Jochen,
Thanks for your kind response.
Your question churns my head. I was keen to argue that intentionality is a
property not only of thinking things but of any biological thing. But I
never imagined that intentionality could be used as a criterion of
vitality. I do believe that every living system displays intentionality,
but I now have to think about whether I think that all intentional systems
are living. I guess NOT. However, my reasons for holding this belief are
probably robotophobic.
Nick
PS My first response to your question was to write the following 100
words of baffle-gab, like the good academic I am. It might be marginally
interesting in and off itself, but it didnt seem to answer your question.
I had put too much effort into it to throw it away, so I stuck it below.
Feel free to ignore it.
BEGIN BAFFLEGAB =======================================================
Intentionality is one of those words that leads to endless confusion. It
can refer to having an intention or it can refer to a peculiar propert to
assertions containing verbs of mentation, wanting, thinking, feeling, etc.
The sentence, "Jones's intention was that the books be placed on the table"
is intentional in both senses: intentional in sense one because it tells us
something about what Jones is up to, and intentional in the second sense
because it displays the odd property of referential opacity. Unlike the
statement "the books are on the table" , the statement about Jones's
intentions cannot be verified nor disconfirmed by gathering information
about the location of the books.
The two are intimately connected. Any statement one makes about the
intentions of others in sense one is inevitably an intensional utterance in
sense two because the truth value of the statement lies in the organization
of Jones's behavior, rather than whether Jones's intention is ever
fulfilled.
It was in this second, perhaps strained, philosophic sense, that I think
the cue relation is necessarily intentional. When we say that C is a cue
to X, we mean that from the point of view of the system we are interested
in, C stands in for X. ("In the Human respiratory system, Blood acidity
is a cue for blood oxygenation") To the extent that robots use cues, they
MUST be intentional in this sense.
===========================================================
end BAFFLEGAB.
Nicholas Thompson
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson
> [Original Message]
> From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: <friam@redfish.com>
> Date: 7/14/2006 12:00:29 PM
> Subject: Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 17
>
> Send Friam mailing list submissions to
> friam@redfish.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Friam digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: 100 billion neurons (George Duncan)
> 2. Re: 100 billion neurons (Jim Rutt)
> 3. Re: 100 billion neurons (Frank Wimberly)
> 4. Intentionality - the mark of the vital (Jochen Fromm)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 10:38:47 -0600
> From: "George Duncan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> To: "The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group"
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID:
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Shall this conversation be neuronic rather than neurotic?
>
> Or try this
> http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=17164&ch=infotech
>
>
> On 7/13/06, Giles Bowkett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > I'm inclined to agree. The model I use is nonlinear fluid dynamics.
> > Say you've got a thought which you began thinking when you were young.
> > That thought is a fluid in motion. Over the course of your life you
> > revisit certain ideas and revise certain opinions. The motion
> > continues for decades. The way you think is like an information
> > processing system which evolves over the course of your life, and it's
> > true enough to call that software, not hardware, but the flow of data
> > through that system is entirely organic, and creating an exact copy of
> > a given flow in nonlinear fluid dynamics is impossible. The structure
> > of your mode of thinking -- your "software" -- is shaped tremendously
> > by the things that you think about; therefore replicating the
> > processor without replicating the data can only be of partial
> > usefulness, if the processor is shaped by and for the data. It's like
> > copying a river by duplicating exactly every last rock and pebble, but
> > leaving out the water.
> >
> > On 7/10/06, Frank Wimberly <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the
> > > Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon. Over a period of a couple of
> > > years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize
> > > consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine,
> > > etc. I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred
from
> > > my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that
> > > everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I
> > > would be gone. Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am
> > > software not hardware. After many arguments along these lines I said,
> > > "Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying
about
> > > consciousness--you don't have it." This was all in good humor and
later
> > > when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to
> > > continue our debate in class. A good time was had by all, I hope.
> > >
> > > Frank
> > >
> > > ---
> > > Frank C. Wimberly
> > > 140 Calle Ojo Feliz (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918
(cell)
> > > Santa Fe, NM 87505 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> > > Behalf Of Martin C. Martin
> > > Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM
> > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> > >
> > > I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books:
> > >
> > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187
> > > http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306
> > >
> > > He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to
> > > calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget
> > > the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very
> > > interesting consequences of this.
> > >
> > > - Martin
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> > >
> > > ============================================================
> > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Giles Bowkett
> > http://www.gilesgoatboy.org
> >
> > ============================================================
> > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
> George T. Duncan
> Professor of Statistics
> Heinz School of Public Policy and Management
> Carnegie Mellon University
> Pittsburgh, PA 15213
> (412) 268-2172
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060713/bcb8105c/attachment-0001.h
tml
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 16:57:49 -0600
> From: Jim Rutt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> as an interesting argument that the old hardware/software argument about
> consciousness is often malformed, take a look see at:
>
>
>
> Damasio, Antonio: _The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the
> Making of
> Consciousness_
>
>
>
>
> At 07:30 AM 7/10/2006, you wrote:
> >Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the
> >Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon. Over a period of a couple of
> >years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize
> >consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine,
> >etc. I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred from
> >my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that
> >everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I
> >would be gone. Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am
> >software not hardware. After many arguments along these lines I said,
> >"Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying about
> >consciousness--you don't have it." This was all in good humor and later
> >when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to
> >continue our debate in class. A good time was had by all, I hope.
> >
> >Frank
> >
> >---
> >Frank C. Wimberly
> >140 Calle Ojo Feliz (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell)
> >Santa Fe, NM 87505 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> >Behalf Of Martin C. Martin
> >Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM
> >To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> >Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> >
> >I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books:
> >
> >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187
> >http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306
> >
> >He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to
> >calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer." I forget
> >the date, but it's not far. He also talks about a number of very
> >interesting consequences of this.
> >
> >- Martin
> >
> >============================================================
> >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> >
> >
> >============================================================
> >FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> >Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> >lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
> ===================================
> Jim Rutt
> voice: 505-989-1115
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20060713/3f05e21d/attachment-0001.h
tml
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 18:59:23 -0600
> From: "Frank Wimberly" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> At the risk of being neurotic, here is link to a review of Damasio's
> book:
>
> http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/1999/09/21/damasio/index.html
>
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz??????????????(505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell)
> Santa Fe, NM [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Jim Rutt
> Sent: Thursday, July 13, 2006 4:58 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
>
> as an interesting argument that the old hardware/software argument about
> consciousness is often malformed, take a look see at:
>
>
>
> Damasio, Antonio: _The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the
> Making of
> Consciousness_
>
> ?
>
>
> At 07:30 AM 7/10/2006, you wrote:
>
> Back in the 1980's Hans and I had offices next to each other in the
> Robotics Institute at Carnegie Mellon.? Over a period of a couple of
> years we had numerous arguments about whether machines could realize
> consciousness; whether a human mind could be transferred to a machine,
> etc.? I remember saying that if somehow my "mind" were transferred from
> my body to some robot--which I felt was impossible--it might be that
> everyone else would agree that it was a remarkable likeness but that I
> would be gone.? Hans replied that I undervalued myself--that I am
> software not hardware.? After many arguments along these lines I said,
> "Hans, I now understand why you don't understand what I am saying about
> consciousness--you don't have it."? This was all in good humor and later
> when I was teaching a course in AI to MBA students I invited Hans to
> continue our debate in class.? A good time was had by all, I hope.
>
> Frank
>
> ---
> Frank C. Wimberly
> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz????????????? (505) 995-8715 or (505) 670-9918 (cell)
> Santa Fe, NM 87505?????????? [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [ mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
> Behalf Of Martin C. Martin
> Sent: Saturday, July 08, 2006 7:16 PM
> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group
> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] 100 billion neurons
>
> I suspect you'd like Hans Moravec's books:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0674576187
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195136306
>
> He uses Moore's law and estimates of the brain's computing power to
> calculate when we'll have human equivalence in "a computer."? I forget
> the date, but it's not far.? He also talks about a number of very
> interesting consequences of this.
>
> - Martin
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
>
>
> ============================================================
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
> ===================================
> Jim Rutt
> voice:? 505-989-1115??
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 14 Jul 2006 09:42:14 +0200
> From: "Jochen Fromm" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: [FRIAM] Intentionality - the mark of the vital
> To: "'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'"
> <friam@redfish.com>
> Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> I have finally read the article "Intentionality is
> the mark of the vital". It contains interesting
> remarks about the mind/body problem, about the
> relationship between mental and material "substance",
> and nice illustrations (for example about lions and gnus).
> Well written.
>
> If "intentionality is the mark of the vital",
> are artificial agents with intentions the first
> step towards vital, living systems ? Agents are
> of course used in artificial life, but in the
> context of the article the question seems to
> gain new importance.
>
> -J.
> ________________________________
>
> From: Nicholas Thompson
> Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 3:20 AM
> To: friam@redfish.com
> Subject: [FRIAM] self-consciousness
>
> For those rare few of you that are INTENSELY interested by the recent
> discussion on self consciousness, here is a paper on the subject which
> asserts that every organism must have a point of view.
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/id14.html
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Friam mailing list
> Friam@redfish.com
> http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
>
>
> End of Friam Digest, Vol 37, Issue 17
> *************************************
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
