From: Woody Long (ironanchorpress@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Apr 28 2006 - 15:13:51 MDT
OK, I'll bite.
My s/s engine has guessed your possible reasons, and responded -
1. Semantical understanding does not mean consciousness attained.
False, although true: only to a primitive degree.
2. Synatactical simulations can produce emergent syntactical properties
which can be viewed as consciousness.
False, if still semantically blind then no MC.
3. Where is the hard problem of consciousness solved, where is the machine
self that is the subjective agent of consciousness? No MS, no full MC.
Point taken. Will invent.
4. Where is the conscious processing of emoting ? Doesn't W. James the
father of psychology say there are 3 species of conscious processing:
sensing, emoting and thinking? No 3 species, no machine specimen of fully
human consciousness.
Point taken. Will invent.
> [Original Message]
> From: Damien Broderick <thespike@satx.rr.com>
> To: <sl4@sl4.org>
> Date: 4/28/2006 4:45:55 PM
> Subject: Re: Fwd: We Can Understand Anything, But are Just a Bit Slow
>
> At 03:18 PM 4/28/2006 -0400, Woody Long wrote:
>
> >Irregardless of whether this is true,
>
> You might want to run this clunker through your syntactical/semantic
engine.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:56 MDT