> From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > you utterly refused to answer my question re: what is your model? It's > not a > hard question to start answering - i.e. either you do have some kind of > model or you don't. You simply avoided it. Again.
I have some models that I feel confident that would work yet they are basically insectoidal level consciousness. When I get to more sophisticated models the confidence that I have in them is not enough and the system is difficult to test just by thinking about it, and they are incomplete. So... still working on that. But I do have higher level intelligence models that I am confident in. > And a major point I'm making is that - everyone is doing that. Everyone > is > picking some very limited aspect of consciousness that is important to > them - "experience", "qualia," "self-consciousness." And no one has or > is > offering a model of the whole. > I haven't read up enough on other models to concur on this. > But we can and must produce a model and point to what we're talking > about. > > Here is someone who is conscious: > > http://www.bized.co.uk/images/man_remote.jpg > > We can observe consciousness from the outside with such a picture (or > better > still clip) - and point to those parts of him that are conscious and how > and > what parts of him like nerves, produce that consciousness . > > And we can model his consciousness from the inside: > > http://electrojusa.iespana.es/images/philips_25pt_7304_television__47429 > .jpg > http://www.engadgetmobile.com/media/2007/01/sch-u620-hands-on-2.jpg > > what he's seeing and hearing etc. > > A properly defined model - including my movie model - should include all > those things. > When you describe this you have to be careful how much computation your mind is doing and taking for granted. You make many assumptions just by looking at the pic and saying these are signs that this man is conscious. And saying that a handheld TV is some sort of model, ya that's making massive assumptions and shortcuts to the point of assuming that 99% of your model already exists where it doesn't; you're just pointing at data feeds and neglecting numerous other details which are the most important. John ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
