Let me interleave - although I don't like to continue an exchange beyond 3:
from the 4th arguments go astray and fall into 'in other words' rather than
saying sthg. I will use [JM]: insert lines.

----- Original Message -----
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: Determinism - Mind and Brain

> According to the dictionary of Philo of Mind Self awareness id synonymous
> with consciousness.
[JM]: a fine definition, others define it differently, eg during the series
of the
Consciousness Worldwide Symposia since 1991 in Tucson (yearly?) with
thousands of concerned professionals from all the world. They could not
agree so far. My take is rather 'abiotic' and consider it an "acknowledgment
of and response to information" (with some details on the details) which
leaves open
the way to 'conscious' particles as well.
Yet... this is a sidetrack (3rd response?) because I mentioned only a def.
of "mind":
> > > Would a artificial self-aware entity emerging from human technology
> > > represent "mind"?
> > (depends on YOUR definition of mind, of course) - but....
> > self-aware? does that mean that if the program calls for some
> math-churning,
> > the computer will say "I rather play some Bach music now" and does so?
> I 'm not convinced that being conscious, it necessarily follows that you
> contrarian as well.
[JM]: to have a mind on one's own does not mean contrarian IMO, just having
ideas, (dis?)likes, emotional responses, putting logic aside sometimes,
to refrain from the 'best' solution, etc. etc: a "human" behavior
as contrasted to the machine-reliability. Politicians know that.
> But, one can imagine a "program" that monitors various inputs, external
> internal, that are reinforcing to varying degrees and prioritized via a
> "value"  hierarchy most likely pre-supplied by the "masters". Of course,
> where I'm going with this is "training the baby" and, of course, such
> projects are currently underway at various locations and with varying
> results(!). But it's early days. In any case, as I've alluded to in prior
> posts, something that could "spot the dot" (manage convince a sufficient
> humans of it's self-awreness: see below) may emerge unannounced from the
> collective tinkering underway. Only the Shadow knows.
[JM]: Ignorantia non est argumentum. To say: we don't know that, but it
proves... - is not very convincing, just as well as: There is a possibility
and I
base my argument on that, however not yet discovered/realized.
This is why I call "MY" MWI-BigBang-cosmological version a "narrative" and
just "tell it", don't argue it. I like it, because it fits my human logical
(with all its non-machine illogicalities) and 'explains' some paradoxes
are left open in 'science'. So I don't take the "conditionals" at face
Could be is fine, but only as that. We don't have those computers and I
you do not assign to "them" really every aspect/facet of the human "mind(!)"
not even in spe. If they 'will' realize, will they be sexy?
> > or would you assume in that (hard) AI to program EVERYTHING what a
> > human (callable normal or derailed) might react by? We are back to the
> > infinite time comp with unlimited memory.
> > My limited little 'mind' does not go that far.
> >
> This would appear to assume that self-awareness equates to being human (as
> in homo sapien?); I don't see that as the being the case. I certainly
> believe the infinite time/memory device is required; maybe a Linux Beowulf
> cluster running on some g5s?
[JM]: We did not settle the self-awareness puzzle. I believe thath HUMAN
self-awareness is homo sapientist, as we know it (do we indeed?). I don't
argue your Linux, just show me. In non-conditional terms. No 'maybe'.
What I started out with was the mind > brain inequality. Brain as the
bio-machine-component in the human complexity of a 'more'  (consider
Aristotle's  -  Aris-Total).
> Ultimately, I believe I'm self aware (although, decidedly not
> self-actualized); I assume you are but can't prove it beyond doubt. For
> matter, given our mode of communication, you might indeed be a machine
> in this case, just passing the Turing test. If you we here in person I
> sneak a red dot on your forehead (during a blink?), hold up a mirror and
> watch your reaction (apparently passes muster regarding self-awareness in
> our relatives). If some such procedure that meets at least that level of
> acceptable evidence suffices for a chimp, then it  should as well for an
> I should think.
> Cheers
[JM]: thanks for your benevolence.
John, the self-aware AI-chimp

Reply via email to