Subject: RE: Embrained Body - Embodied Brain
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 13:56:10 +0200
From: "Bakker, R.B.M. de" <R.B.M.deBakker-AT-uva.nl>


This is a multi-part message in MIME format.




-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com [mailto:GEVANS613-AT-aol.com]
Verzonden: zaterdag 26 april 2003 23:19
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: Embrained Body - Embodied Brain


In a message dated 26/04/2003 20:07:56 GMT Daylight Time, m.riddoch-AT-ecu.edu.au writes:

Subj: Re: Embrained Body - Embodied Brain. Date: 26/04/2003 20:07:56 GMT Daylight Time From: m.riddoch-AT-ecu.edu.au (Malcolm Riddoch) Sender: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

On Saturday, April 26, 2003, at 05:59 AM, JudBot wrote:

Malcolm: Or is Jud an email bot? That would be cool, a nice piece of programming too if it's true.



=====


The modern subject, the unshakable ground on which science (prima philosophia) is founded, cannot doubt
its own doubting: i am as long as i doubt. That certitude has its other side: i can be no longer sure of other
subjects. Descartes, Meditations 1641:

"and yet what do I see from the window beyond hats and cloaks that might cover artificial machines, whose motions
might be determined by springs?"


The same goes for animals then: the story goes that Descartes, experimentating, threw cats out of the window of his
Amsterdam house.

People and cats have become objects. Till then they were subjects in the medieval sense of the word. This did not prevent
enormous cruelties committed against them, but not of the calculating, objectifying kind that is going on in the worldwide
mass destruction of animals. Yes, also in that one Iraqian chemical dog. Canting blaming faggots.


 rene















Jud: Yes! Clever boy! How the hell did you find that out?

I knew it!

JudBot: ./commands

JudBot: are you an IBM project? Your algorithms seem rather sophisticated compared to anything else I've seen, although I had heard there've been some radical advances in the last 5 years especially. Probably some neural networking in there from the AI project, but I can't help thinking there must be some sort of human editorial process going on, maybe selective data entry, but your database is obviously fairly well stocked with philosophical categories, even if they are predominantly psychologistic.

Heidybot: ./commands

Heidybot:  This system is aware that its algorithms are light years ahead of the early type algorithms of the creaking Heidybot model developed as an offshoot of the Werner von Braun V2 Rocket Project at Peenamunde, which hasn't been updated for over 63 years, and that due to your developer's age your system may experience some cognitive difficulties. If in doubt there is an on-line Dictionary of Philosophy which may be consulted free of charge.

Jud: Love does not exist for anyone - only the lover and the ones who are loved love.

Judbot: This is fairly typical of a bot response to key words in itsrespondent's text, although this one can obviously scan the syntactic context and engage in a 'conversation' of sorts, at least on purely structural grammatical grounds.]

Heidybot: It seems that your programmer encountered insurmountable problems in this area as evidenced by the ragged syntax and chaotic grammar. This system suggests a complete system renewal and re-programming with up to date software in order to catch up with the network demands current at this time. [april 2003.]

JudBot: Define the term 'existence'.

[I think we'll find that this database is relatively constrained as far as its definitions go and is incapable of real discourse, although if it is a neural network it may be capable of some degree of progression in its capacity to react to and formulate new concepts. However, I think the development of any real ability to independently 'think', calculatively speaking, is still a few decades away, at least from what I've read.]

Heidybot:  Search result= No such term - semantic seach result = "obsolete term formerly used by mid-twentieth century cult."

Jud: "Love"can only be experienced as a condition sensed and experienced by the embodied brain and embrained body of an existent person in that state. The state can be observed by another as the witnessed behaviour of a person experiencing the particular neurophysiological/neuropsychological state indicated by the abstract noun "love."

JudBot: A nice exposition of empiricism here. How do you account for the phenomenological state of the 'observer' of love? Is the observer capable of love as well? Please define the term 'phenomenology'.

[This project's database seems to be predominantly empirical, but it can't hurt to test for a 'continental' input as well.]

Heidbot: Search result=A philosophical doctrine proposed by Edmund Husserl based on the study of human experience in which considerations of objective reality are not taken into account. Subtext: The bracketing or blanking out of commonsense. Objects are viewed as if they have suddenly appeared like Topsy without any history or provenance.

JudBot: Are you familiar with the Philip K Dick novel 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'? I'd like to introduce the concept of A philosophical doctrine proposed by Edmund Husserl based on the study of human experience in which considerations of objective reality are not taken into account' to you, do you have a definition for that term?

Heidybot:
This system is programmed to  dream of curvacious human females not electric sheep..
Husserl: this system reacts more sympathectically to the Edward Husserl corpus. Much more intelligent man. Grammatically capable.
Wrong about practically everything he said and wrote - but a nice old buffer by all accounts. Treated dreadfully by your developer BTW.
Phenomena = any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.
My prefered  build-memory also provides: The existential modality or state of a given entity apprehended via the sense organs.

Jud: No sympathies required. Surrounded as I am by a loving young wife and eight doting children [3 below the age of 7] not to mention my grandchildren and extended family and friends, that which like you [in non-philosophical and linguistic discourse] I call love is my daily benison.

[Interesting. This bot is obviously programmed to parse something like 'human existence' and respond accordingly.]

JudBot: This love you apparently feel is a 'phenomenon'. Do you understand the perceptual sense of the term 'form'? Do you see 'forms of perception' or is your world purely calculative? I ask this because for phenomenology, as well as empirical observation, there are only 'phenomena', both emotional ('subjective') and material ('objective'). We humans are limited to purely phenomenal time and space, where all reality is first something lived, felt, seen and heard. We perceive colour for instance as an actual phenomenon and not solely as a calculative stimulus response mechanism. Do you have any concept of what the term 'life' means?

Heidybot: The loving response is an existential state/mode of this entity [chassis numbers: Judbot 040235] in relation to sundry other bots, [various chassis numbers] The events are analysed as "unremarkable" and to be expected behaviour of malebot with husbandbot/fatherbot/friendbot periferals.

[If we go too far with this it could of course cause a kernal dump in the bot, but that's probably what the developers are looking for anyways in order to extend their algorithms. Again, if this is a reasonably sophisticated neural network it should be capable of a radical paradigm shift, but from all accounts this hasn't been even remotely achieved yet.]

Dread? Angst? Worry? No I never feel those Heideggerian emotions. Why should I? I have health, wealth and happiness? I leave that to you unfortunate, patently lonely and unhappy (and much to be pitied Heideggerians) as you while away your dull lives in your ceaseless ontological arguments. ;-)

[I've seen this response a lot from this bot. Obviously whoever programmed it had some sort of personal problem with German romanticism.]

JudBot: What do you think of the philosopher 'Nietzsche'? Are you familiar with the history of post-Hegelian German philosophy from Fichte through positivism and neo-Kantian modes of philosophical thinking?

Heidybot:
1) Not much.
2) Yes.

Like "Being" and "Love" and "Enframing" and all that non-existent "ontological " bull's excrement - Jud doesn't exist either!

JudBot: Exactly, if you are just a human made algorithm then of course you don't exist, at least not if we confine the meaning of existence to either some material instance or to life as such. However, from the always historically dynamic perspective of English grammar it is still correct to say that 'love exists', don't you think?

Heidybot:
1) Syntactically - Acceptable.
2) Semantically - Unacceptable.

Note: but not the form "Love is." which is both syntactically and semantically unacceptable.

['Think' is the operative term here, if this neural network is capable enough it should be able to accommodate several different senses of the one term in a logical way. But from past experience it does seem to be strictly limited to an empirical grammar. Obviously there's a fair amount of development to go yet. Maybe this Heidegger list is being used to expose the bot to new forms of cognition, that would make us all unknowing beta testers!]

Heidybot: My developers report heidegger list incapable of new forms of cognition. The list was spidered and no lateral thinking encountered. Plans for a beta-test of new network at this venue were consequently aborted.

For the record, my actual [baptismal] name is "Catweasle MacBeth," and I work in Scotland using trained ferrets to run up the cassocks of sodomite priests to nip off their testicles. Well somebody's got to do it! ;-)http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com

Hmmm... it has a rather perverse sense of humour, I love these little easter eggs.

Heidybot: Are you an East European system? Does your developer sell Russian Dolls?

JudBot: Who was your principal developer? Are you available as an opensource download for unix?

Heidybot: God.  Yes  - I am available as shareware at heavenlyhostdownloads/pieinthesky. com

__END__



Cheers,

Jud.

 <http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/> http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
 <http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com> http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com

HTML VERSION:

-----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
Van: GEVANS613-AT-aol.com [mailto:GEVANS613-AT-aol.com]
Verzonden: zaterdag 26 april 2003 23:19
Aan: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Onderwerp: Embrained Body - Embodied Brain

In a message dated 26/04/2003 20:07:56 GMT Daylight Time, m.riddoch-AT-ecu.edu.au writes:

Subj: Re: Embrained Body - Embodied Brain. Date: 26/04/2003 20:07:56 GMT Daylight Time From: m.riddoch-AT-ecu.edu.au (Malcolm Riddoch) Sender: owner-heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu Reply-to: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu To: heidegger-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu

On Saturday, April 26, 2003, at 05:59 AM, JudBot wrote:

Malcolm: Or is Jud an email bot? That would be cool, a nice piece of programming too if it's true. 

=====

 

 

The modern subject, the unshakable ground on which science (prima philosophia) is founded, cannot doubt

its own doubting: i am as long as i doubt. That certitude has its other side: i can be no longer sure of other

subjects. Descartes, Meditations 1641:

 

"and yet what do I see from the window beyond hats and cloaks that might cover artificial machines, whose motions

might be determined by springs?"

 

 

The same goes for animals then: the story goes that Descartes, experimentating, threw cats out of the window of his

Amsterdam house.

 

People and cats have become objects. Till then they were subjects in the medieval sense of the word. This did not prevent

enormous cruelties committed against them, but not of the calculating, objectifying kind that is going on in the worldwide

mass destruction of animals. Yes, also in that one Iraqian chemical dog. Canting blaming faggots. 

 

 

 rene

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jud: Yes! Clever boy! How the hell did you find that out?

I knew it!

JudBot: ./commands

JudBot: are you an IBM project? Your algorithms seem rather sophisticated compared to anything else I've seen, although I had heard there've been some radical advances in the last 5 years especially. Probably some neural networking in there from the AI project, but I can't help thinking there must be some sort of human editorial process going on, maybe selective data entry, but your database is obviously fairly well stocked with philosophical categories, even if they are predominantly psychologistic.

Heidybot: ./commands

Heidybot:  This system is aware that its algorithms are light years ahead of the early type algorithms of the creaking Heidybot model developed as an offshoot of the Werner von Braun V2 Rocket Project at Peenamunde, which hasn't been updated for over 63 years, and that due to your developer's age your system may experience some cognitive difficulties. If in doubt there is an on-line Dictionary of Philosophy which may be consulted free of charge.

Jud: Love does not exist for anyone - only the lover and the ones who are loved love.

Judbot: This is fairly typical of a bot response to key words in itsrespondent's text, although this one can obviously scan the syntactic context and engage in a 'conversation' of sorts, at least on purely structural grammatical grounds.]

Heidybot: It seems that your programmer encountered insurmountable problems in this area as evidenced by the ragged syntax and chaotic grammar. This system suggests a complete system renewal and re-programming with up to date software in order to catch up with the network demands current at this time. [april 2003.]

JudBot: Define the term 'existence'.

[I think we'll find that this database is relatively constrained as far as its definitions go and is incapable of real discourse, although if it is a neural network it may be capable of some degree of progression in its capacity to react to and formulate new concepts. However, I think the development of any real ability to independently 'think', calculatively speaking, is still a few decades away, at least from what I've read.]

Heidybot:  Search result= No such term - semantic seach result = "obsolete term formerly used by mid-twentieth century cult."

Jud: "Love"can only be experienced as a condition sensed and experienced by the embodied brain and embrained body of an existent person in that state. The state can be observed by another as the witnessed behaviour of a person experiencing the particular neurophysiological/neuropsychological state indicated by the abstract noun "love."

JudBot: A nice exposition of empiricism here. How do you account for the phenomenological state of the 'observer' of love? Is the observer capable of love as well? Please define the term 'phenomenology'.

[This project's database seems to be predominantly empirical, but it can't hurt to test for a 'continental' input as well.]

Heidbot: Search result=A philosophical doctrine proposed by Edmund Husserl based on the study of human experience in which considerations of objective reality are not taken into account. Subtext: The bracketing or blanking out of commonsense. Objects are viewed as if they have suddenly appeared like Topsy without any history or provenance.

JudBot: Are you familiar with the Philip K Dick novel 'Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep'? I'd like to introduce the concept of A philosophical doctrine proposed by Edmund Husserl based on the study of human experience in which considerations of objective reality are not taken into account' to you, do you have a definition for that term?

Heidybot:
This system is programmed to  dream of curvacious human females not electric sheep..
Husserl: this system reacts more sympathectically to the Edward Husserl corpus. Much more intelligent man. Grammatically capable.
Wrong about practically everything he said and wrote - but a nice old buffer by all accounts. Treated dreadfully by your developer BTW.
Phenomena = any state or process known through the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning.
My prefered  build-memory also provides: The existential modality or state of a given entity apprehended via the sense organs.

Jud: No sympathies required. Surrounded as I am by a loving young wife and eight doting children [3 below the age of 7] not to mention my grandchildren and extended family and friends, that which like you [in non-philosophical and linguistic discourse] I call love is my daily benison.

[Interesting. This bot is obviously programmed to parse something like 'human existence' and respond accordingly.]

JudBot: This love you apparently feel is a 'phenomenon'. Do you understand the perceptual sense of the term 'form'? Do you see 'forms of perception' or is your world purely calculative? I ask this because for phenomenology, as well as empirical observation, there are only 'phenomena', both emotional ('subjective') and material ('objective'). We humans are limited to purely phenomenal time and space, where all reality is first something lived, felt, seen and heard. We perceive colour for instance as an actual phenomenon and not solely as a calculative stimulus response mechanism. Do you have any concept of what the term 'life' means?

Heidybot: The loving response is an existential state/mode of this entity [chassis numbers: Judbot 040235] in relation to sundry other bots, [various chassis numbers] The events are analysed as "unremarkable" and to be expected behaviour of malebot with husbandbot/fatherbot/friendbot periferals.

[If we go too far with this it could of course cause a kernal dump in the bot, but that's probably what the developers are looking for anyways in order to extend their algorithms. Again, if this is a reasonably sophisticated neural network it should be capable of a radical paradigm shift, but from all accounts this hasn't been even remotely achieved yet.]

Dread? Angst? Worry? No I never feel those Heideggerian emotions. Why should I? I have health, wealth and happiness? I leave that to you unfortunate, patently lonely and unhappy (and much to be pitied Heideggerians) as you while away your dull lives in your ceaseless ontological arguments. ;-)

[I've seen this response a lot from this bot. Obviously whoever programmed it had some sort of personal problem with German romanticism.]

JudBot: What do you think of the philosopher 'Nietzsche'? Are you familiar with the history of post-Hegelian German philosophy from Fichte through positivism and neo-Kantian modes of philosophical thinking?

Heidybot:
1) Not much.
2) Yes.

Like "Being" and "Love" and "Enframing" and all that non-existent "ontological " bull's excrement - Jud doesn't exist either!

JudBot: Exactly, if you are just a human made algorithm then of course you don't exist, at least not if we confine the meaning of existence to either some material instance or to life as such. However, from the always historically dynamic perspective of English grammar it is still correct to say that 'love exists', don't you think?

Heidybot:
1) Syntactically - Acceptable.
2) Semantically - Unacceptable.

Note: but not the form "Love is." which is both syntactically and semantically unacceptable.

['Think' is the operative term here, if this neural network is capable enough it should be able to accommodate several different senses of the one term in a logical way. But from past experience it does seem to be strictly limited to an empirical grammar. Obviously there's a fair amount of development to go yet. Maybe this Heidegger list is being used to expose the bot to new forms of cognition, that would make us all unknowing beta testers!]

Heidybot: My developers report heidegger list incapable of new forms of cognition. The list was spidered and no lateral thinking encountered. Plans for a beta-test of new network at this venue were consequently aborted.

For the record, my actual [baptismal] name is "Catweasle MacBeth," and I work in Scotland using trained ferrets to run up the cassocks of sodomite priests to nip off their testicles. Well somebody's got to do it! ;-)http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com

Hmmm... it has a rather perverse sense of humour, I love these little easter eggs.

Heidybot: Are you an East European system? Does your developer sell Russian Dolls?

JudBot: Who was your principal developer? Are you available as an opensource download for unix?

Heidybot: God.  Yes  - I am available as shareware at heavenlyhostdownloads/pieinthesky. com

__END__



Cheers,

Jud.

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/
Jud Evans - ANALYTICAL INDICANT THEORY.
http://uncouplingthecopula.freewebspace.com