Richard, >Everything you say from this point on seems to be predicated on the idea that >a person can *choose* to define it any way they want
There are some good-to-stick-with rules for definitions http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definition#Rules_for_definition_by_genus_and_differentia but (even though it's not desirable) in some cases it's IMO ok for researchers to use a bit different definitions. If you can give us the *ultimate* definition of consciousness then I would certainly be interested. I promise I'll not ask for the ultimate cross-domain definition of every single word used in that definition ;-) Regards, Jiri On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Jiri Jelinek wrote: >> >> On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:41 AM, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >> wrote: >>> >>> is it really necessary for an AGI to be conscious? >> >> Depends on how you define it. > > Hmmmm.... interesting angle. Everything you say from this point on seems to > be predicated on the idea that a person can *choose* to define it any way > they want, and then run with their definition. > > I notice that this is not possible with any other scientific concept - we > don't just define an electron as "Your Plastic Pal Who's Fun To Be With" and > then start drawing conclusions. > > The same is true of "consciousness". > > > > Richard Loosemore ------------------------------------------- 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
