Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.cognitive,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!news.er.usgs.gov!stc06.ctd.ornl.gov!fnnews.fnal.gov!muir.math.niu.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!vixen.cso.uiuc.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!news3.noc.netcom.net!zdc!zippo!usenet
From: bs <ajax@freedomnet.com>
Subject: Re: achieving consciousness (was Re: The Chinese Room argument by Searle)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: usenet@news.zippo.com
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Nntp-Posting-Host: p4.freedomnet.com
Organization: none
Message-ID: <DL2pp1.GDF@news.zippo.com>
References: <4aq6g2$kud@pipe3.nyc.pipeline.com> <819530430snx@sv.span.com> <mulcybr.472.0014E2D1@azstarnet.com> <4btcvr$3ee@aladdin.iii.org.tw> <mulcybr.482.00091170@azstarnet.com> <4c0fn9$2pl@aladdin.iii.org.tw> <4cjitc$o49@dogbert.ipa.net>
X-Mailer: Mozilla 1.1 (Windows; U; 16bit)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Date: Fri, 12 Jan 1996 15:00:36 GMT
Lines: 98
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:35844 sci.cognitive:11683 comp.ai.philosophy:36527

ntc@ipa.net (Lee Kent) wrote:
>bs <ajax@freedomnet.com> wrote:
[...]
>>also, people assume consciousness when they speak of it.  if someone is 
>>going to argue over it, it would make things much simpler to just define 
>>it. 
[...]

>One can not learn something that is a design element. One can only
>learn ABOUT it.

you have epistemology reversed.  if a neanderthal wanted to learn of the 
sun, even though he would not know everything there was to know about the 
sun, he would definitely be able to point in the sky and say "that is 
what i am talking about".  many talking of consciousness, however, have 
no epistemological recognition of what consciousness is.  if you do not 
know what it is, and say that you are trying to find it, you might as 
well be looking for the philosopher's stone, or the secret of life.  
you're not going to find it from such methods, you can only think about 
that which has already been found.  and yes, as you put more together, 
you can link all those things that you have found into something GUT or 
common-sense theory or whatever.  the wrong question to ask is of "what". 
 if i did not know what it was, then i would have no way of talking about 
it.

>A radio is made of plastic and metals. Does that mean it is not
>designed to receive radio waves?

indeed.  and what are the "radio waves" of consciousness.  i know what a 
radio does that makes it a radio, though i do not know what a 
consciousness does that makes it a consciousness. 

>In all of the discussions regarding what consciousness is there has
>been a central point missing. Besides what it may be the question is
>how it may be. By determining HOW we will determine WHAT it actually
>is. 

it is always "what" before "how", unless of course, your "how" is your 
"what".

Can a computer output data on a subject faster than the input will
>permit it? Not without instructions. It can not function or compute
>faster than the input gives it motivation to do so. The brain, on the
>other hand does function faster than input. 

such things are dealt with at a high enough level of complexity.  low 
level organisms are more reactive than they are constructive.

>In that light, then the question remains , so what? A computer could
>be designed to perform tasks of computation faster than the motivating
>input. A computer would be able to compare 1000 bytes of memory to one
>byte of input data. How then does the brain differ which results in
>what we perceive as consciousness? The highest level of computation
>(contained in one form of development or the other depending upon the
>creature observed) winds up depositing the result of those faster
>comparisons back into it's own memory path without instructions to do
>so. It is a designed hardwired device. So it compares it's results
>with it's previous results. This highest level of comparison memory
>only exists for seven seconds. That is why one can look at a turning
>wheel for a few seconds then turn one's attention to a stationary
>object and it will appear to move as well. The residual memory of the
>turning wheel is compared to the new input of the stationary object
>and the result of the combination of the two is a partially moving,
>illusionary stationary object until the short term memory clears.

a "stream" of input requires a central place to be processed.  the brain 
acts like a net, rather than an assembly line.  each part does its own 
thing.  i would prefer Daniel Dennet's version of "multiple drafts".  
this would explain confusion with such things as "back action".

>Consciousness is not an entity one can locate in the brain. It is the
>result we perceive to be existing from the system's design
>characteristics.  

a thing's parts mean nothing if they do not come together.  the internals 
of a system mean nothing without an external result.

>BTW: Jack Sarfatti dubbed it 'back-action'. It is in
>fact a process of a feed back loop but it is not quite as has been
>speculated.

nope, no back action, just multiple drafts under constant revision in 
different places at the same time.

>In the search for duplication of the brain's processing function
>quantum mechanics has been attempted to be used. But for all the
>physicists out there.... you ignored something...........
[....]

perhaps there was never a problem to begin with.


-- 
interactivism is the view that we are neither subjects of our reality, 
nor is our reality a subject of us.  rather, we are an intrinsic part of 
our reality as our reality is an intrinsic part of us.


