On 31 Dec 2011, at 14:49, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote (in two posts):

On 31.12.2011 09:17 Pierz said the following:


On Dec 31, 6:17 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>  wrote:
On 12/30/2011 12:51 AM, Pierz wrote:

On Dec 30, 6:35 pm, meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net>    wrote:
On 12/29/2011 4:11 PM, Pierz wrote: You think it is ludicrous
that a Mars Rover is programmed to monitor the state of its
battery, the temperature of its motors, the amount of memory
available for pictures, etc?

Brent
<sigh>    Let's not go down that boringly overtrodden path, but
agree to disagree on what constitutes consciousness.

<sigh>  The phrase was "internal perception" not "consciousness".

Well usually the term 'perception' entails consciousness. If you
mean that you ate try indifferent as to whether the machine is
conscious, well OK. I see something deeper in the consciousness
problem.


I would agree. When AI people use the word "perception" to describe a sensor connected to a computer, in my view they loose the biggest part of the meaning. A human being perceives also unconsciously and this part of perception could be similar to what we find in Mars Rover but on the other hand a human being has conscious experiences. This part is completely missing in AI.

I agree. You need to add something like self-perception. This can be be done by using a theorem by Kleene in computer science, which handles very well the notion of self. With the current machines, this has not yet economical interest, though. More about that "self" notion in my comment to other posts.

On 29.12.2011 19:40 Bruno Marchal said the following:

>So a self-driving car is probably much more close to have a first
>person view than a rock, especially if you make it possible for the
>car to memorize its short term instances of computation (sensing,
>planning, etc.) into a "long scenario involving herself".

Good point. Thanks Bruno. A self-driving car does have an estimate of its current state and then it updates it both internally and based on external measurements. It also makes some planning, soft of what to do next.

OK. What is still lacking is something like an hippocampus and a cerebral stem, to manage the short term and long term memories and the general instinctive bet in a reality (more or less consciousness).



Yet, if we consider a self-driving car and a rock from the viewpoint of physicalism (or could be even better atomism), then the difference will be much more difficult to find. After all there are in both cases interacting electrons and nuclei (well probably some electromagnetic waves as well) and nothing more.

But physicalism is not epistemologically compatible with mechanism. Below our substitution level, things are "made of" infinite works of infinities of Universal machine/numbers. This might, or not, lead to a refutation of computationalism, but up to now "nature" confirms rather remarkably this "many-statistically-interfering-dreams" aspect of reality.

Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to