From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Tue May 12 15:50:17 EDT 1992
Article 5543 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: What is Intelligence anyway? (Was: Re: Intelligence, awareness, etc)
Message-ID: <1992May11.044837.17579@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 11 May 92 04:48:37 GMT
References: <1992Apr29.025810.10175@highland.oz.au> <1992May3.190755.21824@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992May4.162855.911@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 96

In article <1992May4.162855.911@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com (Wayne Peterson) writes:
>Mr. Zirdum states:>
>>I have never seen any evidence that awareness is/can be
>>seperated from the physical world that one is aware of!
>>When one is aware, one is aware of something! When they
>>are aware of nothing they are NOT conscious.
>
>How about a dream?  maybe you have no evidence about dreams.
>How about hypnosis?  maybe you have no evidence about hypnosis.
>How about memory, or imagination and of course meditation.

Sorry, just doesn't cut it! In any dream/hypnotic state/memory/
imagination/meditation - you are certainly aware of some THING.
This is exactly my point, the thing that you are aware of
is intricatly tied to the senses. Thus a blind man will never
dream about colors, a deaf man will never be hypnotised into
believing that he heard a gun shot. The capability must exist
in the physical body for the awareness to exist.
>
>> Now the
>>question becomes can a being be aware of a 'thing' without
>>being intelligent? If one is aware of a thing then one
>>presumably knows about that thing that one is aware of,
>>thus one can use the thing intelligently. Do not attempt
>>to go any further without answering the above question.
>
>I have trouble with your presumption.  How does being aware
>of something mean that we know something about which we are
>aware.  Do we have a knowledge that precedes awareness, or
>does knowledge arise from awareness.  Perhaps it is possible
>to be aware of something in which you have no knowledge.  Perhaps
>it could be possible to be aware without thinking. (meditation)
>
We do not have knowledge that precedes awareness, however we
have the capability of having that knowledge. Thus, having
eyes I have the capability of knowing colors. If I had
magnetic sensors, I would have the capability to know
different shades of magnetism. Thus at first (to an infant
for example) knowing something is a direct result of the
play of the senses. Later on, we associate different
models to the things that we are aware of. Thus, I would
make a conjecture that awareness and knowledge are the
same thing primarily.
	I would say that being aware without being aware
of something makes about as much sense as thinking about
nothing. (You still have those green Ideas) Pure nonsense
sentences!
	To sum up, there are primary awarenesses such as
colors - that map directly to our senses, there are
secondary awarenesses that we call knowledge of things
these map less directly to our primary awarenesses.
Thus there are only two types of things we know about
1) things such as colors - sense data
2) things such as numbers - secondary knowledge that
   still depends on (1).
(How did I get started on this detour, you asked me
how knowledge and awareness interrelate. I am simply
trying to say that knowledge and awareness can be
the same thing - one does not have to arise from
another, but in the case of (2) that knowledge
definetly arises from (1).

BTW, meditation does not mean that you are aware
without knowledge, or vice versa. I think if you
examine it carefully, you will find that you are
always aware of something - even if it is only
a mantra chant, or even the process of time!
>>It is obvious to me that a being that can recognize
>>a thing is INTELLIGENT (to a degree)
>>To say that one can be aware of something without being
>>able to recognize or otherwise know about it is pure BS.
>>(Since I don't want to argue here about what recognition
>>means I am perfectly willing to use 'know about' as a
>>replacement!)
>I am sorry, but you made a leap from being aware to recognizing
>something.  Recognition is a loaded term with many levels of
>meaning.  Can one be aware of something without recognizing
>it?  Can one be aware of something without trying to recognize
>it?
>
That is why I am satisfied with the term "knowing about"
instead of "recognizing" But in answer, I would have to say
that one can never be aware of a thing without recognizing
it. (it's simply in the definition, If I am aware of a 
chair - it means that I DO recognize it as a chair.)
If I am aware of a thing, I recognize it as a thing!

>Sincerely,
>Wayne Peterson


-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


