Freethought & Rationalism Archive

excreationist · 07-18-2002, 05:45 AM

snatchbalance:
Some comments:
1. If you build a machine that is conscious, it will know that it is a machine. It will have no reason to have biological drives. It won't really need food, air, sex, etc. You can simulate these needs all you want, they remain simulations. Get it?
People can be raised for their whole life attached to a life support system so that they never eat, drink, or breathe. At before puberty, they would have no sex drive. Those people would still be conscious. Anyway, robots would have needs - e.g. to avoid injury, to satisfy its appetite for energy (it could use a rechargeable battery, or a furnace, etc), etc.
And often our desires aren't real *needs* anyway. Overweight people don't *need* to eat as much food as they do to stay alive... in fact... if they eat too much they are reducing their life expectancy! And dare-devils don't *need* to do crazy stunts to stay alive! It would have served an evolutionary purpose - of them exploring dangerous places, etc, but in the modern world dare-devil stunts usually just result in people risking there lives without the benefit of new places being explored.

2. We really are dealing in fantasy at this point. None of what you describe is even remotely possible.
The same kind of thing has been talked about in consciousness/AI books... also, have a look at <a href="http://ban.tao.ca/600MSfishbot.htm" target="_blank">this cyborg link</a> - it talks about a fish brain that is hooked up to light sensors and a robot's body. So basically they can get electrical devices to communicate with neurons. Near the bottom of <a href="http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b230.html" target="_blank">this</a> link it talks about the thoughts of monkeys being controlled. And in modern university-level anatomy textbooks they usually talk in a lot of detail how neurons work... they have graphs which show the input voltage (membrane potential) and what a typical input looks like. Once a threshold has been reached, it "fires". These graphs are very exact... I guess they'd use probes and electronic equipment. They can also artificially activate the neurons by applying a voltage to make it cross the threshold voltage.

3. Let's pretend(you're good at that) that we can turn a human into a machine. I guess you're trying to preserve the biological drives in a different medium. Well, you have to do it without the subject being aware that you were doing it. If the subject knew, his consciousness would allow him to compensate for his new medium. he/she/it would know that it no longer needed to breathe, have sex, etc.
People have other desires besides that! People also like socializing, learning new things, etc. And people with iron lungs don't need to breathe for themselves I think... and if the person also happened to be a kid then they wouldn't need to have sex either... so needing to breathe and have sex aren't necessary requirements for being conscious.

4. If the subject didn't know, what would the subject's friends and relative's say when they saw him? Would the subject then know that he was a machine and no longer was human? Last I knew humans were social animals. Do you think for a minute that human consciousness exists in some sort of isolation?
They could still have a desire to socialize. Even dogs have a desire to socialize (in a less intelligent way). So non-humans can want to socialize.

Ierrellus · 07-18-2002, 07:03 AM

Taffy,

News Of The Weird.com, which claims actual media sources of news as its resources, tells of a robot that escaped from the lab. It got all the way into the parking lot before it was stopped by a car. Now what was that robot trying to do? News of the Weird--July.

Ierrellus
PAX

excreationist · 07-18-2002, 06:04 PM

Ierrellus:
Here's some more information about
<a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4444367,00.html" target="_blank">Gaak the predator robot </a>:

Quote:

...Programmed to sink a metal fang into smaller but more nimble prey robots, to "eat" their electric power, at a science adventure centre, Gaak showed that a two year experiment in maturing robot "thinking" may be proving alarmingly successful.

Left unattended for 15 minutes, the 2ft metal machine crept along a barrier until it found a gap, squeezed through, navigated across a car park and reached the Magna science centre's exit by the M1 motorway in Rotherham, South Yorkshire.

Only then was its plot foiled, as dappled shade from trees fooled its solar batteries into steering it round and round. A visitor, Dan Lowthorpe, 27, from Sheffield, almost ran it over as it circled.

....
After switching off Gaak (a name taken from the suitably sinister klingons of Star Trek), Professor Sharkey said that it would take time to work out how the Robot had been so cunning.

"There's no actual intelligence in what he did - it's more the absent-minded professor forgetting to switch him off," he said. "But robots are learning all the time how to react to the environment."

The machine has been in a section of the programme called "mating", where microchips from successful predators are merged to make a new robot with a composite brain.

The emphasis on hunting in the predators may also have galvanised its bid to see the rest of the world.

"The predators can hallucinate they're seeing prey if you shine a light at them," said Prof Sharkey. "A lot of light streams into Magna and Gaak may have been chasing sunbeams."

tronvillain · 07-18-2002, 08:17 PM

snatchbalance, I just thought I'd address a small but important point from before your most recent post:

Quote:

Yes, this claim ["the unconscious... is part of a survival mechanism that predates brains of any sort"] is somewhat controversial.

As far as I know, "controversial" is too conservative a label for such a claim. When you make suggestions like this (for which a label like "ludicrous" would be a apt) it is difficult to see why I should take your attempts at criticism seriously. Take your vitalism and/or Cartesian Dualism and go home.

Ierrellus · 07-19-2002, 03:35 AM

excreationist,
ROTFLMAO, clear down to my ions! Thanks for the article on Gaak, the predator robot. If Gaak is a predator of sunbeams, I think he should be freed.

Ierrellus
PAX

snatchbalance · 07-19-2002, 08:07 AM

Excreationist,

"People can be raised for their whole life attached to a life support system so that they never eat, drink, or breathe. At before puberty, they would have no sex drive. Those people would still be conscious. Anyway, robots would have needs - e.g. to avoid injury, to satisfy its appetite for energy (it could use a rechargeable battery, or a furnace, etc), etc.
And often our desires aren't real *needs* anyway. Overweight people don't *need* to eat as much food as they do to stay alive... in fact... if they eat too much they are reducing their life expectancy! And dare-devils don't *need* to do crazy stunts to stay alive! It would have served an evolutionary purpose - of them exploring dangerous places, etc, but in the modern world dare-devil stunts usually just result in people risking there lives without the benefit of new places being explored."

Well, I don't know if I have time to comment on every possible special case and grey area, I'm sure there are many. I've been trying to contain my comments to a possible consciounes based in a silicon/metal environment.

"The same kind of thing has been talked about in consciousness/AI books... also, have a look at this cyborg link - it talks about a fish brain that is hooked up to light sensors and a robot's body. So basically they can get electrical devices to communicate with neurons. Near the bottom of this link it talks about the thoughts of monkeys being controlled. And in modern university-level anatomy textbooks they usually talk in a lot of detail how neurons work... they have graphs which show the input voltage (membrane potential) and what a typical input looks like. Once a threshold has been reached, it "fires". These graphs are very exact... I guess they'd use probes and electronic equipment. They can also artificially activate the neurons by applying a voltage to make it cross the threshold voltage.

Yes, the link is interesting, and yes, application of the proper current will cause a nerve to "fire". However, accutally turning a human into a "machine" is still the stuff of science fiction. Theory is way, way ahead of practice.

"People have other desires besides that! People also like socializing, learning new things, etc. And people with iron lungs don't need to breathe for themselves I think... and if the person also happened to be a kid then they wouldn't need to have sex either... so needing to breathe and have sex aren't necessary requirements for being conscious."

No, I guess one wouldn't need to have all biological drives in place to be considered human. Like I've said, I've been trying to confine my arguments to the case of a silicon/metal based being.

Such a being would have no biological drives, as we know them, e.g., silicon chips and hydraulicly activated limbs have no need for a blood supply; no germ cells will be produced, no need for "food", never thirsty, no telomeres counting down to death, etc.

"They could still have a desire to socialize. Even dogs have a desire to socialize (in a less intelligent way). So non-humans can want to socialize."

Yes, they may even want to socialise with humans(particuarly if we are thier original creators, I guess we would be the only candidate at this point). However, dogs(as you noted), chimps, birds, etc. will also socialise with humans; we can even communicate with them on limited basis; but thier consciousness, is not the same as ours, IMO.

SB

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

snatchbalance · 07-19-2002, 08:40 AM

Tron,
The only real controversial part of my statement is whether this: <a href="http://whyfiles.org/026fear/physio1.html" target="_blank">enteric nervous system</a>

and other collections of nerves can be considered "brains", or not.

SB

[ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

Mr. Sammi · 07-20-2002, 06:35 AM

here is : Part 1.

THE SERLE EXTENSION
===================

Of course I agree with Serle on the point of a Computer program not knowing what its units are and the sequences which foray into the units and obtaing gramatically correct positions which can be exhibited to the world as reasonable measurements of intelligence are only grains of sand on the beach positioned by the waves unaware of all else including what it comprises. The pattern the sand makes when it encounters the waves and the wind is not recognisable as an intellectual pursuit by the sand itself. A computer program cannot gauge the intellectual level of its output. [ repeat for intrinsic value : a computer program cannot gauge the intellectual level of its output].

Then again another program may be written which can analyse output for intellectual content. The scope is limited by the sequence of instructions which delineate intellectual content. Experience seems at this point a necessary factor, which would allow the absorbation of the techniques and elements outside the scope of written programs.

What then is necessary to parse experience? It would seem odd if experience was not-1-of-us, since we would be unable to comprehend the information of experience. If we had no eyes to see, no ears to hear, no hands to touch, no nose to smell, no tongue to taste, no feet to move, no organs to reproduce, no brain to act as command central, we would be disadvantaged in this environment where we would wish to obtain experience.

HOW is consciousness related to experience? DOES the experience bring or heighten the consciousness? OR is consciousness necessary in order to experience? IF Serle's machine was able to comprehend experience in its environment would 'it' be conscious of that experience BUT not as yet conscious of itself? The implication presented is pointing to what constitutes 'conscious of the experience'.

(START in flashing highlights) It was stated earlier as experience was introduced with somber notation that one must posess the tools of the environment in order to experience the environment. The information of the environment must be passed on to those who wish to experience the environment. (END in flashing highlights)

(START italics)
IT goes without saying that any part of the environment which may or may not transmit information which the subject cannot absorb and parse OR accept the presence of such information, BLINDS the subject. Another way of saying this is, the subject is blind to such experiences within the environment, or the subject is totally blind to the environment. (END italics)

FOR all those who are not blind to the environment, what is it that makes them conscious of the environment? DOES information from the environment help them to be conscious of their environment? IT seems reasonable to add that the case of not being blind to the information of experience within the environment is a necessary step up the ladder of consciousness.

CLIMBING the ladder of consciousness entails NOT BEING BLIND to the information of experience within the environment. AS we chase Serle's machine environment, it is obvious that the program is not blind to the information which is a product of the machine's experience. The program is conscious of the data, conscious of the data result. In the machine environment the program has climbed the ladder of consciousness by not being blind to its information of experience - HOWEVER LIMITED.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Mr. Sammi · 07-20-2002, 06:59 AM

Here is : Part 2.

Imagine the 1st rung on the ladder of consciouness as not being blind to the information of experience within the environment. This only means the subject can "see" some information of experience. This seems to me to be the ground level of "understanding" which is entailed in the "perception". In other words by not being blind to the information, we can "perceive" (a better word than see) the information of experience.

* * *

When the subject "sees" or "perceives", this is data for the subject. It may be information leaving the experience of the environment, yet it can hardly arrive at the subject as full fledged information, if it did, then the subject would posess as true (exact) copy of the experience. This entails not being blind to the experience itself, in other words, the subject would be the experience, in full posession of all the information of the experience. The experience would therefore be enacted in plural terms or as a singular same experience. Because the subject is in the environment and is not the environment, the subject perceives the information of experience in the environment as opposed to posessing the information of experience. Does this lead us to conclude partially that only the environment can posess the information of experience AND only a copy of the information of experience can be perceived.

What would it take for the environment which posessess the information to perceive that information? Is this possible? The next leap must be taken which states how does being in posession of data from experience in the environment lead us to be conscious of the environment and conscious within the environment.

Is this all there is? Data from the environment and from the experience which is used to create a conscious figure!

THE DATA OF EXPERIENCE
======================
On the other hand Serle's machine has no data of experience. Serle's machine is the environment, with the program not being blind to the information within its environment. Serle's machine has no data of experience akin to 128 bytes moved to main memory, the sequence R2D2 followed for 2 seconds, while "stdout" was unavailable. This is what I understand to be the data of experience in Serle's machine environment. The final data of experience would exhibit the empathy for what the actual sequence during the 2 seconds did mean. Surely the data of experience would give "looking for a free network connection".

* * *

Wait, does this not imply that Serle's program would now have 2 parts, the old part plus one additional part which perceives the information of experience in Serle's machine environment. The next big question would be how can these 2 Actors in Serle's program play out in order to achieve consciousness of the environment.

To circle back to the question of whether being conscious of the environment entails consciousness of the subject, it would seem that the Actor subject would have to be conscious of the Actor's own environment. Would this then mean that the sand in Serle's machine would have to tell Serle's program, I really mean to say, inform Serle's program, of its gates and logic in firm words. The environment in which Serle's program lives, must be capable of not blinding the program and capable of passing information about its own environment from within itself, something Silicon was not programmed to exhibit!

It now seems logical that singularity is out of the question. Plurality is in and this must be the second rung of consciousness. The question may be, as the second rung, plurality may just be the underlying tone or mechanism where the true 2nd rung of consciousness exist.

* * *

If there is plurality within, then it seems obvious there must be some form of communication within the plural environmenmt. Does this imply intent and feedback as part of singular Actors? How does the data of experience which is now in the hands of 1 Actor enable consciousness to be animated when it seems more than 1 Actor is available for acting as part of a plural process? In the plural process can we say 1 Actor is an independent process?

* * *

There is more than 1 kind of seeing the data. We are most familiar with the idea of seeing as a transfer of information of experience to the subject where the end result is the subject "sees" or "perceives" the data which all takes place in the environment. This kind of seeing can be aligned to the experience "showing itself", or in other words, the subject being made aware of the Experience through the transfer of information from experience to subject. This primary relationship does not seem to be symmetrical since it is only the experience which reveals itself.

* *

The 2nd form of seeing is the symmetrical form of "seeing" where the subject interacts with what the subject wants to see. Note carefully a revelation does not imply the subject wanting to see the experience, but the symmetrical form of experiencing relies on the subject wanting to see the experience and in doing so recieves a revelation of the experience through feedback. This seems to indicate an intent to obtain independent corroboration on the subject's part.

In order to receive the feedback from the revelation, the subject could have either randomly probed for the information of experience OR the data was sought with an intention to see. Either case reveals at its root the subject's intention to see the information of Experience, hence the feedback and the intention to see.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Bible Humper · 08-18-2002, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Except that the brain, and I guess you really mean the neocortex, does not function in isolation. Conscious computations are only a small part of the story. All of our drives(feelings) take place on the substrate of biology, this cannot be denied. To say that a computational made out silicon and such, will have comparable drives(feelings), is a very hard contention to support,IMO.

If the inorganic brain is identical in every way to the organic brain besides being inorganic?

Thought experiment.

At this moment your brain is completely organic and you are conscious.

Now, replace a single brain cell with an inorganic replacement that does everything the cell it replaced did precisely.

Now another, and another.

At what point are you no longer a conscious being, but merely a complex machine that can "fake it"?

The aspects of our brain responsible for the sensations and emotions you described would all be recreated in this case in their entirety.

Quote:

Here, let me make it plain, the brain and body are part and parcel of an organism. Now, if you create, somehow, a human style brain and put it in a human body, you may have created human intelligence.

If you create a machine of electronic components, that becomes, one way or another, self aware, you may have created some type of machine intelligence.

Will the machine have feeligs comparable to the human?

How about if the steps in that process that I highlighted in bold were reversed?

If nanotechnology was advanced enough to replace our brains, cell by cell, efficiently enough to have the replacement ready before the organic cell was replaced, thus not causing a break in your stream of consciousness, eventually you would have an inorganic brain that is in every respect identical to the old organic one except for it's new material composition.

That particular "stream of consciousness" would also still be "you".

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-18-2002, 05:45 AM	#61
excreationist Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Australia Posts: 4,886	snatchbalance: Some comments: 1. If you build a machine that is conscious, it will know that it is a machine. It will have no reason to have biological drives. It won't really need food, air, sex, etc. You can simulate these needs all you want, they remain simulations. Get it? People can be raised for their whole life attached to a life support system so that they never eat, drink, or breathe. At before puberty, they would have no sex drive. Those people would still be conscious. Anyway, robots would have needs - e.g. to avoid injury, to satisfy its appetite for energy (it could use a rechargeable battery, or a furnace, etc), etc. And often our desires aren't real needs anyway. Overweight people don't need to eat as much food as they do to stay alive... in fact... if they eat too much they are reducing their life expectancy! And dare-devils don't need to do crazy stunts to stay alive! It would have served an evolutionary purpose - of them exploring dangerous places, etc, but in the modern world dare-devil stunts usually just result in people risking there lives without the benefit of new places being explored. 2. We really are dealing in fantasy at this point. None of what you describe is even remotely possible. The same kind of thing has been talked about in consciousness/AI books... also, have a look at <a href="http://ban.tao.ca/600MSfishbot.htm" target="_blank">this cyborg link</a> - it talks about a fish brain that is hooked up to light sensors and a robot's body. So basically they can get electrical devices to communicate with neurons. Near the bottom of <a href="http://www.hhmi.org/senses/b230.html" target="_blank">this</a> link it talks about the thoughts of monkeys being controlled. And in modern university-level anatomy textbooks they usually talk in a lot of detail how neurons work... they have graphs which show the input voltage (membrane potential) and what a typical input looks like. Once a threshold has been reached, it "fires". These graphs are very exact... I guess they'd use probes and electronic equipment. They can also artificially activate the neurons by applying a voltage to make it cross the threshold voltage. 3. Let's pretend(you're good at that) that we can turn a human into a machine. I guess you're trying to preserve the biological drives in a different medium. Well, you have to do it without the subject being aware that you were doing it. If the subject knew, his consciousness would allow him to compensate for his new medium. he/she/it would know that it no longer needed to breathe, have sex, etc. People have other desires besides that! People also like socializing, learning new things, etc. And people with iron lungs don't need to breathe for themselves I think... and if the person also happened to be a kid then they wouldn't need to have sex either... so needing to breathe and have sex aren't necessary requirements for being conscious. 4. If the subject didn't know, what would the subject's friends and relative's say when they saw him? Would the subject then know that he was a machine and no longer was human? Last I knew humans were social animals. Do you think for a minute that human consciousness exists in some sort of isolation? They could still have a desire to socialize. Even dogs have a desire to socialize (in a less intelligent way). So non-humans can want to socialize.

07-18-2002, 07:03 AM	#62
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	Taffy, News Of The Weird.com, which claims actual media sources of news as its resources, tells of a robot that escaped from the lab. It got all the way into the parking lot before it was stopped by a car. Now what was that robot trying to do? News of the Weird--July. Ierrellus PAX

07-19-2002, 03:35 AM	#65
Ierrellus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Canton, Ohio Posts: 2,082	excreationist, ROTFLMAO, clear down to my ions! Thanks for the article on Gaak, the predator robot. If Gaak is a predator of sunbeams, I think he should be freed. Ierrellus PAX

07-19-2002, 08:07 AM	#66
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	Excreationist, "People can be raised for their whole life attached to a life support system so that they never eat, drink, or breathe. At before puberty, they would have no sex drive. Those people would still be conscious. Anyway, robots would have needs - e.g. to avoid injury, to satisfy its appetite for energy (it could use a rechargeable battery, or a furnace, etc), etc. And often our desires aren't real needs anyway. Overweight people don't need to eat as much food as they do to stay alive... in fact... if they eat too much they are reducing their life expectancy! And dare-devils don't need to do crazy stunts to stay alive! It would have served an evolutionary purpose - of them exploring dangerous places, etc, but in the modern world dare-devil stunts usually just result in people risking there lives without the benefit of new places being explored." Well, I don't know if I have time to comment on every possible special case and grey area, I'm sure there are many. I've been trying to contain my comments to a possible consciounes based in a silicon/metal environment. "The same kind of thing has been talked about in consciousness/AI books... also, have a look at this cyborg link - it talks about a fish brain that is hooked up to light sensors and a robot's body. So basically they can get electrical devices to communicate with neurons. Near the bottom of this link it talks about the thoughts of monkeys being controlled. And in modern university-level anatomy textbooks they usually talk in a lot of detail how neurons work... they have graphs which show the input voltage (membrane potential) and what a typical input looks like. Once a threshold has been reached, it "fires". These graphs are very exact... I guess they'd use probes and electronic equipment. They can also artificially activate the neurons by applying a voltage to make it cross the threshold voltage. Yes, the link is interesting, and yes, application of the proper current will cause a nerve to "fire". However, accutally turning a human into a "machine" is still the stuff of science fiction. Theory is way, way ahead of practice. "People have other desires besides that! People also like socializing, learning new things, etc. And people with iron lungs don't need to breathe for themselves I think... and if the person also happened to be a kid then they wouldn't need to have sex either... so needing to breathe and have sex aren't necessary requirements for being conscious." No, I guess one wouldn't need to have all biological drives in place to be considered human. Like I've said, I've been trying to confine my arguments to the case of a silicon/metal based being. Such a being would have no biological drives, as we know them, e.g., silicon chips and hydraulicly activated limbs have no need for a blood supply; no germ cells will be produced, no need for "food", never thirsty, no telomeres counting down to death, etc. "They could still have a desire to socialize. Even dogs have a desire to socialize (in a less intelligent way). So non-humans can want to socialize." Yes, they may even want to socialise with humans(particuarly if we are thier original creators, I guess we would be the only candidate at this point). However, dogs(as you noted), chimps, birds, etc. will also socialise with humans; we can even communicate with them on limited basis; but thier consciousness, is not the same as ours, IMO. SB [ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

07-19-2002, 08:40 AM	#67
snatchbalance Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CT Posts: 333	Tron, The only real controversial part of my statement is whether this: <a href="http://whyfiles.org/026fear/physio1.html" target="_blank">enteric nervous system</a> and other collections of nerves can be considered "brains", or not. SB [ July 19, 2002: Message edited by: snatchbalance ]</p>

07-20-2002, 06:35 AM	#68
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	here is : Part 1. THE SERLE EXTENSION =================== Of course I agree with Serle on the point of a Computer program not knowing what its units are and the sequences which foray into the units and obtaing gramatically correct positions which can be exhibited to the world as reasonable measurements of intelligence are only grains of sand on the beach positioned by the waves unaware of all else including what it comprises. The pattern the sand makes when it encounters the waves and the wind is not recognisable as an intellectual pursuit by the sand itself. A computer program cannot gauge the intellectual level of its output. [ repeat for intrinsic value : a computer program cannot gauge the intellectual level of its output]. Then again another program may be written which can analyse output for intellectual content. The scope is limited by the sequence of instructions which delineate intellectual content. Experience seems at this point a necessary factor, which would allow the absorbation of the techniques and elements outside the scope of written programs. What then is necessary to parse experience? It would seem odd if experience was not-1-of-us, since we would be unable to comprehend the information of experience. If we had no eyes to see, no ears to hear, no hands to touch, no nose to smell, no tongue to taste, no feet to move, no organs to reproduce, no brain to act as command central, we would be disadvantaged in this environment where we would wish to obtain experience. HOW is consciousness related to experience? DOES the experience bring or heighten the consciousness? OR is consciousness necessary in order to experience? IF Serle's machine was able to comprehend experience in its environment would 'it' be conscious of that experience BUT not as yet conscious of itself? The implication presented is pointing to what constitutes 'conscious of the experience'. (START in flashing highlights) It was stated earlier as experience was introduced with somber notation that one must posess the tools of the environment in order to experience the environment. The information of the environment must be passed on to those who wish to experience the environment. (END in flashing highlights) (START italics) IT goes without saying that any part of the environment which may or may not transmit information which the subject cannot absorb and parse OR accept the presence of such information, BLINDS the subject. Another way of saying this is, the subject is blind to such experiences within the environment, or the subject is totally blind to the environment. (END italics) FOR all those who are not blind to the environment, what is it that makes them conscious of the environment? DOES information from the environment help them to be conscious of their environment? IT seems reasonable to add that the case of not being blind to the information of experience within the environment is a necessary step up the ladder of consciousness. CLIMBING the ladder of consciousness entails NOT BEING BLIND to the information of experience within the environment. AS we chase Serle's machine environment, it is obvious that the program is not blind to the information which is a product of the machine's experience. The program is conscious of the data, conscious of the data result. In the machine environment the program has climbed the ladder of consciousness by not being blind to its information of experience - HOWEVER LIMITED. Sammi Na Boodie ()

07-20-2002, 06:59 AM	#69
Mr. Sammi Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Montr�al Posts: 367	Here is : Part 2. Imagine the 1st rung on the ladder of consciouness as not being blind to the information of experience within the environment. This only means the subject can "see" some information of experience. This seems to me to be the ground level of "understanding" which is entailed in the "perception". In other words by not being blind to the information, we can "perceive" (a better word than see) the information of experience. * * * When the subject "sees" or "perceives", this is data for the subject. It may be information leaving the experience of the environment, yet it can hardly arrive at the subject as full fledged information, if it did, then the subject would posess as true (exact) copy of the experience. This entails not being blind to the experience itself, in other words, the subject would be the experience, in full posession of all the information of the experience. The experience would therefore be enacted in plural terms or as a singular same experience. Because the subject is in the environment and is not the environment, the subject perceives the information of experience in the environment as opposed to posessing the information of experience. Does this lead us to conclude partially that only the environment can posess the information of experience AND only a copy of the information of experience can be perceived. What would it take for the environment which posessess the information to perceive that information? Is this possible? The next leap must be taken which states how does being in posession of data from experience in the environment lead us to be conscious of the environment and conscious within the environment. Is this all there is? Data from the environment and from the experience which is used to create a conscious figure! THE DATA OF EXPERIENCE ====================== On the other hand Serle's machine has no data of experience. Serle's machine is the environment, with the program not being blind to the information within its environment. Serle's machine has no data of experience akin to 128 bytes moved to main memory, the sequence R2D2 followed for 2 seconds, while "stdout" was unavailable. This is what I understand to be the data of experience in Serle's machine environment. The final data of experience would exhibit the empathy for what the actual sequence during the 2 seconds did mean. Surely the data of experience would give "looking for a free network connection". * * * Wait, does this not imply that Serle's program would now have 2 parts, the old part plus one additional part which perceives the information of experience in Serle's machine environment. The next big question would be how can these 2 Actors in Serle's program play out in order to achieve consciousness of the environment. To circle back to the question of whether being conscious of the environment entails consciousness of the subject, it would seem that the Actor subject would have to be conscious of the Actor's own environment. Would this then mean that the sand in Serle's machine would have to tell Serle's program, I really mean to say, inform Serle's program, of its gates and logic in firm words. The environment in which Serle's program lives, must be capable of not blinding the program and capable of passing information about its own environment from within itself, something Silicon was not programmed to exhibit! It now seems logical that singularity is out of the question. Plurality is in and this must be the second rung of consciousness. The question may be, as the second rung, plurality may just be the underlying tone or mechanism where the true 2nd rung of consciousness exist. * * * If there is plurality within, then it seems obvious there must be some form of communication within the plural environmenmt. Does this imply intent and feedback as part of singular Actors? How does the data of experience which is now in the hands of 1 Actor enable consciousness to be animated when it seems more than 1 Actor is available for acting as part of a plural process? In the plural process can we say 1 Actor is an independent process? * * * There is more than 1 kind of seeing the data. We are most familiar with the idea of seeing as a transfer of information of experience to the subject where the end result is the subject "sees" or "perceives" the data which all takes place in the environment. This kind of seeing can be aligned to the experience "showing itself", or in other words, the subject being made aware of the Experience through the transfer of information from experience to subject. This primary relationship does not seem to be symmetrical since it is only the experience which reveals itself. * * The 2nd form of seeing is the symmetrical form of "seeing" where the subject interacts with what the subject wants to see. Note carefully a revelation does not imply the subject wanting to see the experience, but the symmetrical form of experiencing relies on the subject wanting to see the experience and in doing so recieves a revelation of the experience through feedback. This seems to indicate an intent to obtain independent corroboration on the subject's part. In order to receive the feedback from the revelation, the subject could have either randomly probed for the information of experience OR the data was sought with an intention to see. Either case reveals at its root the subject's intention to see the information of Experience, hence the feedback and the intention to see. Sammi Na Boodie ()

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.