On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 2:41 AM, John G. Rose <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > is it really necessary for an AGI to be conscious?
Depends on how you define it. If you think it's about feelings/qualia then - no - you don't need that [potentially dangerous] crap + we don't know how to implement it anyway. If you view it as high-level built-in response mechanism (which is supported by feelings in our brain but can/should be done differently in AGI) then yes - you practically (but not necessarily theoretically) need something like that for performance. If you are concerned about self-awareness/consciousness then note that AGI can demonstrate general problem solving without knowing anything about itself (and about many other particular concepts). The AGI just should be able to learn new concepts (including self), though I think some built-in support makes sense in this particular case. BTW for the purpose of my AGI R&D I defined self-awareness as a use of an internal representation (IR) of self, where the IR is linked to real features of the system. Nothing terribly complicated or mysterious about that. >Doesn't that complicate things? it does > Shouldn't the machines/computers be slaves to man? They should and it shouldn't be viewed negatively. It's nothing more than a smart tool. Changing that would be a big mistake IMO. >Or will they be equal/superior. Rocks are superior to us in being hard. Cars are "superior" to us when it comes to running fast. AGIs will be superior to us when it comes to problem solving. So what? Equal/superior in whatever - who cares as long as we can progress & safely enjoy life - which is what our tools (including AGI) are being designed to help us with. Regards, Jiri Jelinek ------------------------------------------- agi Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/ Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06 Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
