to a brain and sooner or later SHAZAAM! consciousness."
I know that's not a completely fair summary but I still wasn't
satisfied with Dennet's explananation.
However, the book did raise a lot of interesting questions and
ideas and that is where the human consciousness as VR idea came
from. It is in our conscious minds that we perceive ourselves
and our world around us. The stimuli that our consciousness receives
are all mediated by our physical brains so doesn't that mean that
we exist in a "virtual" reality that is just one possible
interpretation of the world around us? It seems as though this
is independent of where consciousness comes from too. Whether
consciousness arises from the physical brain or is some sort of
viewer within the theater of our minds, it does not directly experience
the world.
Anyway, more importantly, I agree with Jeff and boothj about the
over use of obnoxious net/technology related catch phrases. Here
are just a few that I heard way to often at work this summer:
intranet (isn't this just a fancy way of saying LAN?)
information-superhighway
virtual reality
cyberspace
Anyone want to add to the list?
thayer
Jester <gentrj>
Sun, 01 Sep 1996 12:39 -0400
Thayer ....
I see where you're coming from on the conciousness/VR thing ...
I'm not so sure that i would tag my impression as to what goes
on as a "virtual reality" ... but I do see your point.
I think i'm pretty much just rehashing what you stated, but my
take on his theory (gross oversimplification due to many ppl probably
not reading the book, and me also not remembering it very well
<grin>) ... was that our "conciousness" was really
just a cohesive set of firing neurons that happen to form "just
the right pattern" and somehow allows us to be "concious,"
i.e. our reality is in fact just a trite "simulation"
if you will - nothing is real except for external stimuli and
our neuron's reactions to them. Now that I look at it, I suppose
that could pass for a definition of virtual reality, but as i
mentioned in my intro, i'm not exactly keen on tossing that term
around to every tom, dick, and harry who trips on X or realizes
they're just a finely tuned turing machine.
Blah. I just realized that I probably mispelled conscious(ness)
just about every time in this message. :)
In response to your obnoxious words:
intranet: A term invented to make money off of stupid MIS middle managers information-superhighway: the granddaddy of all the lame "driving" analogies virtual reality: blah
cyberspace: Really wasn't "bad" .... just got overused. The rest are just blatantly cheese. now we have to deal with cyberrodents, cyberfruitsnacks,
cyberbaseballhats, and just about everything else that The Man
can think of to cheat us out of cash. (tip of the hat to Agent
Booth)
I have a few more terms i'd like to add:
Surf: How lame does one have to be to actually say, "I surf the net/web"?
Windows: We know your OS is popular, but so was New Kids on the Block
"Point and Click": Doesn't anyone think that computers should take some
sort of skill to use?
Alright. Enough of the bad mouthing of buzzwords ... (The job
i applied for at the CAT was just one big buzzword: "Will
use object oriented analysis within a given application framework
blahblahblah" ... still worked out okay though.)
As an aside, I was reading the paper today (made from paper, not
like clarinet or something, oh well) ... and there was an editorial
article on "hackers penetrating government computers."
It was the biggest load of crap i've ever seen. They quoted that
DoD statistic of 250,000 break in attempts from "hackers."
(A movie attacked the DoD?) I've heard tell that they counted
every failed password attempt, for instance, in this figure -
thus, probably everyone of their employees are wily crackers.
What is the general feeling in the class as to freedom of information?
Are there any people on this list who go for the ultrahardline
"information desires to be free" line? How many of you
think that The Man deserves to ban encryption (who needs to use
it except for criminals?), overcharge us for online time, and
censor what we say?
personally, I think the only way that the logical extensions of
the 'net (read: Gibsonian 'Trix) can be reached is with minimal
influence of both The Man, the Religious Right, and Liberal PC
Fascists. Doh, I said both, and named 3 people. Pity. I just don't
see how one can think the net will be anything worthwhile 10 years
from now if I couldn't post a message to alt.sex.bondage detailing
some rather odd actions that i would like to take with chelsea
clinton were I so inclined. I feel that censorship in any form
on the net should be discouraged, except by perhaps, individual
sites (that is, if I'm the owner of stupid.com, i could tell my
users not to say this or that ... my idealist hope, however, is
that no one would patronize such backward thinking sites).
I also don't like the commercialization trend. The net is not
supposed to have commercial advertisements. Never a written rule
(which by definition, could not exist), but for a long time has
been unspoken. Well, the corporate thieves found a new market,
and they've moved in ... ruining the net. I logged into sage4d.its.rpi.edu
3 years ago. I now get an average of 3 or 4 commercial spams every
couple of days, because "gentrj@sage4d" appears on a
CD of "opportunity seekers" sold by "MassEmail@aol.com"
(had to be an aoler), does this not seem wrong to anyone? Don't
we have enough overcommercialization in "real life"
....
On a completely unrelated thread, I was watching Wargames the
other yesterday for the 10923057820598724601876th time. (side
note: Anyone think that Prof. Porush looks like a slimmer version
of the bio teacher at the beginning?) Anyhow, it brought up the
idea of self-realized AI (A friend noted that he thought that
Joshua was such, since he started calling up David on his own.)
What are people's thoughts on self-realization? And what would
happen if they were released on the net as in Neuromancer? Would
there really then be "Net Deities?" I think that would
rock. Perhaps they'd rain electronic lightning bolts down on all
the stupid .com sites.
J
Garden Gnome <andret@rpi.edu>
Mon, 02 Sep 1996 15:27 -0400
So much to respond to. Well here's my take on the censorship and
commercialization of the net. I disagree with both. I recognize
that certain individuals will be offended by material available
to them (or their families) on the net. However, I think that
this is something those individuals have to deal with without
forcing their standards on everyone else. People complain that
the mass media (magazines, TV, the net, etc.) are responsible
for destroying the moral fiber of this society. My response to
them would be, "Since when is it my responsibility (or anyone
elses for that matter) to teach your family good values?"
A common response by critics of this position is that their kids
are watching TV, logging in, etc. without them knowing it. Then
shouldn't they be keeping a closer eye on their kids? After all
their children are their responsibility not mine or yours or the
governments. And I know it's impossible to know what kids are
doing all the time. God knows my parents didn't know what I was
up to a lot of times. However, they made sure I knew how they
felt about what was right and wrong and they always kept an active
interest in what was going on in my life outside of our home.
In the end I think this is a much better solution than sweeping
bans on certain types of information.
As for the whole net advertising thing I think advertising on
web sites is fine. Hey if you spend time and money to build a
popular site then more power to you if you can sell advertising
space on it. The thing I hate (and I hope a lot of people agree
here) is mass mailings about stupid products I don't care about.
I don't like real junk mail flooding the mail box at my apartment
so there's no reason I'm going to like it online.
thayer
Leareth <leareth@rpi.edu>
Mon, 02 Sep 1996 17:05 -0400
> Windows: We know your OS is popular, but so was New Kids
on the Block
can you say "linux"? good! i knew you could. :)
> "Point and Click": Doesn't anyone think that computers should take some
> sort of skill to use?
computers should take some skill to use, even for the basest of
functionality.
> What is the general feeling in the class as to freedom of information? Are
> there any people on this list who go for the ultrahardline "information
> desires to be free" line? How many of you think that The Man deserves to
> ban encryption (who needs to use it except for criminals?), overcharge us
> for online time, and censor what we say?
the Man is scared of encryption... no more line tapping, no more
e-mail reading, no more snooping into the business of everyday
people where they don't belong. what a shame. i strongly encourage
the use of encryption for personal e-mails, because that's how
they should remain, personal.
> thieves found a new market, and they've moved in ... ruining the net. I
> logged into sage4d.its.rpi.edu 3 years ago. I now get an average of 3 or 4
> commercial spams every couple of days, because "gentrj@sage4d" appears on
> a CD of "opportunity seekers" sold by "MassEmail@aol.com"
(had to be an aoler),
i posted once or twice to usenet this summer, now i get these
strange e-mails directed to "hallm4@marcus.its.rpi.edu"
where i was logged in.. "make money fast" grr.
> does this not seem wrong to anyone? Don't we have enough overcommercialization
> in "real life" ....
the net wasn't for commercialization, it was for the exchange
of ideas and information, ads, banners, and all sorts of commercialized
activity was frowned upon by the unspoken rules of the net. these
days, i'm sure the average person has no clue as to what "netiquette"
means.
### ##### http://www.rpi.edu/~hallm4
######## ##### leareth@rpi.edu
#### ### ######
######## ####### life isn't fair highness, anyone who tells you so
###### #### ### is selling something -- Princess Bride
##### ########
### #####
Jester <gentrj>
Tue, 3 Sep 1996 03:10:41 -0400
> the average person has no clue as to what "netiquette"
means.
Along similar lines, I"d like to throw in an arguement to
the TA (doherm) ... he was talking in class on monday how there
is a growing sense of netiquette. I am curious as to how he can
say that. Netiquette is disappearing at an exponential rate, starting
with AOL being allowed on the internet - its been downhill ever
since. People have no idea that they aren't supposed to spam crap
to 800 newsgroups, send out commercial adverts, be good UNIX citizens
(some don't even realize they should be UNIX citizens, but oh
well) ... instead of increasing netiquette, what I think we are
getting is increased "real worldization" of the net
- I suppose if one was rather twisted, this would seem a good
thing ...
Jeff Gentry jester@rpi.edu
RPI CompSci Senior http://www.rpi.edu/~gentrj
"Fifty years of programming language research, and we end up with C++."
* Unsolicited advertising will be proofread at the cost of US$5000/hr, *
* 4 hours min. Mailing of such will be taken as acceptance of
these terms. *
Jesse Booth <boothj@rpi.edu>
Tue, 3 Sep 1996 04:02:42 -0400
On Sep 3, 3:10am, Jester wrote:
> > the average person has no clue as to what "netiquette" means.
>
> say that. Netiquette is disappearing at an exponential rate,
> starting with AOL being allowed on the internet - its been
downhill
two words: MSN.COM
> ever since. People have no idea that they aren't supposed to
> spam crap to 800 newsgroups, send out commercial adverts, be good
> UNIX citizens (some don't even realize they should be UNIX
citizens,
well Jeff, lack of netiquette has been a problem for many years.
is it possible that it has begun to stand out more blatantly since
the "infobahn explosion" <g> in the past couple
years? take for example rpi.forsale. the number of legitimate
posts to that newsgroup from the RPI community i would guess has
been only slightly increasing over the past 5 years. however,
the number of spams to that group has increased due to the exponential
growth of the number of non-RPI community members (i.e. AOL.COM
baby). would you agree that netiquette isn't going all to hell,
rather there is just a larger grand total of idiots on-line to
spam, post in ALL CAPS, etc. giving the appearance that netiquette
is degrading? I certainly can't agree with the theory that the
netiquette of the average user is improving, but this leads to
the question of who now is the "average user." - that
sure has changed over the past decade!
Mick, maybe you could explain the theory of "netiquette is improving..."
thanks
Jesse
Leareth <leareth@rpi.edu>
Tue, 03 Sep 1996 7:46 -0400
> > the average person has no clue as to what "netiquette" means.
>
> Along similar lines, I"d like to throw in an arguement to the
> TA (doherm) ... he was talking in class on monday how there is
> a growing sense of netiquette. I am curious as to how he can
> say that. Netiquette is disappearing at an exponential rate,
> starting with AOL being allowed on the internet - its been
downhill
it's not really the people of AOL, it's the way AOL treats them.
AOL keeps them in their own boxed in little world where AOL rules
are in force, and they don't feel the need to require people to
learn or become aquainted with the "laws" of the outside
net. i'd say that a fair number of AOL people act out of ignorance.
well, and then there are the people who are just plain ignorant.
not to pick unfairly on AOL or anything, but i swear i see more
idiot postings/happenings coming from that address than anywhere
in particular.
> but oh well) ... instead of increasing netiquette, what I think we
> are getting is increased "real worldization" of the net - I suppose
> if one was rather twisted, this would seem a good thing ...
maybe for the average joe this would seem a good thing, but for
the people who've been of the net for years, our elitist society
is coming to an end...
### ##### http://www.rpi.edu/~hallm4
######## ##### leareth@rpi.edu
#### ### ######
######## ####### i have stood here before inside the pouring rain
###### #### ### with the world turning circles running 'round my brain,
##### ######## i guess i was hoping that you'd end this reign,
### ##### but it's my destiny to be the king of pain... Police
Leareth <leareth@rpi.edu>
Tue, 3 Sep 1996 13:57:37 -0400 (EDT)
> So much to respond to. Well here's my take on the censorship and
> commercialization of the net. I disagree with both. I recognize
that
and i agree with you. :)
> them knowing it. Then shouldn't they be keeping a closer
eye on their kids?
that's exactly the point, but most parents don't seem to want
to be troubled with keeping an eye on their kids. hell, most kids
that i know have more knowledge of computers and being online
than parents. so it's no wonder there's this trend of having other
people make the world "safer" for our children.
this was a major argument and point of debate on the internet...
but back in the "real" world, there was hardly a whisper
of it. people didn't seem to realize that they were loosing the
right to raise their children in the way they saw fit to.
come to think of it, the online world seems much more politically
active than anyone/group i know in real life.
ramble ramble...
> After all their children are their responsibility not mine or yours or the
> governments. And I know it's impossible to know what kids are doing all
the
point exactly.
> outside of our home. In the end I think this is a much better solution than
> sweeping bans on certain types of information.
i think a lot of those bans was fueled by the religious right,
and clinton, congress, and others gave in, playing the political
game for votes and acting out of ignorance rather than making
intelligent decisions.
> don't care about. I don't like real junk mail flooding the mail box at my
> apartment so there's no reason I'm going to like it online.
make money fast!
### http://www.rpi.edu/~hallm4 #####
######## leareth@rpi.edu #####
#### ### devil and the deep blue sea behind me ######
######## vanish in the air you'll never find me #######
###### i will turn your face to alabaster #### ###
##### when you find your servant is your master ########
### The Police #####
