• I've created a thread for feedback on the reaction/likes feature Feedback thread

TED: Google Consciousness

Well, insomnia led me to finally take a look at this.
Bubblefish said:
Daniel Dennet's model of consciousness also explains how SEO works on Google, and more.
Click to expand...
Well, no, really, it doesn't. You and your friend Maf waffle on about a vague idea. Dennett gets mentioned in passing. (And don't you think you might have mentioned who was in the video? I was expecting Dennett himself.)
Bubblefish said:
Google Consciousness - if it were to happen, or not happen, probably would either validate Dennet or eventually discredit him. Google MUST be conscious at some point for Dennets model to be meaningful.
Click to expand...
Complete nonsense, especially the first sentence which doesn't actually say anything. The second sentence is simply wrong. And if you're going to take the guy's name in vain, at least have the courtesy to spell it correctly.
Professor Yaffle said:
Before I spend time watching this video, does it have anything at all to do with your OS 0 1 2 stuff, or the nonsense you were talking about chi etc a while back?
Click to expand...
No, this is new nonsense, though I think there was an oblique reference to OS012 regarding editing wikipedia pages.
Professor Yaffle said:
Not worth my time then.
Click to expand...
You are correct in this, though. There was one part that was accurate, when Rome said, "We don't know what we are talking about". ;)
Bubblefish said:
odd statement from a man who spends a majority of his life wandering discussion threads, but I accept it none the less.
Click to expand...
If you'd actually spent enough time observing Professor Yaffle's posting habits to be able to make that comment based on facts, it would not have escaped you that PY is in fact a she.


blobru said:
Did you catch my brief yet in all immodesty scene-stealing virtual cameo @ 8:22 - 8:28 (quoted from this post), ON? I art faymoose. :cubist:
Click to expand...
:) Yay blobby! Though another example of misrepresentation from BF; while many members here may be academics (and for all I know, you are too), it seems disingenuous to talk of academics and then produce a quote from this forum.
blobru said:
Yes... mmm... well, I guess the Guardian (a 'tabloid' of some description I take it) might, in some circles, have a certain, oh I don't know, cachet perhaps, but should one really, really mention it in the same post, as if on par, with TED (T.E.D. - Technology, Entertainment and Design - the TED!), hmmm? (I wonder.) :eusa_snooty:
Click to expand...
More misrepresentation, sadly; it's TEDx, a local version, not TED itself
 
TED... x? :sphmm: (gulp -- blobby wraps & returns faymooseness FedEx). :spsad:
 
zooterkin said:
Well, insomnia led me to finally take a look at this.
Well, no, really, it doesn't. You and your friend Maf waffle on about a vague idea. Dennett gets mentioned in passing. (And don't you think you might have mentioned who was in the video? I was expecting Dennett himself.)
Click to expand...

Zoo - do you understand what this talk is about?

Complete nonsense, especially the first sentence which doesn't actually say anything. The second sentence is simply wrong. And if you're going to take the guy's name in vain, at least have the courtesy to spell it correctly.
Click to expand...

lol, now I dont know what your talking about

No, this is new nonsense, though I think there was an oblique reference to OS012 regarding editing wikipedia pages.
Click to expand...

maybe you do know what the talks is about

You are correct in this, though. There was one part that was accurate, when Rome said, "We don't know what we are talking about". ;)
Click to expand...

lol, perhaps the only honest TED speaker ever to do so!

If you'd actually spent enough time observing Professor Yaffle's posting habits to be able to make that comment based on facts, it would not have escaped you that PY is in fact a she.
Click to expand...

like I care

:) Yay blobby! Though another example of misrepresentation from BF; while many members here may be academics (and for all I know, you are too), it seems disingenuous to talk of academics and then produce a quote from this forum.
Click to expand...

oh brother :(

More misrepresentation, sadly; it's TEDx, a local version, not TED itself
Click to expand...

TED is a brand that has expanded worldwide, so YES it is a TED talk organized under TEDx - if you go to TED.com you will find the talk there..
 
blobru said:
TED... x? :sphmm: (gulp -- blobby wraps & returns faymooseness FedEx). :spsad:
Click to expand...

dont worry Blu ol pal - TEDx is still TED it's just that the TED brand expanded worldwide - it's still up on the TED site just happened in the UK instead of Southern Cali


also, you should know that the talk made the editor's pick on TED, plus is still the #1 Most Popular TEDx talk in the world. Out of 7k talks worldwide, that's quite an accomplishment! thanks for making a cameo in our story.

http://tedxtalks.ted.com/pages/popular
 
Orphia Nay said:
Yes, I agree. That put me off it immediately.

They did have some interesting bits, like the part about Egypt.

13:35 "The sentient web is now attacking the very power structures that threaten its existence in the Middle East."

But talking to plants while on drugs is like Google being conscious?

The concept is in your mind? I could agree with that. :D
Click to expand...

I put ayahuasca into the talk because a.) it was an important entry point in the actual story 2.) because it was a great way to distinguish between two distinct views in philosophy regarding consciousness, dualism and materialism 3.) to show how google is a unique metaphor that can explain or share something in common with both of them - or both models can share a transcendent in common 4.) what's more absurd, conscious plants or conscious computers? your answer is probably culturally determined 5.) it makes for interesting story telling.
 
zooterkin said:
Well, insomnia led me to finally take a look at this.
Well, no, really, it doesn't.
Click to expand...

gee that's it? that's your rebuttal? i say Dennet's model ironically explains how SEO works you simply say 'no it doesn't'? yikes

if you disagree, that's fine, but i'm not sure how qualified your argument is since you simply have not provided one.
 
zoo-

fyi i was not just referring to this discussion forum in the talk, but my discussion with blobru stood out more than others and he is quite academic in his POV and arguments imho - which is why it's there. I know other academics IRL .

please spend more sleepless nights and your quality time trying to find little bits and pieces of the talk that are inaccurate, and once you have collected them all into one place and surround yourself with glee knowing you have proved ol fun loving Bubblefish wrong once again, take note that the talks starts off explaining that my buddy and i get hired to create MEMES that go VIRAL and this is a STORY about a MEME. my buddy and I use social media TECHNOLOGY and we ENTERTAIN our selves by DESIGNING viral and social media platforms - and you will be seeing the ol 0 1 2 discussion platform out on the net soon, hoping v.1 to be up end of year.

the proof is in the pudding. Most popular TEDx talk in the world, over 130k views on YT. Google Consciousness is a viral.
 
Last edited:
fyi yaffle - last year Dr. Lo's work was published in physics letters A - do a google search before you trash the man because you disagree with him philosophically
 
Physics Letters A: Impact Factor 1.963 (2010).

For comparison, the top ten rated journals are all higher than 28.

Not that this proves anything, but holding up a single publication in a low-impact journal as if it's evidence of validity is, well, not the best argument you can make.

ETA: Also, since you are apparently incapable of , admitetedly, unwilling to) provide a correct sourcing:

Evidence for the existence of stable-water-clusters at room temperature and normal pressure
Physics Letters A, Volume 373, Issue 42, 12 October 2009, Pages 3872-3876
Shui Yin Lo, Xu Geng, David Gann

The article is listed as having 1 citation in Scopus; and that's for an article in an accupuncture journal.
 
Last edited:
Bubblefish said:
fyi yaffle - last year Dr. Lo's work was published in physics letters A - do a google search before you trash the man because you disagree with him philosophically
Click to expand...

Last year? I know of the one from 2009 (linked to on this page http://www.chem1.com/CQ/clusqk.html) - has there been another?


ETA: I have 2 publications in the BMJ and one in BJPsych :P
 
Last edited:
Bubblefish said:
lol, now I dont know what your talking about
Click to expand...

It's "Dennett", not "Dennet". Then again, since you don't seem to know the difference between "your" and "you're", and are vague on the use of capital letters and punctuation, I can't say I'm surprised that you didn't spot it even when pointed out.
 
Bubblefish said:
I put ayahuasca into the talk because a.) it was an important entry point in the actual story 2.) because it was a great way to distinguish between two distinct views in philosophy regarding consciousness, dualism and materialism 3.) to show how google is a unique metaphor that can explain or share something in common with both of them - or both models can share a transcendent in common 4.) what's more absurd, conscious plants or conscious computers? your answer is probably culturally determined 5.) it makes for interesting story telling.
Click to expand...

Ah, the Noble Savage. How very 15th Century of you.
 
zooterkin said:
It's "Dennett", not "Dennet". Then again, since you don't seem to know the difference between "your" and "you're", and are vague on the use of capital letters and punctuation, I can't say I'm surprised that you didn't spot it even when pointed out.
Click to expand...


WOW you skored a nother point !
 
Wait, this is you in the talk?


You didn't mention that in the OP. You are essentially advertising yourself. That's very dishonest of you.
 
zooterkin said:
Oh, he's been even more dishonest elsewhere, even shamelessly using sock puppets to puff his piece of nonsense.
Click to expand...

hmmm..i think when someone says HEY this is REALLY me - haha i was just using a sock puppet - i dont think that's being dishonest. I think it's being honest while having fun with you all at the same time.

In case you all have not noticed, I like playing tricks - but I am very open and transparent about that.
 
lol, by that same logic, you too are practicing deception by omission - you are notably not mentioning your real name in your moniker -

and considering that I have been open talking about this in the very thread - your point is clearly refuted by reality.

thirdly, it's a completely appropriate posting for this forum -

the 'marketing' I am doing is more in the discussion,not the title. I am completely open about how I do this - see - i know that this community and a few characters on this thread will continue to post ad hom and attack ol fun loving bubblefish, and will find any excuse to make him wrong on just about anything - and since I enjoy turning win lose into a mutual win win, i use these attacks to keep the thread bumped to the top of the page for weeks, thus attracting attention to the very talk I am promoting.

Thanks for your help!

thoughts?
 
It's a cute piece of sophistry you're practicing there. Next time you make a thread to advertise your "talks", please label the opening post clearly, and explain that it's YOU in the video advocating YOUR ideas.
 
Hmm great to see that human behaviour is universal regardless of intellect.

So back on topic, what of the general idea of the development of intelligence and self awareness in the Internet. I recall A C Clarke writing of the idea of a global online consciousness in Fountains of Paradise.

Personally I don't think it will be too long, maybe another 10 or 20 years.

How about the more aggressive ideas such as those presented in the Terminator series or the Matrix? After all it is entirely reasonable to assume that the US military will head down the route of AI in the development of net centric warfare and that 6th generation fighters may be able to continue fighting in the event of pilot loss.

At what point can we consider that a system has become self aware?
 
Last edited:
Hypnotictortoise said:
Hmm great to see that human behaviour is universal regardless of intellect.

So back on topic, what of the general idea of the development of intelligence and self awareness in the Internet. I recall A C Clarke writing of the idea of a global online consciousness in Fountains of Paradise.

Personally I don't think it will be too long, maybe another 10 or 20 years.

How about the more aggressive ideas such as those presented in the Terminator series or the Matrix? After all it is entirely reasonable to assume that the US military will head down the route of AI in the development of net centric warfare and that 6th generation fighters may be able to continue fighting in the event of pilot loss.

At what point can we consider that a system has become self aware?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if I have anything interesting to offer the above - i do find it intriguing that this idea (collective sentience) appears in many different forms and philosophies - from Chardin's 'noosphere' to Heylighen's 'Global Brain', even Hegel you could say foresaw such an event, an historical endpoint. I'm not saying they all predicated the same thing, just that all such predictions/ideas share something in common, and like another poster on this thread, I appreciate the irony.
 
TubbaBlubba said:
Yes, of course, you will then have to tolerate criticism for it when it is misleading, or omits critical information.
Click to expand...

lol - tolerate it??? lady that's why I come here! sheesh arn't you paying attention?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom