Jiri Jelinek wrote:
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 ;-)
Hey, no problem, but I'm now embarrassed and in an awkward position,
because I am literally trying to do that. I am trying to sort the
problem out once and for all. I am finishing it for submission to
AGI-09, so it will be done, ready or not, by the end of today.
This is something I started as a student essay in 1986, but I have been
trying to nail down a testable prediction that can be applied today,
rather than in 20 years time. I do have testable predictions, but not
ones that can be tested today, alas.
As for the question about definitions, sure, it is true that the rules
are not cut in stone for how to do it. It's just that consciousness is
a rats nest of conflicting definitions ....
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
