RE: UDA revisited

From: Stathis Papaioannou <>
Date: Thu, 23 Nov 2006 21:43:32 +1100

Russell Standish writes:
> > > When talking about minds, the self/other boundary need not occur on
> > > the biological boundary (skin). I would say that when dreaming, or
> > > hallucinating, the random firing we perceive as coming from our input
> > > centres (visual cortex for instance) is coming from outside our minds
> > > (although still within our heads).
> >
> > What if I'm not dreaming or hallucinating but just thinking abstract thoughts
> > about number theory or philosophy. I'm conscious, but I don't necessarily have
> > any sense of input from outside myself, whether real or imagined. I could live my
> > whole life like this, and if I ever suspected that something other than my own mind
> > existed it would be just another theory created by my mind on its own.
> >
> I find it hard to imagine this being possible without any form of
> input. Most philosophers would need books, or at least an internet
> connection to
> What you're suggesting is something like Tegmark's smart baby that
> figures out the grand unified theory of everything before it has
> learnt to talk. Is this possible? Not so sure....
As soon as you say "mind", "machine", or "program" you are assuming some inherent
knowledge, even if it is just some basic axioms and rules. Input from the environment
just adds to these axioms and rules. The difference between a machine that can only
do binary arithmetic and a machine that incorporates a hardwired database of all knowledge
is just one of degree.
Stathis Papaioannou
Be one of the first to try Windows Live Mail.
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at
Received on Thu Nov 23 2006 - 05:43:50 PST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:12 PST