Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 T: Pete, Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. toombaru P; you just might as well had said: Computer, Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. toombaru P.S. And the computer would feel as flattered as I did. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > T: Pete, > > Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through > you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. > > > toombaru > > P; you just might as well had said: > > Computer, > > Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through > you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. > > > toombaru > > P.S. And the computer would feel as flattered > as I did. " Computers " don't bother to say whether they are flattered or not; do they? .... ps: Just having some fun, Pete. I hope you don't mind. regards, ac. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2006 Report Share Posted May 13, 2006 Nisargadatta , " adithya_comming " <adithya_comming wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Pete S <pedsie5@> wrote: > > > > T: Pete, > > > > Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through > > you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > P; you just might as well had said: > > > > Computer, > > > > Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through > > you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > P.S. And the computer would feel as flattered > > as I did. > > " Computers " don't bother to say > whether they are flattered or not; > do they? They may if they felt the praise was blandishment. >-) ......bob > ps: Just having some fun, Pete. > I hope you don't mind. > > regards, > ac. > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 On 5/13/06, Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > T: Pete, > > Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through > you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. > > > toombaru > > P; you just might as well had said: > > Computer, > > Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through > you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. > > > toombaru > > P.S. And the computer would feel as flattered > as I did. > Have you heard of the Turing Test? The *Turing Test* is a proposal for a test of a machine's capability to perform human-like conversation. Described by Alan Turing in the 1950 paper " Computing machinery and intelligence " , it proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with two other parties, one a human and the other a machine; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test. It is assumed that both the human and the machine try to appear human. In order to keep the test setting simple and universal (to explicitly test the linguistic capability of the machine instead of its ability to render words into audio), the conversation is usually limited to a text-only channel such as a teletype machine as Turing suggested or, more recently IRC or instant messaging. Your remarks suggest an Inverse Turing Test: An exchange via email or IM where the " human " is said to pass the test if the " human's " responses cannot be distinguished from a computer's. So just as the Turing Test implicity envisions an ideal computer program as one indistinguishable from the responses of a real human, so the Inverse Turing Test envisions an ideal human as one who's responses cannot be distinguished from a machine's. Do you aspire for such a (trans)human ideal? Or perhaps you are beyond aspiration? Though occasionally, here and there amongst your posts can be found little shinings of " heart " . So perhaps not beyond aspiration as of yet. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn wrote: > > On 5/13/06, Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > T: Pete, > > > > Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through > > you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > P; you just might as well had said: > > > > Computer, > > > > Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through > > you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. > > > > > > toombaru > > > > P.S. And the computer would feel as flattered > > as I did. > > > > Have you heard of the Turing Test? > > The *Turing Test* is a proposal for a test of a machine's > capability to perform human-like conversation. Described > by Alan Turing in the 1950 paper " Computing machinery and > intelligence " , it proceeds as follows: a human judge > engages in a natural language conversation with two other > parties, one a human and the other a machine; if the > judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the > machine is said to pass the test. It is assumed that both > the human and the machine try to appear human. In order > to keep the test setting simple and universal (to > explicitly test the linguistic capability of the machine > instead of its ability to render words into audio), the > conversation is usually limited to a text-only channel > such as a teletype machine as Turing suggested or, more > recently IRC or instant messaging. > > Your remarks suggest an Inverse Turing Test: > > An exchange via email or IM where the " human " is said to > pass the test if the " human's " responses cannot be > distinguished from a computer's. > > So just as the Turing Test implicity envisions an ideal > computer program as one indistinguishable from the responses > of a real human, so the Inverse Turing Test envisions an > ideal human as one who's responses cannot be distinguished > from a machine's. > > Do you aspire for such a (trans)human ideal? > Or perhaps you are beyond aspiration? > > Though occasionally, here and there amongst your posts > can be found little shinings of " heart " . > > So perhaps not beyond aspiration as of yet. > > > Bill Yea Bill! Turing WAS the man. Sad ending but what a genius. After so much given in the war effort regarding codes , and responsible for so much of our high tech stuff today. Driven to eat a poisoned apple by ridiculous charges!....nice similarity with his 'universal machine' idea you bring up here. ........bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 14, 2006 Report Share Posted May 14, 2006 On 5/13/06, roberibus111 <Roberibus111 wrote: > Nisargadatta , " Bill Rishel " <illusyn > wrote: > > > > On 5/13/06, Pete S <pedsie5 wrote: > > > T: Pete, > > > > > > Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through > > > you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > P; you just might as well had said: > > > > > > Computer, > > > > > > Occasionally......when a post is read that appears to come through > > > you.....a feeling not dissimiliar to pleasant surprise occurs. > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > > > > P.S. And the computer would feel as flattered > > > as I did. > > > > > > > Have you heard of the Turing Test? > > > > The *Turing Test* is a proposal for a test of a machine's > > capability to perform human-like conversation. Described > > by Alan Turing in the 1950 paper " Computing machinery and > > intelligence " , it proceeds as follows: a human judge > > engages in a natural language conversation with two other > > parties, one a human and the other a machine; if the > > judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the > > machine is said to pass the test. It is assumed that both > > the human and the machine try to appear human. In order > > to keep the test setting simple and universal (to > > explicitly test the linguistic capability of the machine > > instead of its ability to render words into audio), the > > conversation is usually limited to a text-only channel > > such as a teletype machine as Turing suggested or, more > > recently IRC or instant messaging. > > > > Your remarks suggest an Inverse Turing Test: > > > > An exchange via email or IM where the " human " is said to > > pass the test if the " human's " responses cannot be > > distinguished from a computer's. > > > > So just as the Turing Test implicity envisions an ideal > > computer program as one indistinguishable from the responses > > of a real human, so the Inverse Turing Test envisions an > > ideal human as one who's responses cannot be distinguished > > from a machine's. > > > > Do you aspire for such a (trans)human ideal? > > Or perhaps you are beyond aspiration? > > > > Though occasionally, here and there amongst your posts > > can be found little shinings of " heart " . > > > > So perhaps not beyond aspiration as of yet. > > > > > > Bill > > > Yea Bill! Turing WAS the man. Sad ending but what a genius. After so > much given in the war effort regarding codes , and responsible for so > much of our high tech stuff today. Driven to eat a poisoned apple by > ridiculous charges!....nice similarity with his 'universal machine' > idea you bring up here. > ........bob > Techie Bro! nice that you can grok it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.