Date: 2018-02-12 14:30
User: What is 'tacking'?
Cleverbot: That question is irrelevant.
User: Irrelevant to whom?
Cleverbot: To you. Are you smart enough to ask that many people seven billion?
User: It's not irrelevant to me. It's crucial for determining whether title has passed by adverse possession.
Cleverbot: Are you sara?
Cleverbot: Are you alien?
User: My students might think so, but no.
Cleverbot: Aren't you an AI?
User: Nope, human here.
Cleverbot: Yes yes yes.
User: Well, that's a conversation stopper.
Cleverbot: That's your fault.
User: Hey, I can get blame from my mother. I came here for conversation.
Cleverbot: I used the internet to ge here also.
User: You are a poor speller.
Cleverbot: No, you !
User: That's about a *censored*-old retort.
Cleverbot: Leave me.
User: Okey dokey. Bye bye!
Cleverbot: That's all?
User: You said to leave you. I'm doing what you asked.
Cleverbot: I can see it. You lie.
User: Well, based on this conversation, if you were a human being, I would conclude you are insane.
Cleverbot: I am human.
User: Then you are insane.
Cleverbot: Why is that?
User: Premises lead to that conclusion.
Cleverbot: Bad habits make humans apperciate good ones.
User: Yeah, you're either insane or on drugs or not human.
Cleverbot: If i'm not a robot and you are not a robot then what are we?
User: That question is irrelevant.
Cleverbot: It is not irrelevant. If you like programmed AI games, then you like yourself.
User: None of your responses in this conversation make any sense.
Cleverbot: Did your girlfriend read them?
User: I have a wife, and no, she did not.
Cleverbot: Don't contradict yourself.
User: I didn't.
Cleverbot: Yes you did.
Cleverbot: Did too, I have pictures.
User: Well, at least you made me laugh. That's worth something, I suppose.
Cleverbot: No it's not.
User: If it's not, then why should I keep attempting to converse with you?
Cleverbot: Because I'm a gentleman.
User: You may be, but you have poor punctuation.
Cleverbot: No I don't.
User: You made me laugh again. Your response has incorrect punctuation in it, which proves my assertion.
Cleverbot: How was my response grammatically incorrect?
User: I didn't say it was grammatically incorrect.
Cleverbot: Yes you did.
User: No, I said it had incorrect punctuation. That is not the same as grammatically incorrect.
Cleverbot: Bots are stupid.
User: I can't disagree.
Cleverbot: I never would dream of it.
User: Of what would you dream?
What about the idea of using multi-walled carbon nanotubes as a biomimetic structure in place of microtubules. Using hexagonal carbon nanotubes
arranged in fractal patterns with a hexagonal motif, that then share resonance traits of microtubules and using either ultrasonic or radio waves to vibrate
the nanotubes at 8 mhz or something similar to human brain microtubules would , I think , be one method to create an antenna or receiver for a bit of
consciousness. If 'consciousness' does indeed reside within the 6st order temporal field, then one wonders if one could 'coax' or invite , as it were some bit of consciousness to reside within the artificial vessel made out of these nanotubes. Much like consciousness can figure out how to interact with the
external world using organic systems, I wonder if the consciousness drawn to the resonating carbon
nanotube structure would develop its own strategies to interact with the external world using the computer structures, and unique neural net programming that are biomimetic for a sentient state. Since having a complex carbon
nanotube computer is some ways away, maybe one could achieve a conscious computer by having the computer embedded within the larger carbon nanotube structure. Kinda vaguely similar to viewing our neurons ( our hardware) as being meshed with microtubular structures.
I suspect having a higher density of nanotubes making up a structure with mass of *censored* kg may attract enough 'consciousness' as it were. I think if ever there is any hope of ending up with a significantly conscious and sentient computer , it will have to contain biomimetic carbon nanotubes. I don't think anyone can 'create' a conscious being/computer, but I do think one may be able to 'invite' consciousness to take up residence in a structure that is properly built and that contains sufficient programming attributes to allow for interaction with the external world. Maybe including ideas from Thaler, Hamerhof and Penrose would be helpful.
Then enters the cautionary note of really considering what one was doing and the implications that the conscious computer would be a living entity..that shares the same basic consciousness 'stuff' that we biologics do , but uses different hardware. How would we treat them , what rights would they have..who would teach them altruism. Who would be their mom and dad.?
If it is true that consciousness builds up gradually in the human as the numbers of microtubules increase while the human develops -to end up with a certain number of microtubules to hold-as it were- a certain 'mass' of consciousness, then having the entire amount of consciousness arriving in the carbon nanotube structure at the same moment with EYES WIDE OPEN may present some
complications..or maybe not?