On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 4:48 PM, Colin Hales <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you have to be exposed directly to all the actual novelty in the natural > world, not the novelty > recognised by a model of what novelty is. Consciousness (P-consciousness and > specifically and importantly visual P-consciousness) is the mechanism by > which novelty in the actual DISTANT natural world is made apparent to the > agent. Symbolic grounding in Qualia NOT I/O. You do not get that information > through your retina data. You get it from occipital visual P-consciousness. > The Turing machine abstracts the mechanism of access to the distal natural > world ....and hence has to be informed by a model, which you don't have...
Wow. I know I don't know what "P-consciousness" is.. and clearly I must not no what "Qualia" is.. The capital must change the meaning from the normal definition. But basically I think you have to come out right now and say what your philosophy of reality is. If your complaint is that a robot senses are not as rich or as complex as a human senses and therefore an AI hooked up to robot senses cannot possibly have the same qualia as humans then can you *stipulate for the sake of argument* that it may be possible to supply human senses to an AI so that it does have the same qualia? Or are you saying that there's some mystical magical thing about humans that makes it impossible for an AI to have the same qualia. And if you're not happy with the idea of an AI having the same qualia as humans, then surely you're willing to agree that a human that was born wired into solely robot senses (suppose its for humanitarian reasons, rather than just nazi doctors having fun if you like) would have fundamentally different qualia. You believe this human would not "produce an original scientific act on the a-priori unknown" - whatever that means - or does the fact that this evil human-robot hybrid is somehow half human give it a personal blessing from God? Trent - suggesting that maybe this list is still not flammable enough. -- and maybe there's a point where philosophical argument descends into incoherent babble with no chance of ever developing into a-priori unknown original scientific truths. ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=117534816-b15a34 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
