Robert Swaine wrote:
Conciousness is akin to the phlogiston theory in chemistry. It is likely a
shadow concept, similar to how the bodily reactions make us feel that the heart
is the seat of emotions. Gladly, cardiologist and heart surgeons do not look
for a spirit, a soul, or kindness in the heart muscle. The brain organ need
not contain anything beyond the means to effect physical behavior,.. and
feedback as to those behavior.
This isn't clear. Certainly some definitions of consciousness fit this
analysis, but the term is generally so loosely defined that unlike
phlogiston it probably can't be disproven.
OTOH, it seems to me quite likely that there are, or at least can be,
definitions of consciousness which fit within the common definition of
consciousness and are also reasonably accurate. And testable. (I
haven't reviewed Richard Loosemore's recent paper. Perhaps it is one of
these.)
A finite degree of sensory awareness serves as a suitable replacement for
consciousness, in otherwords, just feedback.
To an extent I agree with you. I have in the past argued that a
thermostat is minimally conscious. But please note the *minimally*.
Feedback cannot, by itself, progress beyond that minimal state. Just
what else is required is very interesting. (The people who refuse to
call thermostats minimally conscious merely have stricter minimal
requirements for consciousness. We don't disagree about how a
thermostat behaves.)
Would it really make a difference if we were all biological machines, and our perceptions
were the same as other animals, or other "designed" minds; more so if we were
in a simulated existence. The search for consciousness is a misleading (though not
entirely fruitless) path to AGI.
??? We *are* biological machines. So what? And our perceptions are
basically the same as those of other animals. This doesn't make sense
as an argument, unless you are presuming that other animals aren't
conscious, which flys in the face of most recent research on the
subject. (I'm not sure that they've demonstrated consciousness in
bacteria, but they have demonstrated that they are trainable. Whether
they are conscious, then, is probably an artifact of your definition.)
--- On Fri, 11/14/08, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [agi] A paper that actually does solve the problem of consciousness
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Date: Friday, November 14, 2008, 12:27 PM
I completed the first draft of a technical paper on
consciousness the
other day. It is intended for the AGI-09 conference, and
it can be
found at:
http://susaro.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/draft_consciousness_rpwl.pdf
The title is "Consciousness in Human and Machine: A
Theory and Some
Falsifiable Predictions", and it does solve the
problem, believe it or not.
But I have no illusions: it will be misunderstood, at the
very least.
I expect there will be plenty of people who argue that it
does not solve
the problem, but I don't really care, because I think
history will
eventually show that this is indeed the right answer. It
gives a
satisfying answer to all the outstanding questions and it
feels right.
Oh, and it does make some testable predictions. Alas, we
do not yet
have the technology to perform the tests yet, but the
predictions are on
the table, anyhow.
In a longer version I would go into a lot more detail,
introducing the
background material at more length, analyzing the other
proposals that
have been made and fleshing out the technical aspects along
several
dimensions. But the size limit for the conference was 6
pages, so that
was all I could cram in.
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
