1) Rover doesn't know anything, since knowing is a property of consciousness. Rover doesn't have a model of the world, since having a model of the world means being aware of a world, and awareness is a property of consciousness. What does "Rover is represented by itself" even mean ? I think what you're doing now is to talk about properties that you, as a consciousness, have them, and carelessly starting to attribute those properties to lifeless objects. I would suggest a more rigorous thinking process. Don't haste in applying concepts where they don't belong.
2) Is it you that don't understand the meaning of self-reference, that's why you fail to understand its usage. Self-reference is not "a ghost in the machine", but is an eternal logical structure that is the source of all existence. By employing its eternal property of looking-back-at-itself, self-reference finds objects in itself and gives birth to all the consciousnesses in the world. On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 06:03:34 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > > 1) > > I take your point. But I think the difference is only one of degree. In > my example the Rover knows where it is, lat and long and topology. That > entails having a model of the world, admittedly simple, in which the Rover > is represented by itself. > > 2) > > I would also say that I think far too much importance is attached to > self-reference. It's just a part of intelligence to run "simulations" in > trying to foresee the consequences of potential actions. The simulation > must generally include the actor at some level. It's not some mysterious > property raising up a ghost in the machine. > > 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
