On 20 Mar 2011, at 18:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

on 20.03.2011 15:03 Bruno Marchal said the following:

On 19 Mar 2011, at 21:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

on 19.03.2011 20:16 Bruno Marchal said the following:

On 19 Mar 2011, at 18:04, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


As I have written, I rather follow my intuition rather than logic.
So I cannot explain why I do not go further with step 4, 5, 6 and
so on. It well may be that my unconsciousness do not believe in
"Yes, doctor", I just do not know.

I don't know either. In science we never know, that is why we try to
make clear the theories, and to derive propositions *in* such

I agree and this is why I follow the everything-list.


On the other hand, I am practitioner and I like more pondering for
example what happens if to put together Watson (IBM computer that
won Jeopardy) and Big Dog


Big dog is very impressive, and Watson too, but in very different
domains. In AI the difficulty is in the integration of knowledge, and
the development of a sense of self.

This is why collective systems of robots could be a good toy to try it out. In this respect I like a lot the book by Dario Floreano and Claudio Mattiussi, Bio-Inspired Artificial Intelligence: Theories, Methods, and Technologies, 2008. Well, they do not discuss consciousness, they are even careful with the term intelligence:

p. 585 Conclusion: "A careful reader have noticed that we have not yet defined what intelligence is. This was done on purpose because intelligence has different meanings for different persons and in different situations. For example, some believe that intelligence is the ability to be creative; other think that it is the ability to make predictions; and others believe that intelligence exists only in the eye of the observer. In this book we have shown that biological and artificial intelligence manifests itself though multiple processes and mechanisms that interact at different spatial and temporal scales to produce emergent and functional behavior. The most important implication of the approaches presented here is that understanding and engineering intelligence does not reduce to replicating a mammalian brain in a computer but requires also capturing multiply types and levels of interactions, such as those between brains and bodies, individual and societies, learning and behavior, evolution and development, self-protection and self- repair, to mention a few".

Yet, it gives a nice overview of what engineers are doing nowadays and it helps to understand how Big Dog may function.

Clearly qualia is a problem, have no idea how it could emerge.

I can explain why universal machine have qualia. It comes from the self-reference logic. But only "rich" machine (the Löbian one), can talk and develop discourse about their qualia, and have to be astonished about them, until they bet that they are machines. Qualia are sort of automated gap-filling in self-perception. They obey a qualia logic, and mechanism makes the quanta a particular case of qualia. This is even too much 'subjectivist' to me, but then I have no way to escape logical conclusions.

On the other hand, biologists claim that even bacteria can perceive


Do those biologists pretend that bacteria have qualia? I have not much evidence, but I would bet they do, as little universal system sharing our histories. I have more evidence that paramecia have qualia, by they more complex behaviors, and appearance of some amount of information flux crossing the cell. But that might be some sort of human projection, and I have no certainty. In case of doubt, despite it might look a bit naïve, it is preferable to bet that an entity has qualia, than to bet the contrary. This might avoid suffering.



You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to