Hi meekerdb  

The computer can mechanically prove something,
but it cannot know that it did so. It cannot
sit back with a beer and muse over how smart it is.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen 

----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: meekerdb  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2012-09-22, 16:49:06 
Subject: Re: questions on machines, belief, awareness, and knowledge 

On 9/22/2012 6:29 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:  
On 22.09.2012 14:58 Bruno Marchal said the following:  

On 21 Sep 2012, at 21:27, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:  

On 19.09.2012 00:57 meekerdb said the following:  

On 9/17/2012 11:27 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:  

Do you mean that the meaning in a guided missile system  
happens as by-product of its development by engineers?  

To me, it seems that meaning that you have defined in Mars  
Rovers is yet another theory of epiphenomenalism.  

And your quote and question are yet another example of  
"nothing buttery" and argument by incredulity.  


I am not sure if I understand you. I am not saying that I am  
right but I really do not understand you point. You say  

"Consciousness and computation are given their meaning by  
their effecting actions in the world."  

and it seems that you imply that this could be applied for a  
robot as well. My thought were that engineers who have design a  
robot know everything how it is working.  

But they don't a robot, even one as simple as a Mars Rover  
perceives and acts on things the engineers don't know.? A more  
advanced robot will also learn from experience and become as  
unpredictable as a person from the engineer's standpoint.  

Okay, let us take more advanced robots. I guess that  

Dario Floreano and Claudio Mattiussi, Bio-Inspired Artificial  
Intelligence: Theories, Methods, and Technologies  

should be perfect here. You will find in the book about learning in  
?ehavioral systems. Yet, the authors do not use the term  
consciousness at all. They even talk about intelligence just once  

Conclusion, p. 585 : ? 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?.  

Hence, again let us imagine that a robot with artificial neural  
networks developed as described in the book can learn something  
indeed. In the book there are even examples in this respect. Yet,  
the engineers developing it have not even thought about  
consciousness. Hence, in my view, if consciousness happens to be in  
such a robot, then we could talk without a problem about  
epiphenomenalism. Why not?  

I have seen a project where engineers at least talk about a module  


?IND|CONSTRUCT is developing a ?trong-AI engine?, a so called  
AI-mind, that can be used in (human-like) robotics, healthcare,  
aerospace sciences and every other area where ?onscious?  
man-machine interaction is of any importance.  

The MIND|CONSTRUCT organization is the culmination of many years in  
?I-research and the so called ?ard-problems?, and the application  
of elaborate experience in knowledge-management, for the design and  
?evelopment of a ?trong-AI engine?.?  

If consciousness happens here, then we could at least find that it  
was planned this way.  

It is part of what a machine is that we cannot know what we are doing  
in building them, so human might as well build a conscious machine  
without knowing it; except later, when the machine complains or fight  
for its right. Comp is rather negative on the idea of programming  
consciousness. We can only let consciousness manifest itself, or not.  
Or we can copy intelligent machine, partially or completely.  

Then, I am afraid, comp is of no help to the AI community as it seems cannot 
guide engineers on how to develop an intelligent robot.  


In the past, Bruno has said that a machine that understands transfinite 
induction will be conscious.? But being conscious and intelligent are not the 
same thing. 


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