On 3/8/2015 12:17 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Brent,
do you (or the authors) really think Ccness - as we use the term - a (deeply) HUMAN (or
'thinking' animal?) phenomenon? Are we so special?
No. I think we are special only in our development of language that has given us the
ability to think more abstractly than other animals. I see Graziano's theory as pointing
to how we might make autonomous machines conscious and why it would be advantageous to do
so. I certainly doesn't imply humans are unique. In fact it implies that there may be
"higher" levels of consciousness realized by merging the consciousness of people and
machines; which is contrary to Bruno's idea that consciousness is logically a binary property.
Brent
"We are the Dyslexic of Borg. Futility is persistent. Your ass will be
laminated."
I came to believe that 'everything' (list, or not) is a wider connectivity than what we
call 'living' (you may include plants as well) and is phenomena of the complexity total
we call "Nature" (or: existence). If we take such wider stance, my speculations arrived
at a complex interconnectedness based upon 'relations' all over. (No specifics what to
call a relation - or how to respond to them).
Those relations interplay with whatever 'happens' with/out our knowledge.
I do not find it the ultimate (highest) format of Nature when we humans THINK.
Granted: we have no indication to go further than such.
HUMAN Ccness a 'subchapter"?
--
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
