Re: Supercomputers are conscious
- From: "Rushtown" <Rushtown@xxxxxxx>
- Date: 6 Nov 2005 10:13:58 -0800
My secretary thinks like a computer.
I have appointments for clients on Saturday morning. In fact I see
most of my clients then.
Awhile ago, on a Tuesday, I told her, "I'm going to San Francisco this
weekend cancel the Saturday appointments." About an hour later I told
her that the San Francisco trip was canceled.
On Thursday I heard her calling clients for Saturday and still
canceling their appointments. Apparently I had forgot to countermand
the "cancel appointments" order and she kept doing it.
It reminded me of how literal one must be in using a computer. Except
she had stopped making appointments after I first told her about the SF
trip---a computer would have kept making appointments for a day I said
I would not be in town because my first "command" did not state to
"make no further appointments."
Of course a computer could have a program that listed all the
consequences attached to "Andrew won't be here Saturday" and so could
cancel or make only orders consistent with those consequences.
But it seems there is one mental behavior of humans which a computer
could never be programmed to match.
Lying or being deceptive requires one to realize that one is dealing
with another conscious mind. My best lies are fomullated by thinking,
"What would fool me." Unless I had a conscious mind of my own to
examine I could not win a contest involving deception with another
conscious mind. In other words a computer will always be inferior to
a human in this arena.
Once in an argument before an three judge Appellate panel I conceded
improper service on the other side, usually fatal to my side, and
another thing which the court was unsure I had done or not done. At
that point I looked like the most honest person around.
The reason I did this was because I realized that winning depended on
them believing me on yet another point. This other point concerned a
subject that both I and the other lawyer missed.
So I took a chance in not bringing it up. Had I brought it up it would
be apparent that I was really conceding on seemingly important, but not
really vital points, to bolster my credibility.
I knew that one of the three judges would think of it. And that's what
happened and my client won based on three real smart guys thinking I
had been telling the truth. See how smart and uncomputer like I am.
A common variation of this is to not ask your client the vital question
in front of a jury---let the other side do it. But have your client
prepared with the killer answer.
Remember, naw, you don't remember, in the William Kennedy Smith rape
trial when the prosecution asked Mr. Smith, "If you didn't rape her why
is she making up this story." That's a "give him enough rope and he'll
hang himself" question. It's hard to think of an answer a defendant
can give that will not harm his case. But William said, with a tear in
his eye, and a long hesitation, "I've been asking myself that question
over and over since the beginning of this, I can't understand why she's
doing this."
Perfect answer.
Anything more to babble on about? Can't think of anything so gotta
stop.
.
- References:
- Re: Supercomputers are conscious
- From: Pepe le Pew
- Re: Supercomputers are conscious
- From: Loogie
- Re: Supercomputers are conscious
- From: Rushtown
- Re: Supercomputers are conscious
- From: Loogie
- Re: Supercomputers are conscious
- Prev by Date: Re: Supercomputers are conscious
- Next by Date: Re: Cheney Asks for CIA Torture exemption
- Previous by thread: Re: Supercomputers are conscious
- Next by thread: Re: Supercomputers are conscious
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|