Laurentius

Jonsey3333
Any analytical process categorizes and therefore forms classes (or groups, if you like).
By stating this, you are giving up your critical stand out of either dogmatic materialist determinism or just faith.
Of course not. But how about your infinite hope? Isn't it just faith?
And I'd say my initial post was quite clear:
AVE


[ March 10, 2002: Message edited by: Laurentius ]</p>

Laurentius

Christopher Lord
At least we have a relatively common ground, really broadly speaking.
That's what I've been trying to do with the chart in my initial post. What is it that you do not agree with?
I should declare myself satisfied with this statement if I did not suspect you are picturing the mind as the subtle "tick-tock" of a sophisticated clockwork. If it is so (and your subsequent posts about computers and programs justify me in my suspicion), then your view is unexplainably limitative.
This is just faith.
Faith, again.
Uselessly, though.
Moreover, the living matter bearing the mind at the top of its evolution combines self-conservation with building up complexity.
Only few species of mammals can recongnize themselves in the mirror. There are experiments, for instance, proving that chimp one can figure out what is going on in the mind of chimp two, and even view the himself and the circumstances from the point of view of chimp two.
Moreover, humans can do thinking and metathinking.
Does an AI fit this definition?
No, it doesn't.
As for your orginal qustion - "Would an AI that fits this definition have a mind?" - perhaps we could even start answering qustions like "How many angels can stand on the tip of a pin?" for a change.
AVE

Synaesthesia

Laurentius,
What both your chart and the above post indicate to me is that "spirituality" is only a measure of functional complexity. This is nothing fundamentally outside of the realm of computational structure. You are merely presupposing that a certain level of complexity cannot be superceded by mere machines. Human beings are a resounding example to the contrary.

Christopher Lord

Simply your assumption that the layers are somehow different in a basic and fundamental way. They are simply higher forms of the same thing.

If it is not a “Tick Tock”, then perhaps you can shed some light on what you think it is? It seems materialists are the only ones putting forth a testable theory that has some definite real world predictions. For example, materialism predicts that vision occurs in one section of the brain, calculation in another, and language in yet another. Damaging this one area typically affects that one function, much like damaging the heart impairs circulation. This, I expect, poses a major hurdle for dualists, since there is no one single source of ‘mind’ in the brain. It’s the interplay of several complex systems. This is not as simple as clockwork, but is still a process occurring in a lump of neurons.

Definitely. I have no problems admitting that my ideas may be wrong. I actually would love for the world to be dualistic. Show me something substantive. Materialism has a load of substantive claims that hang in the balance every time a brain is damaged or MRIed. We don’t know all the details yet, but every year a new function is discovered and dualism shrinks back into the gaps left behind. What happens when the gaps are gone?

So it is the usefulness of self-preservation that qualifies it? This strikes me as a ‘no true Scotsman’ argument. Just because a computer’s self-preservation software is useless, doesn’t mean it is non-existent.

Actually recognising ones self is not an indicator of self-awareness, it is simply an indicator of understanding the concept of a mirror in the first place. Most cats are social animals constantly jockeying for position just like apes. This requires a concept of self, however crude, to accomplish. After all, what good is moving yourself up in the world if you do not exist in your own eye? Humans can meta-think, but this ability may exist in crude form in other animals as well. At this point saying “I don’t know” seems appropriate.

It’s a valid question of opinion. Would an amazing AI convince you it is a mind of the human-like sort--or not? If absolutely no AI, no matter how fantastically human-like, can convince you, it speaks volumes regarding your bias.

Laurentius

Synaesthesia
Well, you're actually right.
Then it is the machines that have built the most advanced culture all over the world, and I've failed to notice it so far.

AVE

Christopher Lord

The implicit statement being that humans are not biological machines...

Laurentius

Christopher Lord
It seems to me quite significant that the "higher" you go up this ladder, the freer entities are to act in their own interest, and by doing so they tend to resist the action of the physical law dominating the first level.
No, I meant something else: that is, go on, install a self-preservation software to a computer. You will discover that it's been nothing but a useless deed: the computer still does not have a mind.
Self-reflection and metathinking are characteristics of the human mind; I think there've been a lot of documentaries on this. I find normal that certain animals should show crude form of them.
Okay, if answering this question is supposed to be the final test for a materialist, then I have to admit:
Yes, an amazing AI could convince me.
My point is that I don't think anyone can claim to have discovered the principle(s) enabling him/her to build such a device.
AVE

Laurentius

"biological machines" is a metaphor...

Laurentius

owleye
I'm just trying to make the point that the presence of the mind gives the matter a key quality that a piece of rock lacks.
(Further elaboration will show that I'm aiming at seeing how my Secular Humanism can be phylosophically sound.)
AVE

Christopher Lord

So there are no layers after all, but a gradient delineated with extinctions? Other than this small distinction I agree with your point here.

Permit me to quote the context from which this started, since there is some drifting here:
It seems to me you are retracting your original statement regarding 'human artifacts' not having a mind because they are not self-preserving, correct? If not, how do you reconsile these two quotes?

I've seen a lot of them too. If you accept that animals can have proto-minds, and that advanced AI could have a mind, I dont see where we disagree. Could you state your position more strongly? I think I misunderstood you somwhere.

But it is possible, since the mind is 100% matter and 0% magic, correct? In that case I agree with you fully. I simply hold issue with those who say the mind is some sort of magic that we can not emulate because it comes from a 'soul'.