John wrote:
A rock is either conscious or not conscious.
Excluding the middle, are we?
I don't want to put words into Ben & company's mouths, but I think what
they are trying to do with PLN is to implement a system that expressly
*includes the middle*. In theory (but not necessarily in practice) the
clue to creating the first intelligent machine may be to *exclude the
ends*! Scottish philosopher and economist David Hume argued way back in
the 18th century that all knowledge is based on past observation.
Because of this, we can never be 100% certain of *anything*. While Hume
didn't put it in such terms, as I understand his thinking, it comes down
to "*everything* is a probability" or "all knowledge is fuzzy
knowledge." There is no such thing as 0. There is no such thing as 1.
For example, let's say you are sitting at a table holding a pencil in
your hand. In the past, every time you let go of the pencil in this
situation (or a similar situation), it dropped to the table. The cause
and effect for this behavior is so well documented that we call the
underlying principal the *law* of gravity. But, even so, can you say
with probability 1.0 that the *next* time you let go of that pencil in a
similar situation that it will, in fact, drop to the table? Hume said
you can't. As those ads for stock brokerage firms on TV always say in
their disclaimers, "Past performance is no guarantee of future performance."
Of course, we are constantly "predicting" the future based on our
knowledge of past events (or others' knowledge of past events which we
have learned and believe to be correct). I will, for instance, give you
very favorable odds if you are willing to bet against the pencil hitting
the table when dropped. Unless you enjoy living life on the edge, your
predictions won't stray very far from past experiences (or learned
knowledge about past experiences). But, in the end, it's all
probability and fuzziness. It is all belief, baby.
Regarding the issue of consciousness and the rock, there are several
possible scenarios to consider here. First, the rock may be conscious
but only in a way that can be understood by other rocks. The rock may
be conscious but it is unable to communicate with humans (and vice
versa) so we assume it's not conscious. The rock is truly conscious and
it thinks we're not conscious so it pretends to be just like it thinks
we are and, as a result, we're tricked into thinking it's not
conscious. Finally, if a rock falls in the forest, does it make a
sound? Consciousness may require at least two actors. Think about it.
What good would consciousness do you if there was no one else around to
appreciate it? Would you, in that case, in fact be conscious?
Most humans will treat a rock as if it were not conscious because, in
the past, that assumption has proven to be efficacious for predictions
involving rocks. I know of no instance where someone was able to talk a
rock that was in the process of falling on him or her to change
direction by appealing to the rock, one conscious entity to another.
And maybe they should have. There is, after all, based on past
experience, only a 0.9995 probability that a rock is not conscious.
Cheers,
Brad
John G. Rose wrote:
From: j.k. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 06/01/2008 09:29 PM,, John G. Rose wrote:
From: j.k. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 06/01/2008 03:42 PM, John G. Rose wrote:
A rock is conscious.
Okay, I'll bite. How are rocks conscious under Josh's definition or
any
other non-LSD-tripping-or-batshit-crazy definition?
The way you phrase your question indicates your knuckle-dragging
predisposition making it difficult to responsibly expend an effort in
attempt to satisfy your - piqued inquisitive biting action.
Yes, my tone was overly harsh, and I apologize for that. It was more
indicative of my frustration with the common practice on this list of
spouting nonsense like "rocks are conscious" *without explaining what is
meant* by such an ostensibly ludicrous statement or *giving any kind of
a justification whatsoever*. This sort of intellectual sloppiness
seriously lowers the quality of the list and makes it difficult to find
the occasionally really insightful content.
A rock is either conscious or not conscious. Is it less intellectually sloppy
to declare it not conscious?
John
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription: http://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: http://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
http://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=103754539-40ed26
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
