Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!europa.chnt.gtegsc.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.mathworks.com!newshost.marcam.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!hearst.acc.Virginia.EDU!murdoch!viper.cs.Virginia.EDU!ccb8m
From: ccb8m@viper.cs.Virginia.EDU (Charles C. Bundy)
Subject: Re: Is Penrose Right?
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: viper-fo.cs.virginia.edu
Message-ID: <DG8JH3.4pw@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: University of Virginia Computer Science Department
References: <51701135wnr@smithg.demon.co.uk> <1995Oct4.150100.6626@cs.wm.edu> <44ucv0$22o@newsflash.concordia.ca>
Date: Tue, 10 Oct 1995 13:43:51 GMT
Lines: 24

In article <44ucv0$22o@newsflash.concordia.ca> grogono@cs.concordia.ca (Peter Grogono) writes:
>In article <1995Oct4.150100.6626@cs.wm.edu> lasota@physics.physics.wm.edu (Chris LaSota) writes:
>>Why is it, in our attempt to build a conscious computer, that
>>we have to stick to formal systems?  Do we know that it is NOT
>>possible for our minds to derive contradictions and accept both
>>alternatives.  Many ignorant citizens are capable of just this.
>
>It depends on what you mean by "formal system".  Any computer program
>can be viewed as a formal system because it follows a set of
>predetermined rules.  Consequently, a "conscious computer" must be
>a formal system.

Disagree strongly.  My definition of "conscious" involves internal self 
modification based upon external stimuli.  Thus the "program" changes.
Now if a body can "see" into the future you could still apply the term
pre-determined to "conscious".  I also believe that "conscious" individuals
have a kernel (much like an OS) which is fixed at any given time that
another aspect of their selves is undergoing internal self modification.

This doesn't imply that the core self can't be changed it just implies that
it happens slowly, based upon some "delta" ratio.  

Charles C. Bundy IV
ccb8m@virginia.edu
