John G. Rose wrote:
You see what I'm getting at. In order to be 100% sure. Any failed tests of the
above would require further scientific analysis and investigation to achieve
proper non-conscious certification.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not exactly (to start with, you can *never* be 100% sure, try though you
might :-) ). Take all of the investigations into "rockness" since the
dawn of homo sapiens and we still only have a 0.9995 probability that
rocks are not conscious. Everything is belief. Even "hard" science.
That was the nub of Hume's intellectual contribution. It doesn't mean
we can't be "sure enough." It just means that we can never be 100% sure
of *anything*.
Of course, there's belief and then there's BELIEF. To me (and to Hume),
it's not a difference in kind. It's just that the leap from
observational evidence to empirical (natural) belief is a helluvalot
shorter than is the leap from observational evidence to supernatural belief.
Cheers,
Brad
Today's words-to-live-by: "Everything in moderation. Including
moderation." ;-)
P.S. Hmmm. The Thunderbird e-mail client spell checker recognizes the
word "homo" but not the word "sapiens." It gets better. Here's
WordWeb's definition of sapiens: "Of or relating to or characteristic of
Homo sapiens." Oh. Now I get it! NOT. Sigh... Isn't there some sort
of dictionary-writing rule that says you're not allowed to use the word
you're defining in the definition of that word? I smell a project!
Let's build a dictionary that contains nothing but circular
definitions. For example: definition - "Of or relating to or
characteristic of defining something."
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John wrote:
A rock is either conscious or not conscious.
Excluding the middle, are we?
Conscious, not conscious or null?
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.
Yes Hume and Kant actually were making contributions to AGI but didn't' know
it. Although I suppose at the time there imaginations where rich and varied
enough to where those possibilities were not totally unthinkable.
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.
Actually on further thought about this conscious rock, I want to take that particular rock and put it through some further tests to absolutely verify with a high degree of confidence that there may not be some trace amount of consciousness lurking inside. So the tests that I would conduct are -
Verify the rock is in a solid state at close to absolute zero but not at
absolute zero.
The rock is not in the presence of a high frequency electromagnetic field.
The rock is not in the presence of high frequency physical vibrational
interactions.
The rock is not in the presence of sonic vibrations.
The rock is not in the presence of subatomic particle bombardment, radiation,
or being hit by a microscopic black hole.
The rock is not made of nano-robotic material.
The rock is not an advanced, non-human derived, computer.
The rock contains minimal metal content.
The rock does not contain holograms.
The rock does not contain electrostatic echoes.
The rock is a solid, spherical structure, with no worm holes :)
The rock...
You see what I'm getting at. In order to be 100% sure. Any failed tests of the
above would require further scientific analysis and investigation to achieve
proper non-conscious certification.
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
