David Lochrin wrote:
Now if we assume everything runs in accordance with physics, what would we
> expect to see? Lots of electronic activity, certainly. But perception?
> By what mechanism could this device possibly perceive green grass, blue
> sky, and a red fire engine?
Aren't you getting
On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 12:49 +1000, David Lochrin wrote:
> The main point I'm making is that nobody understands the nature of
> consciousness, even Douglas Hofstatder.
And he certainly doesn't claim to. Nor does he have much faith in
"strong AI" as far as I can see. He *does* think that brain and
At 12:49 +1000 28/7/16, David Lochrin wrote:
>Hofstatder states "To me, the major question in AI is this: "What in the world
>is going on to enable you to convert from 100,000,000 retinal dots into one
>single word 'mother' in one tenth of a second?" Perception is where it's at!"
>
Much as I
On 2016-07-28 11:07 Karl Auer wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-07-28 at 10:25 +1000, David Lochrin wrote:
>> philosopher John Searle developed an argument against Strong AI known as the
>> "Chinese Room" thought experiment to which I referred earlier, [...]
>> However it has stood up well against
At 11:58 AM 28/07/2016, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>Personally I think AIâs are a long way from developing this
>âunderstandingâ - especially at the hard wired instinctive level that
>pretty well all fauna and Animalia on this planet do.
>
>And that could be problematic for any truly sapient AI
M,
Well, without the richness of experience of the outside world we, and every
other life-form on this planet, have hard wired into us, and which has evolved
in us over 3 billion years, and realisations that both the outside world exists
and that it is populated by self-motivated ‘others’,
On 2016-07-28 10:52 JanW wrote:
> LOL doubt it.
>
> Rods and cones (something like five different types I think I read at last
> count) respond to specific wavelengths within the visual range. The brain
> constructs the combinations to provide the visual image we perceive. Visual
>
At 10:25 AM 28/07/2016, David Lochrin wrote:
>There's no colour in physics, only EM waves of certain wavelengths or photons
>of certain energies, so where would it come from? If you can answer that
>you'll be famous.
LOL doubt it.
Rods and cones (something like five different types I think
On 2016-07-27 15:06 Jim Birch wrote:
> David Lochrin wrote:
>
> Conscious minds attach meanings to symbols
>
> Maybe in your case. My cat is certainly conscious - i.e. aware of and
> responding to it's surroundings - but doesn't do a lot of symbols.
>
> A self-conscious mind, which might be
At 09:19 PM 27/07/2016, Frank O'Connor wrote:
>I think computers are likely to develop into sapience before sentience
which
>may be problematic - as this whole discussion so far points to.
Hmm...I reckon in a rudimentary yet multiple way, computers already are
sentient, as in sensors -
Mmmm,
There’s a BIG difference between the two.
It could even be argued that a single (although complex) celled amoeba is
sentient - it possesses the necessary sensory capabilities to appreciate the
world around it, and it is capable of movement to avoid light - responding to
stimuli, as well
On 07/27/2016 03:06 PM, Jim Birch wrote:
with us. My cat doesn't do this much.
Your cat seems pretty lazy.
___
Link mailing list
Link@mailman.anu.edu.au
http://mailman.anu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/link
12 matches
Mail list logo
