On 9/14/2011 9:54 PM Craig Weinberg said the following:
On Sep 14, 1:34 pm, Evgenii Rudnyi<use...@rudnyi.ru>  wrote:

I would agree that it would easy to obtain thinking provided that
perception is there. This is though an open question, what does it
mean perception by a robot. Does for example an automatic door

Exactly. That's why I think it's helpful to have more of graduated
hierarchy of elaboration, loosely: detection>  sense>  feeling>
awareness>  consciousness. These would correspond roughly to:
molecular, cellular, somatic, neurological, and psychological levels
of perception.

It is possible to imagine many explanations. Yet, the basic question that bothers me is how do we know this or that. For example how do you know that there should be such a correspondence? Just intuition and nothing more? Intuition as such might not be enough.

I personally do not see a difference in this respect between a cell, for example, and a robot. On my hierarchy list


a bacteria is closer to a ballcock than a Big Dog. I would say that Big Dog actually already even more advanced than a bacteria.


Since neither the sensor or motor of the automatic door has any
cells, it is limited to a molecular level of perception: detection.
The sensor and motor detects what it is design to detect as a simple
binary state change in a group of molecules and passes that state
change on by charging a wire to the motor, which also detects a
binary change in it's group of molecules that it amplifies and
induces as motive force on the molecules of door. There doesn't seem
to be anything else going on except the most primitive form of
physical detection and action. Zero room for interpretation.

If you have a group of plants in a greenhouse, some of them are
going to grow better than others. They sense the light, which we can
intuitively understand by their appearance of thriving or withering.
It seems like something might care whether it's getting what it
needs. Whether it 'feels' or not is along the same lines as asking
whether a plant has a 'body' or not. Then answer, in both cases, I
think is 'sort of'. Whatever it has seems to be more than a bucket of
ammonia and less than rabbit. It's a bit blurry what makes a rabbit
seem more like it has a body and 'feels more' than a plant, and
indeed there is no way to know for sure, but I think it's reasonable
to go with the gut feeling that if I run over a rabbit I would feel
worse than running over a plant and I wouldn't feel anything about
running over a piece of metal.


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