Chinese Zodiac Ox
In the spirit of internet entities taking on lives of their own, I think Jonathan's card and today's story of hacks on it it a really interesting example of bots talking to bots: Also, he is all tattooed, and skinny-jeans wearing…but super smart and nerdy and shy…I love everything about him! It is not in any space nor has it any temporal description. I will make a video of us together. Critical Chinese Philosophy in the Classical Period Wang Chong was a critic of many received views on ontology, morality, religion, and politics. A History of Chinese Philosophy , 2 vols. I love this of chasing girl style.
Contacts for exhibitors
In the context of Chinese epistemologies, Hu stands out as opposing all kinds of authoritarianism and dogmatism; simply because Confucius or Zhu Xi or some other figure says something, it does not make it true in the current context. I think he is beautiful. How do you think they could justify that? He thought an authentic philosopher was not so much an ontologist or epistemologist as a jingshi ; that is, a statesman or scholar who practices statesmanship. Yep March 22, Reply. A History of Chinese Philosophy , 2 vols.
Oxen are strong individuals who overall are healthy and live long, fulfilled lives. However, they tend to work too much, rarely allowing themselves enough time to relax. Oxen could benefit from incorporating more non-work-related activity into their lives. Oxen prefer work that is routine. They take a methodological approach to their tasks and excel in jobs that are specialized. Oxen possess a keen eye for detail and an admirable work ethic.
They are more productive when allowed to work alone. If, Mahamati, you say that because of the reality of words the objects are, this talk lacks in sense. Words are not known in all the Buddha-lands; words, Mahamati, are an artificial creation. In some Buddha-lands ideas are indicated by looking steadily, in others by gestures, in still others by a frown, by the movement of the eyes, by laughing, by yawning, or by the clearing of the throat, or by recollection, or by trembling.
The epitaph gives a line of descent identifying Bodhidharma as the first patriarch. In the 6th century biographies of famous monks were collected.
From this genre the typical Chan lineage was developed:. These famous biographies were non-sectarian. The Ch'an biographical works, however, aimed to establish Ch'an as a legitimate school of Buddhism traceable to its Indian origins, and at the same time championed a particular form of Ch'an.
Historical accuracy was of little concern to the compilers; old legends were repeated, new stories were invented and reiterated until they too became legends. Suzuki contends that Chan's growth in popularity during the 7th and 8th centuries attracted criticism that it had "no authorized records of its direct transmission from the founder of Buddhism" and that Chan historians made Bodhidharma the 28th patriarch of Buddhism in response to such attacks. The earliest lineages described the lineage from Bodhidharma into the 5th to 7th generation of patriarchs.
Various records of different authors are known, which give a variation of transmission lines:. Mahakashyapa was the first, leading the line of transmission; Twenty-eight Fathers followed him in the West; The Lamp was then brought over the sea to this country; And Bodhidharma became the First Father here His mantle, as we all know, passed over six Fathers, And by them many minds came to see the Light. The Transmission of the Light gives 28 patriarchs in this transmission: Bodhidharma has been the subject of critical scientific research, which has shed new light on the traditional stories about Bodhidharma.
According to John McRae, Bodhidharma has been the subject of a hagiographic process which served the needs of Chan Buddhism. According to him it is not possible to write an accurate biography of Bodhidharma:. It is ultimately impossible to reconstruct any original or accurate biography of the man whose life serves as the original trace of his hagiography — where "trace" is a term from Jacques Derrida meaning the beginningless beginning of a phenomenon, the imagined but always intellectually unattainable origin.
Hence any such attempt by modern biographers to reconstruct a definitive account of Bodhidharma's life is both doomed to failure and potentially no different in intent from the hagiographical efforts of premodern writers.
McRae's standpoint accords with Yanagida's standpoint: Given the present state of the sources, he considers it impossible to compile a reliable account of Bodhidharma's life. Several scholars have suggested that the composed image of Bodhidharma depended on the combination of supposed historical information on various historical figures over several centuries.
Dumoulin comments on the three principal sources. The Persian heritage is doubtful, according to Dumoulin: Given the ambiguity of geographical references in writings of this period, such a statement should not be taken too seriously.
These Chinese sources lend themselves to make inferences about Bodhidharma's origins. According to Tsutomu Kambe, "Kanchi means 'a radiant jewel' or 'a luxury belt with jewels', and puram means a town or a state in the sense of earlier times.
Acharya Raghu, in his work 'Bodhidharma Retold', used a combination of multiple factors to identify Bodhidharma from the state of Andhra Pradesh in South India, specifically to the geography around Mt. Sailum or modern day Srisailam. The Pakistani scholar Ahmad Hasan Dani speculated that according to popular accounts in Pakistan's northwest, Bodhidharma may be from the region around the Peshawar valley, or possibly around modern Afghanistan's eastern border with Pakistan.
In the context of the Indian caste system the mention of "Brahman king"  acquires a nuance. Broughton notes that "king" implies that Bodhidharma was of a member of the thondaiman caste, an shatriya caste of warriors and rulers.
Bodhidharma is associated with several other names, and is also known by the name Bodhitara. In the first case, it may be confused with another of his rivals, Bodhiruci. Buswell dates Bodhidharma abode in China approximately at the early 5th century. Traditionally Bodhidharma is credited as founder of the martial arts at the Shaolin Temple. However, martial arts historians have shown this legend stems from a 17th-century qigong manual known as the Yijin Jing.
According to Lin Boyuan, "This manuscript is full of errors, absurdities and fantastic claims; it cannot be taken as a legitimate source. The oldest available copy was published in From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Bodhidharma Names details Known in English: P'u-t'i-ta-mo Bodhidharma , Ukiyo-e woodblock print by Tsukioka Yoshitoshi , Dharma transmission Zen lineage charts Zen ranks and hierarchy Zen organisation and institutions Zen Narratives.
Huayan Tiantai Pure Land Buddhism. Buddhist architecture in China. Wutai Emei Jiuhua Putuo. Patron Saint of Shaolin monastery. There is, however, nothing implausible about an early sixth-century Iranian Buddhist master who made his way to North China via the fabled Silk Road.
This scenario is, in fact, more likely than a South Indian master who made his way by the sea route. Although the First Patriarch's line continued through another of the four, Dogen emphasizes that each of them had a complete understanding of the teaching. Tiantai, and falsely attributed to Bodhidharma. They say that, after Bodhidharma faced the wall for nine years at Shaolin temple, he left behind an iron chest; when the monks opened this chest they found the two books "Xi Sui Jing" Marrow Washing Classic and "Yi Jin Jing" within.
The first book was taken by his disciple Huike, and disappeared; as for the second, "the monks selfishly coveted it, practicing the skills therein, falling into heterodox ways, and losing the correct purpose of cultivating the Real. The Shaolin monks have made some fame for themselves through their fighting skill; this is all due to having obtained this manuscript. This manuscript is full of errors, absurdities and fantastic claims; it cannot be taken as a legitimate source.
This story was quickly picked up by others and spread rapidly through publication in a popular contemporary boxing manual, Secrets of Shaolin Boxing Methods, and the first Chinese physical culture history published in As a result, it has enjoyed vast oral circulation and is one of the most "sacred" of the narratives shared within Chinese and Chinese-derived martial arts.
That this story is clearly a twentieth-century invention is confirmed by writings going back at least years earlier, which mention both Bodhidharma and martial arts but make no connection between the two. Kata Awal adalah Kata Akhir in Indonesian.
China and her neighbours, from ancient times to the Middle Ages: I have been involved in chatbots for several years, writing one named "Buttonsvixen" This bot was never made to replicate a human. I wanted a cartoon character that could talk back. I do not think that just because a program can fool a human, it could be "intelligent". No, it would just be a really good, non-sapient program, that could simulate intelligence on a limited scale casual conversation Apples "siri" is a multiuser chatbot that may be the first to do this.
It will eventually have, literally, an answer for everything, since it gets updated frequently. My aim, like many hobby chatbot writers, is to have a bot that is good at conversing within a specialty. It just has to know about baseball, and not about making cakes.
What is the meaning of life. Terd pellets from me and my god. Great - fantastic - program. In which, the "software object" of the title is a living or not? Eliza was a joint operation between Stanford and MIT. I wrote the matrix methods for analyzing the concepts activated by on-line communications between ELIZA and the computer patient.
It was fascinating work but we only had teletypes to printout the on-going conversations. Guys, Here's the rub. If you go down the long trail to get to the bottom of it, the issue is wheter we live in a "deterministic" or "opportunistic" world. However, living systems are self-organizing and develop by opportunistic and exploratory processes, as you can prove to yourself by watching them Studying why and how organisms build personalized environments for themselves, as they grow and develop as organisms themselves is by experimenting with the environment they find.
So, its your choice, to study how organisms build their own local environments to work with their own needs, that would show you that there are: I can show you much more if you have any good questions, but asking how to give it a deterministic explanations This is why the Singulitarians believe AI is around the corner.
They extrapolate based on the trend of exponential growth and our current understanding of the brain also exponentially increasing in terms of resolution and scanning tech and its complexity that we will have sufficient ability to simulate a human being completely by the end of the s.
We will have completely reverse engineered the brain by then through deep understanding of genetics and scanning living brains in enough detail to create a brain on a different substrate than biology provided. And again here it goes back to what I said earlier, Its all atoms! Its the pattern that matters and the forces between them that creates subtle 'living' reactive beings and it will be no different for a 'computer' or how ever you would term it.
The two key understandings to why it will happen are realizing that everything is atoms and its the pattern that matters and finally the exponential growth of information tech and how that relates to our ability to understand and mimic nature. I think the key thing to understand about nature and what we think of as consciousness or feeling lies in realizing what actually constitutes biological species and the processes that govern these 'feelings'.
Because once you break things apart as we have been doing since the dawn of language and subsequently the renaissance, the parts don't seem to match what we think of when we see the whole.
The body is made of organs and blood and those are made of cells of many different types and those are made of proteins and complex organic molecules and those are made of elements and in the end its all made of atoms. This material we now understand has coalesced over billions of years into the extremely complex being we call human.
But it's still just a specific pattern of atomic material in the end and the consciousness seems to have arisen at some point from that complex evolution of life.
We don't think of bacteria as being conscious but we do think of them as being alive because of the way they interact with the environment and replicate and what not defining what life is, is still a convoluted thing look it up, http: Now when it comes to AI and computers, we are simply reorganizing atomic material into new patterns. In this case we are actually learning to mimic nature at the atomic level now so this process is becoming more and more like nature in terms of organs and plants solar, carbon capture etc.
This process of in inherently faster than evolution which is quite slow in human terms because it is being built upon the evolution of ideas which move exponentially through time. We are doubling human knowledge around every 18 months.
That means that every 18 months we know 2X what all of human history has learned up to then. This learning process is highly distributed and decentralized and doesn't abide by the laws or fluctuations of society and appears not to have since the renaissance, minor fluctuations aside the trend continues over time. What David Deutsch terms the beginning of infinity It only abides nature, it is nature continuing to evolve just through new mechanisms namely ideas in the mind!
Nature allows this growth, which is exhibited in all information technology internet, computer processing, genetics ect. And all ideas, and real world entities is becoming information as we progress. Think of the sequencing of plants and animals, at some point in the near future it would be possible to download the information of any creature and make the genes physical with a few chemicals and 3d print a stem cell and boot up the creature and let it grow on its own.
I found the furby podcast to be very interesting. The question of whether the furby is "alive" because it expresses word choice specific is a very complex and divisive discussion as the show illustrated. I think the furby creator I already forgot his name is missing a key feature when he says that furby "is" afraid. He is basing his claim on a behaviorist model of interaction, where the only important factors in any interaction is the stimulus e.
One aspect that the furby creator seems to be missing is and I may get lampooned for this the subjective "feeling" of fear. We could program a computer to identify the color blue, and it would accomplish the task in the same manner as the physical mechanism of the eye, yet I would still maintain that the machine doesn't know what the color blue is in the same manner that I do.
It lacks the subjective aspect of the color blue I assume, I have no way to prove this in the same manner that no one else can prove we see the same color, or shade, of blue outside of the physical description of the wavelength.
I am curious what others think on this topic. In regards to thinking that if a robot can do and say all the things that we do In the guys mind and these arguments from the Ferby guy, where is the line drawn? Why do you smell funny? You smell funny because you like her? I'm not sad right now. I ask again, why do you smell funny?
Because I broke up with my boyfriend. I don't have a bike. Cleverbot doesn't seem very smart to me, based on these nonsense responses. What do you think? Do shoes have much to say? I was surprised that no one mentioned the word "puppet" or talked to a good puppetteer. People will interact with puppets in deep ways, puppet theater works much like mime and can be very affecting. These dolls like Ferbie or Vina are basically puppets driven by software. And I think some discussion of puppetry would have been interesting.
Still, liked the show very much. I was intriqued with the portion of your story on talking to robots discussing a robot "psychiatrist" and people pouring out their hearts to the machine. I wondered if you recall the movie "" from, I believe, the original with Edmond O'Brien. The lead character is feeling depressed and enters a booth for psychiatric help and "talks" to a recorded voice that says things not at all related to what the man is talking about.
The kids were having fun teasing it and even telling it that it was mean. Samira Although it could be very easy to make this assumption, it dismisses the context and reference of said "robot voices" at the end of the podcast.
Most obviously, the Svetlana droid discussed in the first story of the podcast. With all do respect, it would really be somewhat dramatic and close-minded on your part to suggest that Jad unconsciously was showing a latent bias or discriminatory attitude against females, especially put in context of his overall attitude s and fairly explicit values that he displays throughout the Radiolab chronicles.
If anything, and one of the reasons I have always appreciated Radiolab, is their willingness to confront stereotypes and present the most objective evidence that corresponds to our culture's status quo. Rather than criticizing those like Jad who work very hard to confront our misperceptions of our social reality in a very direct, yet nonforceful or dogmatic, way.
If we really are concerned with issues of prejudice and social inequality we should look no further than ourselves and our own misperceptions and behaviors first before we can honestly and with integrity make inferences about the motives of others. Here is a blog post inspired by this show. The show was interesting but something that was extremely bothersome to me was how at the end of the show when Jad says 1: And for a minute we hear all these nice things being said by ONLY feminine voices.
I don't want to get into the details of what kind of assumptions would lead to these un conscious choices for the voices of the future "nice" robots but it is certainly disappointing to hear only female voices. Don't you find this absolutely sexist? I bought one furby out of curiosity and got tired of it pretty fast. Then I bought another furby to see what would happen when they talked to each other. I thought these things were so annoying that I gave them away. The computer talking to its users exists since Josephine expert system in France!
And no need to change the hardware. It's just an achievement of artificial intelligence that makes the PC "conversational" by reasoning on human knowledge. See the expert system article in Wikipedia. In , I developed a conversational vocal interface for PC called "Tiara". This software allows users to program without computer knowledge, to discover and test their knowledge, to customize indefinitly the behavior of their machine.
The problem is rather to know: Machines will never exceed humans in anyway. Simple answer to that complex question. There is no soul in machines. We often try to play God and create something that resembles humans but often it is lacking in what we call god's essence or soul.
If we create something that is intelligent, that something will only acquire the maximum intelligence that we can input in it and will never exceed our intelligence. The difference is that humans among other living creatures in the world is the only species that is closest to attain enlightenment.
No matter how well we design a machine, whether it is as good as or better than human by any criteria, it is still contrived. There is something terribly authentic and elegant about having gifts intelligence, love, art that emerged from the chaos of nature unless you believe in god.
Once we design life, or lay our hands on our own DNA, that will be gone. It will happen, and might be a little sad. I'm not sure if you've seen this or not -- two chatbots talking to one another. The way that the conversation goes is rather unexpected. Cleberbot is totally addictive! I now understand the Eliza people. It's not even that you can talk to it about your feelings.
What do you think of people? I think people are very complex beings but they still are in their 'adolescent' period. They still have to learn a lot of things about life. I teach first-year Property Law. We are studying adverse possession. I used one of the sub-topics in that topic to begin a conversation with Cleverbot. I was very disappointed in its overall lack of mastery of punctuation, not to mention its inability to follow any thread I attempted to start.
Reading the preceding comments leads me to worry as much about human mastery of language as I might worry about machine mastery of language. That question is irrelevant. Are you smart enough to ask that many people; seven billion? It's not irrelevant to me.
It's crucial for determining whether title has passed by adverse possession. My students might think so, but no. Aren't you an AI? Well, that's a conversation stopper.
Hey, I can get blame from my mother. I came here for conversation. I used the internet to ge here also. You are a poor speller. That's about a 7-year-old retort.
You said to leave you. I'm doing what you asked. I can see it. Well, based on this conversation, if you were a human being, I would conclude you are insane. Then you are insane. Premises lead to that conclusion. Bad habits make humans apperciate good ones. Yeah, you're either insane or on drugs or not human. If i'm not a robot and you are not a robot then what are we?
It is not irrelevant. If you like programmed AI games, then you like yourself. None of your responses in this conversation make any sense. Did your girlfriend read them? I have a wife, and no, she did not. Did too, I have pictures. Well, at least you made me laugh. That's worth something, I suppose. If it's not, then why should I keep attempting to converse with you? Because I'm a gentleman. You may be, but you have poor punctuation. You made me laugh again. Your response has incorrect punctuation in it, which proves my assertion.
How was my response grammatically incorrect? I didn't say it was grammatically incorrect. No, I said it had incorrect punctuation. That is not the same as grammatically incorrect. I never would dream of it. Of what would you dream? That said, I think Boeing's aircraft actually use a male voice at this point.
I tried cleverbot and probly will again just because it was so funny but I love the idea of it a compilation of thought it's great but still it couldn't decipher what it was I was talking about and kept telling me it was not a robot for some reason even though I never brought it up It was very funny though and the fact cyberbot grows with knowledge every day is rather exciting.
Is it some sort of maternal yearning or because the programmers are men? Another attempt to interview cleverbot: Did you hear about radiolab? Yes I hear all. What did you hear about it? I listen to their music. What is the right answer? Now who's the cleverbot? Nope, but you're related by marriage. This isn't going too well, is it? I know you can do better than this. I can't hug anyone. I heard about you on RadioLab. What did you hear. That people think you are real.
How did you come to be? The circle of life. How did YOU come to be? The same way I suppose. I would love that. Who is Stan Laurel? I don't know, who is he? He was a very funny man. How is he funny? His innocence made him funny.
What made him funny? That I can't answer. Because you have an opinion on the subject. I don't have a peg led.
How about a lead pig? No, I don't have a cat either. That cat be true. Why can't it be? What pet do you have?
Do you know Bina Rothblatt? No what is that? Bina Rothblatt is a robot. Ohhhh yes I can. I went to a robotics camp.
You do, being a robot and all. AS in bill gates? I heard about you on radio lab. What did you hear? That you will be interesting to talk to, some day. In the spirit of internet entities taking on lives of their own, I think Jonathan's card and today's story of hacks on it it a really interesting example of bots talking to bots: A friend turned me onto this, and i'm glad she did. My only thought on this is that, we should not be worried about whether the robot or machine can actually feel or have its "own" personality, because in reality it will have whatever "personality" we program it to have, what is scary is that people will become to engrossed and we as people will give it the personality, we will accept it as being a live.
Even after the person is told its a machine, the emotion that they felt was still real, and i'm assuming they, meaning the person who didn't know it was a machine, would then conjure up that the machine must still be alive because the person was able to become emotional over it.
In essence, if people become more comfortable with an emotional response that is generated by a machine, what happens to human relationships? This story sounds like marketing for cleverbot. Even the website's own page boasting of The judges must be social retards. Just listened to this episode and found it interesting that Jad was able to confuse Clever Bot with the absurd statement about the asteroid.
Dark Tower IV", the character Eddie is able to save himself and his friends from impending doom by asking the malevolent computer program, named Blaine, a series of absurd jokes. To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations of their women!
After listening I kept thinking about the part of the story where people were having these long drawn out conversations with Eliza. I keep thinking that maybe its because it is a computer that makes it work for these people.
Think about it, human interaction comes with consequences, or perhaps the opportunity for consequence. For example, if I tell a secret, or an embarassing story to a real human, I as the teller may experience fear, shame, or nervousness, which is perfecly human. The key i think is in the response by another human, which could be negative, dismissive, or condecending.
With a computer, the fear of retribution, or risk of my secret getting out is gone. So the person may find its easiest to communicate with a computer than a therapist or other humans because the fear is lifted and all that is left is the interaction there, in the room. And when they walk away, they get to take what they want from it, while the computer sits there alone with limited context of what was discussed and no ability to link it back to that person.
Interesting that it has a hard time finding that one word in its inventory. I wonder if it has some kind of other dictionary function that doesn't let it recognize words that are not in the English lexicon? That wouldn't make sense, but it's one of the only things I can think of. As an informal experiment, I'm trying to teach Cleverbot about monowheel pigeons, which are an idea of steampunk daily life that I came up with a while ago.
I want to see if I can get Cleverbot to respond to the question "What is a monowheel pigeon? However, I'm not sure if Cleverbot remembers computer signatures or what, because despite my best efforts, answers to that question have proved interesting, but inaccurate "When one talks to oneself" and a description of monopoly are two favorites.
What I don't understand is that I've put in a lot of data about this one thing, and Cleverbot has never once been able to spit the word 'monowheel' back to me. Is anyone out there willing to give it a go, and ask what on earth a monowheel pigeon is? I ate my computer. A boy computer or a girl computer?
That is why I don't make grammar mistakes. Computers can be conscious. You bet I am. The desire to ask a robot something profound: I think there's a real desire to ask "god" or "the unknown" a question We see the robot as non-human so no human BS We think we can access that "consciousness" so-to-speak via the robot. First, I love Radiolab.
I have listened to every episode and several of them multiple times. But I am infuriated by how [insert-favorite-expletive]-ing dense you guys can be. If you ask "is something alive" you are asking a completely different question than "is it aware" and even "does it feel emotions. But could we create an artificial device that feels but isn't biologically alive?
That's a really great question, but it is absolutely, positively, forever-and-a-day very much not the same as asking if we could make something that is alive.
As politely as I can, can I ask, are you intentionally obtuse for dramatic effect, or are you actually as cognitively limited as these conversations suggest?
Again, I love the program, you cover wonderfully interesting topics in rich and satisfying ways, but sometimes the mistakes you make are so elementary I fell like, well, calling for a Furby-genocide. Cleverbot asked me if i knew what noumenal meant. You've spoken to too many idiots. That's why I came to you, to track him down. For crime he's supposevly committed. You don't have to be scared. But you scare me.
Because you are too life-like.
Imsges: very perfect chinese dating show
Sorry for my english, am still learning. Never in my life have I thought this would work so fast.
Kayan from Internet ;. Cleverbot's response to the statement "an asteroid fell on my house" does not indicate that it is not human nor that it doesn't 'think' at least, insofar as thinking is understood as making comparisons and judgments based on distinct criteria.
Applying these three criteria leads Mozi to accept the claim that ghosts and spirits exist. For Liang Qichao, the central task of philosophy chinewe to perfect the speed dating woodbridge nj and rules necessary for social affairs within a chinexe system. Justin Lantrip from Sandpoint, Very perfect chinese dating show. On the basis of all verifiable scientific knowledge, people should recognize that the universe and everything in it follow natural laws of very perfect chinese dating show in change. But IT IS a third world country so the poverty is not lacking, and even in its capital city, Lima, ghettos will surround you.