--- James N Rose <integrity.domain.name.hidden>
wrote:
>
>
> Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > Le 03-janv.-07, à 16:36, Stathis Papaioannou wrote
> (in more than one
> > posts) :
> >
> > > Maudlin starts off with the assumption that a
> recording being
> > > conscious is obviously absurd, hence the need
> for the conscious
> > > machine to handle counterfactuals.
>
JR:
> ...
> Make it easier -- a coma patient, inert for decades,
> re-wakes alone in
> a room, registers its situation and in an instant -
> dies. Would that
> moment qualify for 'conscioueness'?
JM:
and how would WE know about 'that moment'? does the
coma-patient push a button to register? If there is a
"conscious machine" (human or humanoid?) he is not
alone. So the 'gedankenexperiment' (as all of this
kind do) fails. Jamie left out HIS version of Ccness,
to better understand his points. (E. g.:
(BM):
> >
> > Hans Moravec has defended in this list indeed the
> idea that even a
> > teddy bear is conscious.
JR:
>
> I put it to the list that there are several factors
> that are implicit
> and explicit to the notion of consciousness .. which
> we humans mis-identify
> and mis-weight. They involve more than the human
> arrogance that 'our'
> sentience is the gauge to measure any/all
> other-sentience against.
JM:
Earlier, when I felt an obligation to identify what
"I" am talking about when I say: Consciousness(?) I
generalized the concept to ANY sensitivity in ANY
aspect, (as acknowledgement (and?) response to (any)
information (meaning any difference that transpires) -
so Hans Morawetz's teddy bear can indeed have
'consciousness' . I called that a universal
(pan-)sensitivity to escape 'psycho' as in
'panpsychic'.
Jamie continues about his coma-experiment:
>
> The questions arise .. could a true 'sentience' have
> existed in that brief
> span of time? I.e, "what is the shortest time span
> of sentient (self)other
> awareness necessary, to "qualify" for consciousness?
JM:
after the excellent extension of the term from human
udeational restrictions Jamie falls back into physics
of measurable scales. I allow timeless fulgurations,
but cannot condone the restricted content of simply
'awareness' (except for the anestesiologists, who
indeed include into the term an observed response.
I find the simulacron-pair of consciousness and life
'close', at least none of them is identified in a
widely acceptable content (callable: meaning).
(Hal Ruhl was the only lister who responded lately to
my question about 'what do we look at (think of) when
we say "life", (I owe him a thankful response,) all
others in dozens of posts satisfied themselves with
the 'meaning' discussion without identifying what we
should relate those 'meanings' to.
JR:
>
> Whether human-or-not, 'situational awareness',
> becomes a parameter for consciousness, as well.
---(Amen, for one aspect of it)---
>
> -time
> -memory/continuity
> -reactive/interactive capacity
> ... etc.
>
> not just in human terms, but allowed in a spectrum
> of extent,
> from just-greater-than-zero to some full-functional
> (for that
> system) capacity.
>
>
> When you take the raw parameters criteria, and
> shrink them
> down to their minimalist extents -- so that all the
> BASIC
> CONDITIONS of 'sentience' are met/present - whether
> for a
> femto-second or 2 days or a billion years; whether
> capable
> of acting-on-awareness or not, or, only capable of
> self-registry
> of received-information; and so on .. we reach a
> point in
> the existential scenario when 'computation' falls
> away as being
> 'too complex' in the conditions-spectrum.
>
> What we reach in this paring-away scenario - are
> qualia of
> existence necessary to meet MINIMALISTS conditions
> for
> sentience-of-some-sort. Which would not have to be:
> sentience-of-OUR-sort.
>
> In the final existential analysis for 'what is
> sentience/
> consciousness' - it become the smallest, shortest
> contingient
> situation for an-aspect OF existence to REGISTER
> that some
> Batesian "difference that makes a difference" -- is
> co-present.
JM:
Is "sentience" a standing alone phenomenon? IMO it
requires a chain of processing response-continuation
to qualify as sentience. The impact of a photon is not
(yet) sentience. And the famous Bateson phrase, due to
a thinking Brit, is more than I need, because a stored
(acknowledged) difference may not result in a 'making'
of additional difference (e.g. memory) and yet it
qualifies for information. Storage may be sort of a
response without 'making' a difference.
JR:
>
> In the final existential analysis of primary qualia
> of the
> universe, I preffered in 1996 that the most
> FUNDAMENTAL
> dynamic change in this universe is some/any CHANGE
> OF INERTIA
> from a fixed sameness.
>
> This puts the formative, functional, primal
> qualiatative aspect
> of sentience/consciousness right in the very fabric
> of the cosmos.
>
> It is -not- complex or human consciousness -- which
> emerges later.
> But it is the primal foundation-presence and qualia
> on which
> emerged forms of consciousness rely - in order for
> those complex forms
> to exist, as they do.
>
> Food for thought, ladies and gentlemen, food for
> thought.
>
> Jamie Rose
> Ceptual Institute
> 4 Jan 2007
John Mikes
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list.domain.name.hidden
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list-unsubscribe.domain.name.hidden
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
Received on Thu Jan 04 2007 - 16:37:42 PST