From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!tcdcs!unix1.tcd.ie!sheehanp Tue May 12 15:50:19 EDT 1992
Article 5548 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ieunet!tcdcs!unix1.tcd.ie!sheehanp
>From: sheehanp@unix1.tcd.ie (Paul)
Subject: Re: What is Intelligence anyway? (Was: Re: Intelligence, awareness, etc)
Message-ID: <sheehanp.705585815@unix1.tcd.ie>
Sender: usenet@cs.tcd.ie (NN required at ashe.cs.tcd.ie)
Nntp-Posting-Host: unix1.tcd.ie
Organization: Trinity College, Dublin
References: <1992Apr29.025810.10175@highland.oz.au> <1992May3.190755.21824@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992May4.162855.911@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com> <1992May11.044837.17579@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1992 12:03:35 GMT
Lines: 94

In <1992May11.044837.17579@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:

>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!


Nop, Not always,
Did you every ask ,'What's that' i.e. you are aware of it but know not
what it it!



