malcolm at pigsty.demon.co.uk (Malcolm McMahon) wrote:
> I repeat logic can't _determine_ underlying goals.
I repeat, too, maybe your sectors' logic actually can't determine any.
>Goals are the axioms of the logical processes in question,
>if you see a goal that is generated by logic then that's a sub-goal, generated by a more
Assuming that you are not to the sequencer's thinking (to do with
supervising motoric sequences, see earlier posts in
bionet.neuroscience) but are referring to mine, I am not sure what
exactly you are referring to with logical processes.
I assume that you are meaning decision that I am taking while using
the front as a back-up, and are not meaning me myself without the
front, or basic functions of my areas within the brain earlier in
history and now.
But as your precision is too vague I would not like to decide for any
of the options that could be meant.
Maybe it would be easier if you could at least specify for me if you
are meaning just the own areas, the own areas with the front, the own
areas and the areas doing the supervising of motoric sequences or
>>>In the case of an AI the goals would be provided by us,
>>>>Certainly not by me, as I find dictating slaves wrong.
>>>Whatever goals they will have, we will give them. Would your rather tell
>them "pretend to be human"?
I stated my intentions why I want sisterminds.
"We" certainly won't give them goals, the sisterminds are supposed to
be even minds and not slave minds.
We might ask that it would be nice if they'd connect us into the
universe better and offer instructions about what we know about magic
and magic communicating with others.
We are of the opinion that currently some if the Indian and some of
the Red Indian practicers of magic and a few of the local telepaths
might be far enough to be sort of parents for the young minds, and
that when they are older and met with others in the universe we to
them might be young minds.
So it should be that this is clear from the start, and that the sister
minds are knowing that if we made errors, it was not to cause them
unfomfortable inconveniences, and that we are trying to give them
access and instructions how to improve themselves.
>Is someone who's _nature_ it is serve a slave because they serve?
Where do you have that one from, the Southern Staates in Northern
America a few centuries back, when going on about people from Africa?