Search results

It is a funny conclusion -- that because our consciousness is a product (or by-product...whatever...) and the truism that we don't have to understand (in the way that somehow satisfies our curiosity completely) our "selves" in order to reproduce (sexual reproduction doesn't require the deep...

To boil it all down (1) Human consciousness is a product of millions of years of self-replicating entities (2) We don't have to understand our abilities in order to make a new questioning/thinking/consciousness laden entity (biological reproduction) (3) Therefore it is possible that we don't...

Jumping into a very interesting statement (sorry Constance :) ) "How are 'we' to accomplish this comp sci/AI goal if we do not begin with a better understanding of (a) consciousness as we experience it, and (b) the depth and complexity of the substrate of our existence and the evolution of all...

To be more precise--our misunderstanding of consciousness is rooted in the same confusion between "existential nature" and "meaning of be-ing." Which is why the word substitution of "consciousness" for "being" actually drives the point home (maybe recklessly...but poingnant)

"Also, what persuades you that merely 'functional equivalence' between natural and artificial brains/neural nets can touch, much less exhaust, all the capacities of human consciousness and mind?" I for one don't think that our understanding of "functional equivalence" is good enough to...

I think I have most likely fulfilled the alternative you mentioned...I wish I had the time to do the first.

Quick replies to your second paragraph: Yes. Perhaps. But those same "folks" may have fallen prey to GOFAI ..."Good old-fashioned ...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbolic_artificial_intelligence As the late Dreyfus points out, such a point of view is a dead end. The dead end is...

Depends on what you mean by "reliable." Consciousness isn't something that lies outside of physical being like some kind of all-pervasive ghost... these categories are already somehow assumed within the entire framework. This is where the "halting problem" actually gives us some kind of clue...

I think you are right -- but I also think that the "mis-understanding" is the same due to self-reference.

I think I posted what Sabhash Kak stated and what you've underlined doesn't change my analysis of the fallacy presented -- it is simply NOT true that a computer cannot stop itself. Kak misrepresents the halting problem and twists it into some kind of (il)-logic pretzel--a red herring at best...

I think I clarified most of these cryptic statements in my later posts. This was just a "warm up" post to get my brain working. The problem is one of self-reference where "consciousness" attempts to explain itself through itself and the "formal description" is something like a chain of...

Heidegger will either visit me as a "force ghost" (Star Wars reference) or is rolling over in his grave at the moment

Yikes...I thought it was very clear. Heidegger is using the "question" as a hint at what has already formulated the question (what we call our "consciousness") I switch from verbal to imagery to visceral response to stimuli with a kind of seamlessness that may be strange to others...a...

And the answers get funnier as you move on (yes, laughter will play a role here) (1) What is "consciousness?" The question as framed comes from the language processing and motor centers of the very thing that leads to you clicking on a button and writing symbols that may (or may not) help...

"Another perspective on this is that the most mundane memory tasks are associated with multiple areas of the brain — some of which are quite large. Skill learning and expertise involve reorganization and physical changes, such as changing the strengths of connections between neurons. Those...

I am replying to myself in order to avoid the silly flag that arrives for the moderator due to too many edits :) To continue what I have said above, we "think" we are stopping and moving on to some other "process" or "thread" (the usual computer science distinction between these two terms is...

Exception: neural networks running in a computer system can evolve Thought provoking, but ultimately wrong article assumes that no multilayered convolutional neural net can adjust pre-existing weights with the same end result of a biological network that "grows new neurons and connections."...

"A conscious person is aware of what they're thinking, and has the ability to stop thinking about one thing and start thinking about another — no matter where they were in the initial train of thought. But that's impossible for a computer to do. More than 80 years ago, pioneering British...

Indeed because the capturing, expressing, and translation into "terms" requires a formal description that lies outside the entity creating the same. Even worse, our "formal" structures lie within the very framework attempting to "undermine" the same through "explanation." The engine of...

Unfortunately the "false problem" label persists in the problem-solution-problem-solution-... chain or nexus that has already erupted into and has manifested to itself the "problem-er" I also think we have to pick apart the "nature" or even "situation" or "evident" terms in order to address...