On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 1:30 PM, Ed Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Since I assume Ben, as well as a lot of the rest of us, want the AGI > movement to receive respectability in the academic and particularly in the > funding community, it is probably best that other than brain-science- or > AGI-focused discussions of the effects of drugs should not become too common > on the AGI list itself. Ben, of course, is the ultimate decider of that.
I'm never one to be overly concerned about "image" ;-) ... the question for me, regarding this topic on this list, is what the discussion contributes to the pursuit of building AGI? If use of mind-expanding drugs, or study of their neurological effects, reveals something of use in creating AGI, then discussion of the topic here is certainly welcome! For me, my experimentation with these substances did cement my previous inclination toward a panpsychist view of consciousness ... which led me to feel even more strongly that "engineering raw awareness" is something AGI designers don't need to worry about. Raw awareness is already there, in the universe ... and different entities focus/manifest it in different ways. However, others may come to the conclusion that "engineering raw awareness" is not something they need to worry about in AGI design from a totally different direction ... for instance, because they don't believe raw awareness exists at all in any meaningful sense (this would seem to be Dennett's perspective). That's OK too ... it seems to suggest he and I could find the same AGI designs acceptable for totally different reasons! Ben G ------------------------------------------- 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
