On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 01:36:56PM +0100, David Nyman wrote:
>
> DN: Now this seems to me crucial. When you say that self-awareness emerges
> from the physics, ISTM that this is what I was getting at in the bit you
> didn't comment on directly:
>
> "My claim is....that if (machines) are (conscious), it couldn't be solely in
> virtue of any 'imaginary computational worlds' imputed to them, but rather
> because they support some unique, distinguished process of *physical*
> emergence that also corresponds to a unique observer-world."
There is, in a sense, a certain arbitrariness in where one draws the
boundaries. But I strongly support the notion that there can be no
consciousness without an environment (aka appearance of a physical
world to the conscious entity). Only if that environment was shared
with our own physical world do we have a possibility of
communication. We would have to acknowledge the same self-other
boundary as the other conscious process.
Furthermore, I would make the stronger claim that self-other boundary
must be such that neither the self nor the environment can be
computable, even if together they are. We've had this discussion
before on this list.
Gotta run now - my train's pulling in.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Mathematics
UNSW SYDNEY 2052 hpcoder.domain.name.hidden
Australia http://www.hpcoders.com.au
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
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 Tue Jun 26 2007 - 20:47:05 PDT