> From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > John wrote: > A rock is either conscious or not conscious. > > Excluding the middle, are we? >
Conscious, not conscious or null? > I don't want to put words into Ben & company's mouths, but I think what > they are trying to do with PLN is to implement a system that expressly > *includes the middle*. In theory (but not necessarily in practice) the > clue to creating the first intelligent machine may be to *exclude the > ends*! Scottish philosopher and economist David Hume argued way back in > the 18th century that all knowledge is based on past observation. > Because of this, we can never be 100% certain of *anything*. While Hume > didn't put it in such terms, as I understand his thinking, it comes down > to "*everything* is a probability" or "all knowledge is fuzzy > knowledge." There is no such thing as 0. There is no such thing as 1. > > For example, let's say you are sitting at a table holding a pencil in > your hand. In the past, every time you let go of the pencil in this > situation (or a similar situation), it dropped to the table. The cause > and effect for this behavior is so well documented that we call the > underlying principal the *law* of gravity. But, even so, can you say > with probability 1.0 that the *next* time you let go of that pencil in a > similar situation that it will, in fact, drop to the table? Hume said > you can't. As those ads for stock brokerage firms on TV always say in > their disclaimers, "Past performance is no guarantee of future > performance." > > Of course, we are constantly "predicting" the future based on our > knowledge of past events (or others' knowledge of past events which we > have learned and believe to be correct). I will, for instance, give you > very favorable odds if you are willing to bet against the pencil hitting > the table when dropped. Unless you enjoy living life on the edge, your > predictions won't stray very far from past experiences (or learned > knowledge about past experiences). But, in the end, it's all > probability and fuzziness. It is all belief, baby. Yes Hume and Kant actually were making contributions to AGI but didn't' know it. Although I suppose at the time there imaginations where rich and varied enough to where those possibilities were not totally unthinkable. > > Regarding the issue of consciousness and the rock, there are several > possible scenarios to consider here. First, the rock may be conscious > but only in a way that can be understood by other rocks. The rock may > be conscious but it is unable to communicate with humans (and vice > versa) so we assume it's not conscious. The rock is truly conscious and > it thinks we're not conscious so it pretends to be just like it thinks > we are and, as a result, we're tricked into thinking it's not > conscious. Finally, if a rock falls in the forest, does it make a > sound? Consciousness may require at least two actors. Think about it. > What good would consciousness do you if there was no one else around to > appreciate it? Would you, in that case, in fact be conscious? > > Most humans will treat a rock as if it were not conscious because, in > the past, that assumption has proven to be efficacious for predictions > involving rocks. I know of no instance where someone was able to talk a > rock that was in the process of falling on him or her to change > direction by appealing to the rock, one conscious entity to another. > And maybe they should have. There is, after all, based on past > experience, only a 0.9995 probability that a rock is not conscious. > Actually on further thought about this conscious rock, I want to take that particular rock and put it through some further tests to absolutely verify with a high degree of confidence that there may not be some trace amount of consciousness lurking inside. So the tests that I would conduct are - Verify the rock is in a solid state at close to absolute zero but not at absolute zero. The rock is not in the presence of a high frequency electromagnetic field. The rock is not in the presence of high frequency physical vibrational interactions. The rock is not in the presence of sonic vibrations. The rock is not in the presence of subatomic particle bombardment, radiation, or being hit by a microscopic black hole. The rock is not made of nano-robotic material. The rock is not an advanced, non-human derived, computer. The rock contains minimal metal content. The rock does not contain holograms. The rock does not contain electrostatic echoes. The rock is a solid, spherical structure, with no worm holes :) The rock... You see what I'm getting at. In order to be 100% sure. Any failed tests of the above would require further scientific analysis and investigation to achieve proper non-conscious certification. 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
