RE: [singularity] Definitions

2008-02-23 Thread John G. Rose
From: Ben Goertzel [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Consciousness, like many natural language terms, is extremely polysemous A formal definition of reflective consciousness was given by me in a blog post a few days ago http://goertzel.org/blog/blog.htm -- Ben G This is a great post BTW.

Re: [singularity] Definitions

2008-02-22 Thread Charles D Hixson
John K Clark wrote: Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] Consciousness is the entity evaluating And you evaluate something when you have conscious understanding of it. No. The process of evaluation *is* the consciousness. Consciousness is a process, not a thing. a portion of itself

Re: [singularity] Definitions

2008-02-19 Thread Charles D Hixson
John K Clark wrote: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems to me the problem is defining consciousness, not testing for it. And it seems to me that beliefs of this sort are exactly the reason philosophy is in such a muddle. A definition of consciousness is not needed, in fact unless you're

Re: [singularity] Definitions

2008-02-19 Thread Richard Loosemore
John K Clark wrote: And I will define consciousness just as soon as you define define. Ah, but that is exactly my approach. Thus, the subtitle I gave to my 2006 conference paper was Explaining Consciousness by Explaining That You Cannot Explain it, Because Your Explanation Mechanism is

Re: [singularity] Definitions

2008-02-19 Thread Matt Mahoney
--- Charles D Hixson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: John K Clark wrote: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems to me the problem is defining consciousness, not testing for it. And it seems to me that beliefs of this sort are exactly the reason philosophy is in such a muddle. A

Re: [singularity] Definitions

2008-02-19 Thread Samantha Atkins
Richard Loosemore wrote: John K Clark wrote: And I will define consciousness just as soon as you define define. Ah, but that is exactly my approach. Thus, the subtitle I gave to my 2006 conference paper was Explaining Consciousness by Explaining That You Cannot Explain it, Because Your

Re: [singularity] Definitions

2008-02-18 Thread Richard Loosemore
John K Clark wrote: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] It seems to me the problem is defining consciousness, not testing for it. And it seems to me that beliefs of this sort are exactly the reason philosophy is in such a muddle. A definition of consciousness is not needed, in fact unless you're

Re: [singularity] Definitions

2008-02-18 Thread John K Clark
Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] it is exactly the lack of a clear definition of what consciousness is supposed to be And if we did have such a definition of consciousness I don't see how it would help in the slightest in making an AI. The definition would be made of words, and every one

Re: [singularity] Definitions

2008-02-18 Thread John K Clark
And I will define consciousness just as soon as you define define. John K Clark --- singularity Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/ Modify Your Subscription:

Re: [singularity] Definitions

2006-09-14 Thread Stefan Pernar
Hi, On 9/15/06, Bruce LaDuke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Knowledge - That which is retained in a storage mechanism at any level (individual, group, societal). Is your definition of knowledge limited to what is provably true and known facts or is the level of certainty/probability of the retained