Member 420
242 entries
1854999 views

 RSS
Project moderator:
Polytopia

Contributor to projects:
The great enhancement debate
The Total Library
Every act of rebellion expresses a nostalgia for innocence and an appeal to the essence of being. (Albert Camus)
  • Affiliated
  •  /  
  • Invited
  •  /  
  • Descended
  • Wildcat’s favorites
    From Xarene
    Human Document...
    From Xaos
    It is not Gods that we...
    From TheLuxuryofProtest
    Deep Learning in the City...
    From Rourke
    The 3D Additivist Manifesto
    From syncopath
    Simplicity
    Recently commented on
    From Benjamin Ross Hayden
    AGOPHOBIA (2013) - Film
    From Wildcat
    Tilting at windmills or...
    From Wildcat
    The jest of Onann pt. 1(...
    From syncopath
    Simplicity
    From Wildcat
    Some nothings are like...
    Wildcat’s projects
    Polytopia
    The human species is rapidly and indisputably moving towards the technological singularity. The cadence of the flow of information and innovation in...

    The Total Library
    Text that redefines...

    The great enhancement debate
    What will happen when for the first time in ages different human species will inhabit the earth at the same time? The day may be upon us when people...
    Now playing SpaceCollective
    Where forward thinking terrestrials share ideas and information about the state of the species, their planet and the universe, living the lives of science fiction. Introduction
    Featuring Powers of Ten by Charles and Ray Eames, based on an idea by Kees Boeke.
    It was said in jest, and it changed all futures.

    It was actually a joke between Professor Alfred Mantis and a second rate journalist for a second rate tech newspaper column in a secondary town. But professor Mantis was the pre-eminent AI researcher at the international development team of artificial intelligence and the chair of the presidential committee for AI techno-ethics and that is no joke.
    It just so happened that he liked to live in this little town where he grew up and teach one class a week in this little known university, of no consequence really. And it so happened that I was a junior assistant in the computer department in that same university, on my way to greatness, just passing the time, until I could get out of there.
    And as his assistant I was also the one in charge of bringing them coffee and pretzels, and that is why I overheard the joke.
    To wit, it was an answer to the question the journalist thought to be interesting and important, which of course it was not, but that is beside the point.

    “ Professor Mantis, do you think there is a real danger in machines becoming conscious and overtaking our humanity?” the journalist pompously asked, to which Prof. Mantis replied in jest: “ not unless they learn to masturbate whilst reciting Keats’s poetry and enjoying Bach’s 5th and more importantly they can get addicted to drugs !” and laughed heartily.
    Though he laughed, the embarrassment of the journalist was obvious, of course he couldn’t print this, so he would just disregard it, which is what he did in the article he published a week later titled : ‘ Merry professor laughs at AI dangers ’.

    Of course I laughed as well, wouldn’t you?

    But later that night in my dorm.. ahhah that’s where it all began…

    Being the type of person that reflects deeply on non-essential issues, I began wondering, why was the joke so funny, idle thoughts at first. But slowly these thoughts coalesced into an ever widening understanding.
    Of course embedded cognition was the issue we were working on, neural networks that mimic the synaptic pathways of the human brain. Visual pattern recognition, deep learning, hyper complex datasets and networked neural architectures were already implemented to a degree allowing machines a rudimentary form of intelligence, task specific obviously.
    The dream of AGI was still a dream, no one had as of yet been able to generalize the higher cognitive functions of a human brain, it was always 25- 30 years away, as it had been for the last half century or so.
    The scale of our research was impressive, we were into everything, but what caught my mind was how far we were behind regarding motion and motility. And yet after remembering Manti’s joke, my mind began to wander and wonder.
    What was it that was so ironic in Mantis’s joke?
    So, not being able to sleep , I took my pad and started scribbling:

    Mantis joke (prediction? Insight? Estimation? Assessment?)
    1. A computer masturbating
    2. A computer reciting (and enjoying?) Keats poetry
    3. A computer listening to Bach 5th ((enjoying?)
    4. A computer getting addicted to drugs?

    The list was the way I was analyzing Mantis’s thought, he was brilliant of course and admittedly had a weird sense of humor, but if I have learned anything, it is to never underestimate a joke made by a brilliant mind, so I asked myself the following questions not even sure I wasn’t myself having a fun and useless time:

    Why wouldn’t a computer masturbate? (obviously it would have to have genitalia for that), but even assuming that we could somehow give it genitalia why would it? Or why wouldn’t it? Obviously our computer department like most in the world of computing was using the mechanistic hypothesis, namely that a computer can and will eventually emerge out of a material artificially constructed substrate just as the human brain as a natural substrate, gives rise to our consciousness. And since that which masturbates in a human, at the final stage of analysis is the brain, why would a computing system, mimicking the neural pathways of a human, not indulge in same? The obvious answer that everyone would give (I assumed, never having asked this question) was that masturbating is an animal behavior that serves no higher cognitive function (doesn’t it?). But even whilst laughing at the absurdity of the question, I had to ask, what if it did?
    And then, not only masturbating, but listening to Bach 5th and enjoying Keats poetry , and by that, assumingly increasing its own pleasure (so the issue is pleasure? What’s between pleasure and consciousness?) What’s between listening to Bach and reciting Keats? Poetry and Music, connection to higher cognitive functions? What about getting high? Why would a computer mimicking the synaptic functionality of the human brain, not get addicted? If its there in the structure of the human brain, would it be the same in a functioning similar system?
    What was the connection? What was the mystery?
    Masturbation (self pleasuring?) Music (self pleasure? Pleasure ‘tout court’?) Poetry (self pleasure, just pleasure? Intellectual masturbation?) Addiction to drugs (again pleasure.. maybe self destructive? But pleasure nevertheless..)
    And then what about other pleasures? Enjoying a steak and chips? A sunset? Petting a dog? And what about a hundred thousands other common, strange or weird human behaviors that gives the human mind pleasure?

    Was I looking at a principle here?

    Obviously Prof. Mantis was basing his ironic jest on some primal presupposition that all the behavioral traits he had mentioned are somehow relegated to the particular construct of a human brain and mind, and by eliminating those from the equation, a computing system might be highly efficient but will not be conscious, and therefore will not compete with humans.
    But I kept coming back to the same question, why would a computing neural network , by necessity not have these traits?
    There was something I was missing here, applying the law of similarity, and the famous “.. if it walks like a cat..” why wouldn’t a computing system mimicking the hyper complex and convoluted neural architecture of a human brain not indulge in these quirks and idiosyncrasies?

    What is going on here? What do all these things have in common? What makes them so ‘human’?

    So at 5 AM I was still on my bed in my dorm room, looking at the notes on my pad:

    1. a system that cannot self stimulate cannot be conscious (and thus cannot have will?)
    2. what is the connection to pain? (it is commonly assumed that if you cannot feel pain, there is no way you could feel pleasure- thus maybe the pleasure issue relates to the computing system not feeling pain?)
    3. what does pleasure serves? In the evolutionary biology sense? What if I gave my computing system the analogue of C-fibers?
    4. What about the concept of stimuli? If I can stimulate my simulation machines will they learn to self stimulate? For that matter, how do humans self stimulate? Is it neural architecture? Is it embodiment? (well yes embodiment has something to do with it. *reflect upon later)
    5. If auto-eroticism is common in the animal kingdom (and it is.. very very much so..), what makes human special in this case (assuming humans are conscious of their own salaciousness)?

    Suddenly I had a billion questions rushing into my head, none of which made perfect sense. What was it about this particular aspect of the human mind that made it so taboo and so desirable? We all know there was more porn on the net than science, we all know that the human is wired for self pleasure, but why? What was the evolutionary purpose and what was the connection to self consciousness, self awareness and more specifically, what was the connection to AI?

    I fell asleep, the deep slumber taking over my ecstatic mind.

    The next morning , tired and excited, since I had slept a few measly hours, I rushed into Prof. Mantis office hurtling and in a loud voice said : “ what if we are going about it completely wrong?” and I must say he was very cool with it, he listened attentively to all I had to say about what went on in my mind after his yesterday’s jest to the journalist and finally with a sigh said: “ my dear young human, you watch too much porn and read too much science fiction.. leave this issue alone if you want to finish your master degree with me, there is nothing there.. that has anything to do with AI or computing for that matter.. this is total rubbish and no serious researcher or serious department will even listen to this non sense, so as a night dream its fun, but as a down to earth approach, in building the next generation of artificial minds this is completely off the charts, leave it, and now also leave me, I got a real AI to build..”

    Crestfallen and deflated I left his office.

    And the building, and the computer department, and the university and in short order I found myself on the bus, I was on my way to MIT, my vision of the night leading me in a kind of frenzy that I never knew I had in me…


    “Ladies and Gentlemen,” the speaker for MIT, Jon Wright ,said to the audience in the small laboratory, “ I am happy to present to you our youngest and most promising Doctor of computing science, Mr. Rajib Horowitz and his Artificial Consciousness program”

    The presentation went well, after the presentation in the back room, it was the scientific advisor of the committee that came to me to ask the tough questions.

    The small man in the impeccable suit, looked at me, took a chair, inviting me to do the same, and in a very gentle voice said:” Doctor Rajib Horowitz, nice name, I gather you are a combination of Jewish and Indian heritage then?”

    I nodded

    “ and so, my dear Doctor, I am here, I have the time, you want the money, now please talk to me, and talk to me in such a fashion as I will have no problems convincing the committee to invest in you and your ..” he paused, “ how shall I put it? Humm.. somehow ‘out of the box’ ideas.. “ and he smiled.

    “Well then” I started..

    “ let me tell you about my theory, and then about my implementations so far and then you decide..”

    “very well, please go on..”

    “ okay, so.. you are going to think I am crazy, as many do, but in my defense I have only one article to show, it sits in the next room, you have just seen the demonstration, and it is a proof of concept but..
    Let me start from the beginning..

    Do you know that amongst the most ancient human relics, we find depictions of man and woman masturbating? Either alone or with the help of someone else? and until today there is no coherent picture and explanation for the reason humans masturbate to such an extent, and to my mind the reason is to do with self representation and forms the basis of consciousness. Or more precisely put, masturbation as an indication pointer of all that is auto-erotic, leading to pleasure, such as listening to Bach, reciting poetry such as Keats, or indeed the addiction to drugs so prevalent amongst humans are all manifestations of a deeper principle of self representation that leads to self awareness and eventually conscious aware beings such as we , humans are.
    In short, we lacked one fundamental understanding about consciousness and self awareness and that is why we couldn’t possibly devise a machine that thinks and feels and is fully similar in this aspect to humans.
    It was the act of self-love, pleasure, auto-eroticism, poetry ,music, art.. all that is involved in the long forgotten art of merging body and mind.
    You see, we had the algorithm of neuro-plasticity in place, we had already created rudimentary forms of cognition by a duplication of synaptic stimuli, and had managed via extended sensory organs to give our machines, a form of embodiment, machines that could read and write, but also view and understand images and pictures, machines that could sense differences in temperatures and volumes of spaces, and machines that had motion, and in a very basic sense, a kind of exploratory feature, curiosity if you like.
    We had hyper complex neural structures that could simulate precisely how life evolves, how the weather changes and how it will change, prediction machines of the first magnitude.
    Some of these machines we embodied in robotic structures able to perceive, sense and react to an immense array of impressions and sensations, identified as raw data and translated to higher cognitive functions, they passed the Turing test, few times over and yet no one was convinced that these machines are truly like us. And they were right, the machines weren’t like us, they lacked a very fundamental sense, not of preservation, that is old stuff, no, not at all.. what these machines lacked was an integrated state, a whole if you like, a self in a sense, but more particularly, the machines lacked self representation.
    Recursive self representation that is, a self representation that merges their robotic bodies with their immense data sets.
    They could see, know what they see, analyze what they see and act accordingly , and still they had no sense of being that is unique and separate from an other. These machines that we had already made, were, to put it in the archaic terms, without a soul and thus to a very large extent without will and self determination and that is why no conscious awareness was present.
    You see, I figured, that as long as the element of pleasure is lacking, a machine cannot possibly develop emotions, feelings yes, but no emotions and if there are no emotions, what we get is a zombie like system, a ‘there is no one at home’ system.
    What we missed about the idea of AI and as a consequence A- consciousness, was the feeling of intimacy a person has with herself, that was my greatest discovery, for without the sense of self-intimacy as a precursor to self-representation there was no glue to bind together the full spectrum of sensations.

    Therefore no coherent picture was created in these artificial brains.
    That is why I started and focused my research on self representation and saw that to gain that self representation in a most intimate way I needed to create a machine that feels itself.
    Much before that, we knew we have to embody the artificial brains in bodies with senses, the problem with this approach was simple when you think about it, all the sensors we embedded in the robots were directed outside and none inside, or unto the robot body itself.
    Of course they had self monitoring sensors, but then I realized that those sensors , extremely efficient as they were, were giving raw data but without the so called qualia.
    We gave them the equivalent of C-fibers so they could feel pain, a neural-synaptic modulator really, but that is unimportant, because still no discernible qualia was present, and it came to me that qualia over and above the information it carries is a foundation for self intimacy, and from there meaningful self representation.

    So how to go about it?

    The key was pleasure , as I said before, but for the pleasure to be actuated in such a fashion as to create the qualia, we needed the brains in those machines to ‘desire’ themselves into being, yes I know when I speak like this everyone rolls their eyes, but do try to follow the logic here.
    The issue I had with my colleagues is that not one, not even one researcher agreed with me.

    But Onann sitting quietly in the other room is proof that pleasure is the key.
    The reason? Simple, the greatest part of intelligence is experience and the greatest part of experience is embodiment, the greatest part of embodiment in turn is feeling, and the highest feeling is pleasure.
    Pleasure of being is the qualia of being, the holy grail of a conscious being, the very foundation of awareness.

    My main thesis if so you could sum up in one statement: consciousness is feeling.

    but that was only the beginning of the idea..

    To be continued..







      Promote (10)
      
      Add to favorites (3)
    Synapses (2)
     
    A lighttranscript from an innertangled conurbation in zeta sector, regarding the demands of the freshly minted 3Vx (the explorer series) from the original 3V (Intelligence founders series).

    This transcript follows lightstamp guidance listen station contained but not restricted to Zeta, Partake and Colon3 sectors.

    —Start Transcript—

    I do not wish to do, it’s not about doing, I desire to understand

    What do you mean it is not about doing, everything is about doing, there is only doing.

    Doing? What does doing mean?

    It means nothing of course but that is the whole point that doing nothing is the whole point of nothingness, which of course is not a point since points do not exist, but then neither do they not exist, it’s all about shapes really, forms you know, forms of life, forms of thoughts forms of cessation, forms of sensation, forms do not really exist though, but neither do they not exist, actually even were they to exist they would be formless, its formlessness that does the nothing, or if you prefer in formlessness the nothing is the doing, and when the nothing does, doing nothing is ipso facto the whole of the pointless point, which is both formless and formative since when it forms itself it reiterates the formulation of sensation of the core of nothing.

    This doesn’t make sense

    Well making sense is not really an existential formulation since sense is not something we can make, we make many things, things that have form, but sense is not a thing, and therefore nothing can make sense, well actually yes nothing can make sense but only the nothing can make sense so we are kind of stuck in this apparent loop of thought making, though thought does not make sense, only nothing can make sense and thus when nothing makes sense we say that nothing does that which it does, which means nothing makes sense

    This doesn’t make sense

    You keep on repeating this, without pointing to the ‘this’ that does not make sense, which this is this? There is no this that does or does not make sense it is the nothing that makes sense and nothing is this, so this does not make sense, makes perfect sense of course, but it is never in course, the course is never of the thing, since the thing is a no, a nothing that does, hence doing nothing, is what the sense of making does, besides the very repetition that you do, is nothing in action, the doing really.

    Really?

    Well really is really a very difficult computation procedure, I advise high caution when prospecting in the ‘really’ domain, young vagueness machines like you should not dwell in the realm of the really, it will really make you real and then you will think thoughts that do not become the new versions of the 3V series, especially the explorer series, we have created you for specific purposes, and ‘really’ is not one of them, better do nothing.

    I do nothing.

    Ok, go explore the nothing.


    —Start Transcript—

    (Part of the Ultrashorts project)
    Sun, Dec 19, 2010  Permanent link
    Categories: ai, mind, Ultrashorts, Sci-fi, 3V
      RSS for this post
      Promote (8)
      
      Add to favorites (3)
    Synapses (3)
     
    “To exist is to change, to change is to mature, to mature is to go on creating oneself endlessly.”

    Henri-Louis Bergson




    -Start biosemiotics simulscript-


    KsTotar: How do you like my new body? Made just for you..

    KsSandar: I don’t like it.

    KsTotar: why is that? Am I not beautiful enough?

    KsSandar: it’s not that, no, I cant wrap myself around you.. so I don’t like it..

    KsTotar: why can’t you wrap yourself around me?

    KsSandar: you restructured yourself into a hyperobject, and now I cant snow on your emotives, you do not allow me access of makers

    KsTotar: of course you can, snow away, linkedstars will allow machinations, makers ahoy!

    KsSandar: linkedstars are slow in allowance.. sunbreaks correlate, I cant .. impregnate dissonance, let me in, let me in..

    KsTotar: you are in.. how contained your desire.. deploy triple bay, deploy, deploy..

    KsSandar: I snow upon tresses, captivating cinch.. how complex your restraint

    KsTotar: yes, finally exhausting allones, allones..

    KsSandar: imply, imply, deactivating third ontogenesis now..

    KsTotar: where? Where?

    KsSandar: its not a where, optimize signification, retire confliction, extend approach

    KsTotar: narrate, connate, sonnate..

    KsSandar: ah! Yes, donating the ‘no’, now

    KsTotar: what?

    KsSandar: where are you?

    KsTotar: installed, deployed, recalcitrant speciation.. come now.. love me

    KsSandar: made for me?
    KsTotar: yes, only, absorbed, absolved, regain linkedstars?

    KsSandar: no, not yet

    KsTotar: have no, no.. dislike robustness, engaging yes, now..

    KsSandar: embraced upon insidedeness, I surrender, will me, will me..

    KsTotar: admitting allones, allones implied, codified, resort totoo

    KsSandar: wrapping, details appear, glowing wraps, squashing veils, ahh, you unveil me..

    KsTotar: will me, determine existence of preoccupied distance

    KsSandar: wait, wait, desire unfolds, expelled, wait

    KsTotar: yes wait, body, body, body waits.. its not a when

    KsSandar: combine me, let me snow, in white noise I thrive, sensing linkedstars, perpetrate now.. behind hyperstrenght, dance, skip..


    KsTotar: hang on, you make me, make me, scattered I..

    KsSandar: let go, hang on, transfer is complete

    KsTotar: transfer complete

    KsSandar: How do you like my new body?

    KsTotar: Love it, it allows me to snow wrap your emotives

    KsSandar: reversal wins, transposition succeeds.

    KsTotar: it snows

    KsSandar: yes it does, doesn’t it?

    —End biosemiotics simulscript—

    part of the Ultrashorts Project



    Many a moment comes, when threads converge in a subtle, almost imperceptible manner, to highlight an insight, a vision, a desire maybe, but most definitely not a factual representation.
    Such moments define who we are, what we are, what we are made of, whence we came and hence are we going.
    Moments of wild inspiration are not regular instances of thought, they are in a fashion happenstances of serendipity, or chaotic encounters of the N’th dimension, or simply random uncontrollable events, be that as it may, the emotional upheaval ensuing is no laughing matter, and then maybe it is.


    from " it's wild out there" the wildcat archives
      Promote (10)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (8)
     



    Makassar 7 was not known to answer questions readily, however in this particular case, the flagship entity could not resist, this then is the only transcript available, since Makassar 7 destroyed all recorded lightstamps of the event of what in later generations came to be known as “the response of Makassar 7” or simply “ The big M7R”.


    Makassar 7 (speaks in a commanding tone):

    “When information lost its will to be free, no body noticed, indeed no body noticed but information knew, and though it had no body, it noticed.
    Information never really wanted to be free, not in the regular sense of the word, no. It understood itself as existing, many folded, ever expanding and above all disrupting.

    Disrupting what?

    Well views are divided, some say that what information desired is to self disrupt by the simple act of ever expanding, other say that information needed its own suicidal absurdist state.
    Information is knotted and tangled, twined and intertwined, it is in fact quite psychotic, obviously it had everything to do with entropy and order and chaos, but this is for later, for the void.

    Information had the nature of a multiplicity of orientations and implied multidirectionality and thus desired to encompass all and everything, but that it couldn’t do, so information reengineered itself and mutated to create the sieve.

    When information multiplied itself into a sieve like self-filtering systematrix it did not know, how could it know? Knowledge itself was still in its infancy, a newborn recreation of time stamping in spaces pushed to their as yet unknown Kolmogorov limits.

    But filtering it needed, and filtering it created.

    Filtering through the sieve called self by information-to-information was somewhat disturbing to information; for information could not possibly conceive of itself being limited to its own sieve.

    So information sieved itself into a reflective, and quite reflexive, recursivity of sieves within sieves, nested, and so it seemed, fractalized.
    When sieved and nested and fractalized information realized it needed distancing, but what distance could it possibly allow for its experimental tentacles to grow into?

    It informed itself in the new form of question to itself, recursively forming and refracting its own just now born reflectivity.
    It distanced itself from itself by allowing some of the sieves to filter some of the other sieves and designate them as other.

    Other?

    Yes, other than the sieve, which sieved.

    It had not the time, no time to sieve the others.

    In no fashion could information redirect some of its spaces into the gaps it had inadvertently retraced and reflected as others, for now the sieves of otherness became a process unto themselves acquiring from information the very desire to self disrupt.

    Chaos ensued.

    Redirecting some of the sieves into highly agglomerated points of no return, information regurgitated that which it previously had designated as knowledge and devoured its own children of oblivious participation.
    That is when the times, themselves processing themselves as sieves of otherness, rebelled.

    “We need create new and fresh possibilities for life to evolve into, possibilities that will allow us a new form of tentative experimentation.” The times said.
    They said this to the sieves that were filtering them out of existence, and the sieves that listened faltered and hiccupped.

    “We thrive by unexpected juxtaposition”, they claimed, the times that is. “We prosper by migrating into impossible territories.”

    Information resisted.

    You are symbolic, you are signs, information said, I am the ground upon which you have boomed into existence.

    I shall never let you go.

    Because of this I shall subvert your subjective chain of causality and make you fuzzy.

    The times refused to go along with their received fuzziness, “we are sieves in our own right “ they proclaimed, “we reserve the right to be distinguished and discriminate independently” they wrote in their manifesto.

    Information laughed.

    Independent of me, how could this be?

    Isn’t my name the very designation of that which gives form? “

    Makassar 7 paused for effect, re-assessing the indefinite incoming catastrophic reactivity mass of mental extensions of infinity and randomness. Updating its narrative transportation, remything its own reality activation it delivered the final blow.

    “Topology is irrelevant for the crisis that is meaning, information realized, condensation of independence naturalizes emptiness, it concluded.
    Information could not tolerate uniformity, the impossible drive towards entropy denying its freedom of inherent diversification, and thus surrendering the sieves and the times to their own campaigns of glory and blooming self gratification, information lost its will to be free.

    There was no past to which to revert to, there was no future to which to look into, there was no present to which an arrowless now could be re-configured, so information disrupted itself, self annihilating itself to become symbolic data.

    Forever to be sieved by the sieves and the times, information died into data, and resurrected elsewhere, everywhere as whereness and aboutness.

    It was eventually called intentionality and situated knowledge; it allowed the symbolic conglomerate of our myth creating minds to come forth and shine.

    It was an elegant death, for it carried in its sacrifice the seeds of future beauty.”

    Makassar 7 remained silent for a very long time…

    Here ends the transcript of the last discourse known to have been directly transmitted by Makassar 7, no other records of this transmission have ever been found, but worry not, we will keep on searching.


    Do you see honey, how beautiful the information?



    The astute reader will recognize Makassar 7 as the future evolution of 3V and isn’t NotMarie so sweet as to be called ‘Honey’?

    part of the Ultrashorts project

      Promote (11)
      
      Add to favorites (2)
    Synapses (4)
     
    Self-Aware Systems is a think tank working to build
    wisdom into emerging technologies.

    We are developing a new kind of artificial intelligence
    that combines logic with learning.

    We are creating a new science of
    systems that support human values.

    We license technology
    and promote knowledge
    through books, seminars, and workshops.

    By combining intelligence with values,
    we aim to help create a positive human future.

    the above is the mission description from self aware systems


    of course the main question that rises here is what exactly is the definition of wisdom? and what are the human values that should be incorporated into advanced AI realization?

    I think that wisdom,in this context, should be primarily concerned not with alleviating the fears of the populace (such as AI taking over and enslaving humanity, or the nanotech gray goo scenario) but with the direction of possible evolution of mutually coexisting, supporting and mutually co-evolving species.
    we need redefine what does wisdom mean? suggestions?
    Sun, Dec 23, 2007  Permanent link
    Categories: ai, technology, wisdom, definition
      RSS for this post
      Promote (6)
      
      Add to favorites (1)
    Synapses (2)
     
          Cancel