What is the metaphysical appeal of defining intelligence as the
"distribution of data within a database"?
Mind Wiki is a Grand Unified Boot Loader? What is a DELICIOUS?
What does saying that Wikipedia is conscious tell us about consciousness?
We have a wikibook on consciousness studies:
To define learning as "a group of people editing pages over time" would be
disingenuous, because really it is just a group of people editing pages over
time. How does the interaction of those editors secrete consciousness? If
you can answer this question, then Mind Wiki is the least of your
On 9/12/05, Brett Robertson <mindrec(a)comcast.net> wrote:
Hi. I'm a new list member (please be kind).
The following has been added to the
page of metawiki. At this point, I'm interested in ALL comments on the
project both positive and negative, first impressions, opinions as to how
appropriate it is for this list, and personal observations regarding this
list ... how helpful it might be and whether projects like mine might be
helped by participation on this list (and maybe to what degree, how much
help, how proficient list members might be, what kinds of help they might
Well as you can see. This is a new project. I don't know what to expect on
this list. Really, any kind of response will be appreciated!
My website: http://www.mindrec.net
Project description below:
Mind Wiki: An AI Design Experiment
Proposed by 22.214.171.124 <http://126.96.36.199> (Mindrec). Intelligence is
defined as the
distribution of data within a database. Wiki is cited as a case in point
intelligence. Very fringe theories which show how knowledge is imparted
metaphysically. Mind Wiki is shown to be a GRUB and to exclaim DELICIOUS.
If we define intelligence as the distribution of data within a database:
if WIKI is a database: Then, the simplest WIKI would be a prototypical
intelligence. Cunningham defines WIKI as "the simplest database which
possibly work". This suggests it is a case in point intelligence.
This makes Ward Cunningham (the inventor of the wiki) the inventor of the
first AI. Wikipedia is such an intelligence: But this bespeaks of the
dangers of "intelligence" per se ... it isn't necessarily *lucid*. Just
because a group of people get together and raise "consciousness" doesn't
mean that truth can be discerned (by preponderance). And I haven't gone
consciousness: Blog is a consciousness. And especially blogdex: Which does
some math on blogs and reports on the top posts (what's on the world's
"mind"). So: Wikipedia is an intelligence, and may be conscious, but isn't
always lucid (I suppose to the degree that its writers have a conscience,
is an artificially conscious intelligence). All of this to set up the idea
of "lucidity" as that which now defines a machine's "humanity"
intelligence and consciousness have been addressed).
I've used the word "lucid". And lucidity applies ... after intelligence
consciousness have been addressed (as I've said). But the jump from
intelligent to lucid (with regard to wikipedia, as an example) fails to
explain what consciousness has to do with coming up with the correct
(though this is also addressed a bit later on - such that its writers have
conscience, they might discern what is "right" ... both in a moralistic
sense and also in the sense of arriving at correct answers). Which is to
say, applying an intelligent design conscientiously might lead a wikipedia
to be *right* by preponderance, as I've suggested (whereby mentioning
lucidity at this point begins to make sense). This is not to say that it
*makes sense* to be intelligent and conscientious and still lack lucidity
... as a matter of choice, for example / or in seeming violation of what
means to be intelligent in the first place (to the contrary). So I might
have said that wikipedia isn't necessarily intelligent (even though an
intelligence). Or I might have said that being intelligent doesn't
necessarily mean conscientiousness will prevail (in the case that her
writers don't have a conscience, for example). But I've said that both of
these are "necessarily" so (if an entity is intelligent, then it is
conscientious). And so there's (still) the matter of lucidity (and
awareness, and agency): The mention of lucidity (regarding wikipedia)
on in this comment foreshadows the explanation of what it means to be
... which is then expressed "in the negative" (whereby lucidity is not
which overcomes the intelligent design of its database but is that which
overcomes the necessity that humans have a conscience).
(from Mind Wiki: An AI Design Experiment)
Intelligence is only a beginning step. Consciousness has been demonstrated
in connected Blog (Mind Wiki is a wiki / blog / CMS with areas for
scientific journals, articles, diagrams, and related files). The research
proves the theory legitimate. The Mind Wiki stands as a working example.
two prototypes have been developed which move modern computing into the
of crystal 3d processes and bioluminescent computing.
The site is set up as a center of research and development. Everyone is
encouraged to visit and comment. Those interested in promoting this
through accepted academic channels or (especially) who feel they have the
technical expertise to begin developing the intelligence model, the
computer, or the photoelectric computer are invited to help (all three
potential for becoming living entities).
--Mindrec 01:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
Wiki-research-l mailing list