Brent M wrote:
>Consciousness requires interaction with an environment; consciousness
>implicitly requires a distinction between "I" and "the world". <
MJ:
I find it an excellent addage to identify Ccnss, thank you.
I was searching for 'self' and found a similar trait, adding "self reflective
r
Dear Stathis:
my answer to your quewstion:
Of course not!
There is a belief systems "I" like and there are the others I don't.
I just maintain a (maybe misplaced?) humbleness that I am not the judge to
decide about the rightness of "mine" and "not mine".
"Mine" is better (not
Stathis:
I will not go that far, nor draw 'magnificent' conclusion about conscious rocks
(I am not talking about the unconscious hysteria of the rhytmic crowd-noise of
teenage immaturity - call them rolling or non-rolloing STONES), - I just try
to call the state of being conscious an effective
John M wrote:
> Dear Stathis:
> my answer to your quewstion:
> Of course not!
> There is a belief systems "I" like and there are the others I don't.
> I just maintain a (maybe misplaced?) humbleness that I am not the judge
> to decide about the rightness of "mine" and "not mine".
> ---
Brent, interleaving
John
--- Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John M wrote:
> Dear Stathis:
> my answer to your quewstion:
> Of course not!
> There is a belief systems "I" like and there are
the others I don't.
> I just maintain a (maybe misplaced?) humbleness
that I am not t
Brent Meeker writes:
> I make the claim that a rock can be conscious assuming that computationalism
> is true; it may not be true, in which case neither a rock nor a computer may be
> conscious. There is no natural syntax or semantics for a computer telling us
> what should count as a "1" or
John,
So if a child comes to you and asks what shape the Earth is, will you
reply that some think it's flat, and some think it's spherical, and for the
sake of not being thought ignorant by the majority maybe he should
say it's spherical, but in fact there is no reason to prefer one theory
And I was leaving consciousness undefined beyond, perhaps,
"what I mean when I say I'm conscious". You can do a lot of
philosophising about the subject going no further than this,
and it saves you from the charge that you've got the definition
wrong.
Stathis Papaioannou
_
John M wrote:
Brent, interleaving
John
--- Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
John M wrote:
> Dear Stathis:
> my answer to your quewstion:
> Of course not!
> There is a belief systems "I" like and there are
the others I don't.
> I just maintain a (maybe misplaced?) humbleness
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Brent Meeker writes:
> I make the claim that a rock can be conscious assuming that
computationalism > is true; it may not be true, in which case neither
a rock nor a computer may be > conscious. There is no natural syntax
or semantics for a computer telling us >
It's been known since the 1970s that arbitrarily efficient computers
could be constructed that could perform an infinite number of
computations with a finite amount of energy, but only if the
computations done on that computer are logically reversible.
Performing a non-reversible computation resu
11 matches
Mail list logo
