Reality check ***
Consciousness is an emergent spectrum of subjectivity spanning 600 mill.
years of
evolution involving mega-trillions of competing organisms, probably
selecting
for obscure quantum effects/efficiencies....
Our puny engineering/coding efforts could never approach this - not even in
a million years.
An outwardly pragmatic language simulation, however, is very do-able.
John LaMuth
www.forebrain.org
www.emotionchip.net
----- Original Message -----
From: "Richard Loosemore" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, November 11, 2008 8:31 AM
Subject: Re: [agi] Ethics of computer-based cognitive experimentation
Mark Waser wrote:
An understanding of what consciousness actually is, for
starters.
It is a belief.
No it is not.
And that statement ("It is a belief") is a cop-out theory.
An "understanding" of what consciousness is requires a consensus
definition of what it is.
For most people, it seems to be an undifferentiated mess that includes
all of attentional components, intentional components, understanding
components, and, frequently, experiential components (i.e. qualia).
This mess was cleaned up a great deal when Chalmers took the simple step
of dividing it into the 'easy' problems and the hard problem (which is the
last one on your list). The easy problems do not have any philosophical
depth to them; the hard problem seems to be a philosophical chasm.
You are *very* correct to say that "An 'understanding' of what
consciousness is requires a consensus definition of what it is." My goal
is to get a consensus definition, which then contains within it the
explanation also. But, yes, if my explanation does not also include a
definition that satisfies everyone as a good consensus definition, then it
does not work.
That is why Matt's "it is a belief" is not an explanation: it leaves so
many questions unanswered that it will never make it as a consensus
definition/explanation.
We will see. My paper on the subject is almost finished.
Richard Loosemore
If you only buy into the first three and do it in a very concrete
fashion, consciousness (and ethics) isn't all that tough.
Or you can follow Alice and star debating the "real" meaning of the third
and whether or not the truly fourth exists in anyone except yourself.
Personally, if something has a will (intentionality/goals) that it can
focus effectively (attentional and understanding), I figure that you'd
better start treating it ethically for your own long-term self-interest.
Of course, that then begs the question of what ethics is . . . . but I
think that that is pretty easy to solve as well . . . .
-------------------------------------------
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/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
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=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
