On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:35:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> An interesting paper which comports with my idea that "the problem of
> consciousness" will be "solved" by engineering. Or John Clark's point that
> consciousness is easy, intelligence is hard.
Consciousness is easy if you already have consciousness. It is impossible
if you don't. Intelligence is hard if you already have consciousness, but
it is impossible if you don't. Everything assumes that consciousness exists
as a possibility in the universe prior to the existence of the universe
> Consciousness in
> Cognitive Architectures
> A Principled Analysis of RCS, Soar and ACT-R
> Here's an excerpt:
> "The justifiable quest for methods for managing reasoning about selves in
> context is driven by the desire of moving responsibility for system
> from the human engineering and operation team to the system itself. This is
> also the rationale behind the autonomic computing movement but in our case
> the problem is much harder as the bodies of our machines are deeply
> in the physics of the world.
> But the rationale for having self models is even deeper than that: if
> control overpasses in capabilities to those of error-based control, the
> strategy to follow in the global governing of a concrete embedded system is
> not just recognising departure from setpoints but anticipating the behavior
> emerging from the interaction of the system with it surrounding reality.
> Hence the step from control systems that just exploit models of the object,
> to control systems that exploit models of the pair system + object is a
> one in the ladder of increased performance and robustness. This step
> is also observable in biological systems and while there are still loads
> of unsolved
> issues around, the core role that “self” plays in the generation of
> behaviour is undeniable. Indeed, part of the importance of
> is related to distinguishing oneself from the emvironment in
> this class of models (e.g. for action/agency attribution in critical,
> learning processes)."
Just because the self plays a role doesn't mean that the self is nothing
but a role. A king or chief plays an important role, but it is an actual
person doing the role playing. There isn't just 'kingness' that fills in
for functions which benefit by executive control.
> "The perfect machine does not exist, mechanically speaking. The only
> perfect machine is a woman."
> --- Ettore Bugatti, quoted by Enzo Ferrari
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at