Lennart Nilsson wrote:
...
But my point is that this may come down to what we would mean by a computer
being
conscious. Bruno has an answer in terms of what the computer can prove.
Jaynes (and
probably John McCarthy) would say a computer is conscious if it creates a
narrative
of its
Peter Jones writes:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Like Bruno, I am not claiming that this is definitely the case, just that
it is the case if
computationalism is true. Several philosophers (eg. Searle) have used the
self-evident
absurdity of the idea as an argument demonstrating that
Brent Meeker wrote (through many posts):
I won't insist, because you might be right, but I don't think that is
proven. It may
be that interaction with the environment is essential to continued
consciousness.
Assuming comp, I think that this is a red herring. To make this clear I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, September 06, 2006 3:23 PM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (SHORT)
You wrote:
What is the non-mathematical part of UDA? The part that uses
Tom, thanks, you said it as I will try to spell it out interjected in your
reply.
John
- Original Message -
From: Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: Re: ROADMAP (SHORT)
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom, thanks, you said it as I will try to spell it out interjected in your
reply.
John
- Original Message -
From: Tom Caylor [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Monday, September 11, 2006 12:21 PM
Subject: Re:
Brent Meeker writes:
Why not? Can't we map bat conscious-computation to human
conscious-computation;
since you suppose we can map any computation to any other. But, you're
thinking,
since there a practical infinity of maps (even a countable infinity if you
allow
one-many) there is
Brent Meeker writes:
I think it goes against standard computationalism if you say that a
conscious
computation has some inherent structural property. Opponents of
computationalism
have used the absurdity of the conclusion that anything implements any
conscious
computation as
-Original Message-
Stathis Papaioannou
Brent Meeker writes:
Why not? Can't we map bat conscious-computation to human conscious-
computation;
since you suppose we can map any computation to any other. But,
you're thinking,
since there a practical infinity of maps (even a
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
Why not? Can't we map bat conscious-computation to human
conscious-computation;
since you suppose we can map any computation to any other. But, you're
thinking,
since there a practical infinity of maps (even a countable infinity if you
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
I think it goes against standard computationalism if you say that a
conscious
computation has some inherent structural property. Opponents of
computationalism
have used the absurdity of the conclusion that anything implements any
conscious
Brent meeker writes:
I could make a robot that, having suitable thermocouples, would quickly
withdraw it's
hand from a fire; but not be conscious of it. Even if I provide the
robot with
feelings, i.e. judgements about good/bad/pain/pleasure I'm not sure it
would be
conscious.
Stathis Papaioannou
snip
Maybe this is a copout, but I just don't think it is even logically
possible to explain what consciousness
*is* unless you have it. It's like the problem of explaining vision to a
blind man: he might be the world's
greatest scientific expert on it but still have
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent meeker writes:
I could make a robot that, having suitable thermocouples, would quickly
withdraw it's
hand from a fire; but not be conscious of it. Even if I provide the
robot with
feelings, i.e. judgements about good/bad/pain/pleasure I'm not sure it
Colin Hales wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou
snip
Maybe this is a copout, but I just don't think it is even logically
possible to explain what consciousness
*is* unless you have it. It's like the problem of explaining vision to a
blind man: he might be the world's
greatest scientific expert on it
15 matches
Mail list logo
