RE: Fwd: Implementation/Relativity

From: Higgo James <james.higgo.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Wed, 28 Jul 1999 09:54:34 +0100

Suddenly Hans, a newcomer, is championing ideas we all agreed on ages ago,
and hitherto solid everythingers are attacking the foundations of their own
beliefs. What's happening? Some new brain-chomping virus introduced by
Jacques?

Enjoy your holiday, George - but it'll be harder to resist the virus without
you..

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hans Moravec [SMTP:hpm.domain.name.hidden]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 28, 1999 2:27 AM
> To: everything-list.domain.name.hidden; Russell Standish
> Subject: Re: Fwd: Implementation/Relativity
>
> Russell Standish <R.Standish.domain.name.hidden>:
> > We have discussed a number of scenarios whereby being too thorough in
> > an investigation will reveal a concious object as nonconcious.
>
> Every one a canard.
>
> **** Consciousness is an attribution, not an objective fact ****
>
> But any attributed consciousness is conscious in its own eyes. This
> includes your consciousness, my consciousness and theconsciousnesses
> of characters in a movie, or the character represented by a
> Turing-test-passing HLUT.
>
> Sherlock Holmes, as I read the books, is conscious in his own
> eyes and has feelings and beliefs (I can tell you what some of
> them are), and so was my teddy bear when I thought about it a
> certain way.
>
>
> Should this idea be hard to grasp by people who imagine that whole
> universes exist simply by virtue of seeming to exist to the characters
> implemented in them?
>
>
> YOU exist simply by virtue of seeming to exist in your own self-model
> (which exists only insofar as you exist).
Received on Wed Jul 28 1999 - 02:03:14 PDT