On 8/17/2013 7:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted
invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every author uses the term for
content that fits her/his theoretical stance.
Mine is: a response to relations we get to know about. Nothing more. Not
human/elephant/dolphin, not universe, not awareness, not nothing, just
Just *any* response? Doesn't the response have to be something we can
intelligent or purposeful?
By anything on anything. You may even include the figments of the Physical
into the inventory.
So do you agree that if we build a machine, such as a Mars Rover, that
intelligence in its response then we may conclude it is aware/conscious?
What if you wanted to build a Mars Rover that was completely unconscious, but still
followed a sophisticated set of instructions. Would that be impossible? If the Mars
Rover detects enough different kinds of compounds in the Martian atmosphere, is there no
way of preventing it from developing a sense of smell?
To exhibit intelligence the Rover would have to do more than "follow instructions", it
would have to learn from experience, act and plan through simulation and prediction. If
it did exhibit intelligence like that, I'd grant it 'consciousness', whatever that means.
If it learns and acts based on chemical types I'd grant it has a sense of smell. To say
it's "conscious" is just a way of modeling how it learns and acts that we can relate to
(what Dennett calls "the intentional stance").
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.