On 3/8/2015 9:37 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb <[email protected] <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote:

    On 3/8/2015 3:34 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:


    On Monday, March 9, 2015, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:

        On 3/8/2015 1:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

            On 8 March 2015 at 09:33, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:

                I like Graziano's theory of consciousness.

                http://aeon.co/magazine/philosophy/how-consciousness-works/

                I have generally been inclined to agree with JKC that natural 
selection
                can't act on consciousness, only on intelligence; so 
consciousness is
                either
                a necessary byproduct of intelligence or it's a spandrel.  But 
under
                Graziano's theory it's a way of augmenting or improving 
intelligence within
                constraints of limited computational resources.  So it would be 
subject to
                natural selection.  It also shows how to make intelligence 
machines without
                consciousness (albeit less efficient ones).

            Graziano equates consciousness with a model of the brain's state of
            attention, but why couldn't this be done by an unconscious machine?


        Because doing it makes the machine conscious.


    It might, but as presented it's begging he question.

    It proposes an architecture for computation that would realize 
consciousness. It's
    something that, in principle at least, could be constructed and one could 
interact
    with it and determine whether it seemed as conscious as you or I.  What 
would you
    consider a non-question begging theory?


A proof that that kind of architecture necessarily realises consciousness.

What kind of proof? Science doesn't provide proof - except maybe in the legal sense of "beyond reasonable doubt" which my proposed test does provide. Mathematical proof depends on some axioms which one hypothetically assumes for purposes of the argument. Mathematical inference ensures that the conclusions are implicit in the axioms - so any axioms that prove something about consciousness necessarily include the conclusion and so beg the question.

Brent

--
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.

Reply via email to