On Sun, 22 Nov 1998, Ray Scanlon wrote:
> A thinking machine will not be built for reasons of cost. We can examine the
> human neural net. An explanation of how the neural net works will serve as a
> design for a thinking machine, a design not to be implemented.
>
Can this level of interpretation really exist on the NN level? Once you
make an adequate description, you have transcended the NN.
> We see no place for the predicate calculus or Turing machines. The various
> approaches of artificial intelligence have stalled, connectionism is lost in
> pattern recognition. It is the wiring of the neural net that holds promise.
>> A natural fallout from neural net explanation and design will be a
> demonstration that consciousness is not needed in a material universe. This
> makes cognitive science moot.
>
In what way do you define consciousness? As a side effect from so much
mechanistic processing in the brain, or as an illusion of the zombie?
Is consciousness evolutionarily beneficial? Acting with regard to the self
certainly is, doesn't this lead to a self awareness we call consciousness?
> We cannot envision the universe or anything in it except as an observer. We
> can go round in circles as long as we please, we cannot envision soul (mind,
> self).
>
What about enlightenment? That is the final jump out of the loop. I think
it is an important concept, and one that should not be sniffed at as
religious nonsense. Godel proved that no system can describe reality
completely accurately, so transcending the system is the only way to see the
truth.
Dan.