On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:37:09 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 9/26/2012 12:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:35:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: >> >> An interesting paper which comports with my idea that "the problem of >> consciousness" will be "solved" by engineering.� Or John Clark's point >> that consciousness is easy, intelligence is hard. >> > > Consciousness is easy if you already have consciousness. It is impossible > if you don't. Intelligence is hard if you already have consciousness, but > it is impossible if you don't. > > > So are you now contending that intelligent machines *must be* conscious� > and that therefore there are no intelligent machines? >
I am saying that consciousness is a prerequisite for developing intelligence. If you are conscious and intelligent, you can record intelligent functions and automate their playback in an intelligent way in physical media which support that level of control (not fog, not live hamsters...computers need reliable discrete bits that change or don't change unless they are supposed to.) What you call intelligent machines I would call advanced automated services. They have no consciousness at all at the personal level, but in order to function, those services must be supported by consciousness on the sub-personal (molecular-electronic correlate) level. Our personal sense and motives are riding on top of the impersonal consequences of the sub-personal activities of the machine. See if this diagram helps: http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_maxawpbuDl1qeenqko1_1280.jpg There are qualitative distinctions on the right hand side, and quantitative distinctions of scale on the left. To create automated services, we exploit the impersonal side of lower levels to reflect back our own reconstructed depersonalized self image. An automaton. A meticulously crafted emptiness to serve our personal motives. By conflating the left and right sides and flattening the levels, it becomes plausible to think of an exterior as the same thing as an interior or a collection of digits as a gestalt whole. All of these distinctions, however, require a conscious agent to provide sense, participation, and perspective to begin with - things which are qualitative, right-hand features and never impersonal left-hand functions. > > Everything assumes that consciousness exists as a possibility in the > universe prior to the existence of the universe itself. > > > I don't even know how to parse "everything assumes"? > Eh, yeah, that was maybe not such a good way to put it. I meant that every way that we can possibly think of to model the universe already takes for granted the assumption of the potential for consciousness. Without that assumption, there is no way to get from whatever we are starting with to where we are now. Craig > Brent > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kCCvsKybb_0J. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
