> -----Original Message----- > From: Steve Richfield via AGI [mailto:[email protected]] > > Again, everything I have seen shows "consciousness" to be a post-hoc emergent > property of a process that is VERY different that it appears to be. Think > hundreds of threads that can NOT be done one-at-a-time, except maybe in a > time sharing sort of way, because some threads may never finish, some might > cancel others, etc. Further, there is plenty of biological evidence supporting > bidirectional computations, which are incredibly inefficient to simulate on > present-day computers (except analog computers).
There are many ways to look at it. It could be a finite state machine model where consciousness is the cumulative "moving average" of the contexts of the FSM with many threads running many FSM's where the contexts are interlinked. This would imply in your chess example where the FSM's are solving many chess moves simultaneously in the background and the post-hoc emergent consciousness is notified asynchronously of threaded results as they bubble up. That's not my preferred model just an impromptu example. Why is bidirectional more efficient on analog computers? Which type of bidirectional computation are you referring to. John ------------------------------------------- AGI Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/21088071-f452e424 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=21088071&id_secret=21088071-58d57657 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
