On Sep 14, 3:16 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Even a better example would be Big Dog: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww > > Here it would be hard to say that Big Dog does not perceive. Yet the > question remains if this perception still unconscious, or one already > can find some elements of conscious perception.
I would say that there is still no perceiver in Big Dog. There are sophisticated algorithms coordinating it's input and outputs, but there is no experience of those algorithms. Whatever map it constructs is primitive, generic, and bearing only superficial resemblance to the world which we observe it interacting. It doesn't care where it goes or whether or not it has to struggle to walk. Since it is designed specifically to simulate familiar actions of a quadruped, it plays on our HADD and prognosia sympathies, not much different from a stuffed animal, just to a greater extent. > > Then we can ask ourselves the same for insects, and finally go onward > along the tree of life. Insects have a nervous system but made of few neurons. My guess is that their qualia is orders of magnitude less significant than our own as a rule of thumb, but some insects might, just as some mammals might accumulate more significant qualia through experience than others. A nervous system I think, functions as an organism within an organism, which might be a minimum requirement for awareness of awareness (consciousness). It's probably a pretty shallow consciousness, not enough that would even get our attention. Their own lives might not matter very much to them, but more than a cell, and much more than a molecule. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
