IMO
your third option is the closest to being correct..
"Qualia" and "information processing" are different perspectives on the
same underlying reality.
-- Ben
G
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Philip Sutton
Sent: Wednesday, January 26, 2005 10:47 AM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] What are qualia...Hi Brad> This is not at all true. I could design a neural network, or perhaps even> symbolic computer program that can evaluate the attractivenes of a peacock> tail and tune it to behave in a similar fashion as that tiny portion of a> real peacock's brain. Does this crude simulation contain qualia?I think you reversed my logic.I'm sure that a relatively simply AI system could be devised to emulate a peacock's identification of fancy tails. But my guess is that no sense of qualia would be involved for the simple AI system. But I wouldn't mind betting that real peacocks perceive something like what we call qualia - and my expectation is that this sensation plays a part in peacock breeding behaviour.My real interest is in why brains have evolved to produce sensations that can be described as qualia - when at first analysis this sensation doesn't appear to be necessary for intelligent behaviour to occur.The options seem to me to be that qualia :o are not necessary and come free as an accidental byproduct; oro are not necessary but come as a desired byproduct that has gotimplicated in gene replication and hence has been propagated andenhanced; oro are the logical result of advanced subjective information processingin a setting of limited computational power.Cheers, Philip
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, change your address, or temporarily deactivate your subscription, please go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/[EMAIL PROTECTED]