Text 623, 86 rader
Skriven 2004-11-03 05:57:00 av John Edser (1:278/230)
Ärende: Re: Are you Conscious?
==============================




Catherine Woodgold wrote:-

> CW:-
> I think of it this way:-
> Suppose A is the awareness of the colour red, and
>         B is the awareness of both A and B.
> Then B is an example of consciousness.

JE:-
If you can ask what consciousness is then you
must be conscious because you have to be
to ask this question. Any question
requires B (awareness of self and other). 
To my knowledge no animal that has been taught
to communicate to humans using sign language
etc has ever asked a _spontaneous_ question.
For a conscious mind the motivation
for a question has to be the question
itself. Note that animal models always 
require other inducements such as food 
rewards.

Questions can provide simple tests
of inductive inferences (generalisations)
as "how" type questions. Nobody knows how
the mind produces inductive inferences and
no machine has ever been invented that can
make them. Until the enormous problem of induction
is solved AI is not, AI.  Note that "why" type
questions require _new_ inductive inferences,
i.e. an act of pure imagination that can end
up providing a contesting theory. Valid deductions 
that flow logically from any theory are able to test 
that theory via observations of nature so that 
one theory can be discarded in favour of another.
The only process that validly allows this is 
Popperian refutation. Theories evolve in this
way. Refutation acts as the only valid point of 
selection that exists between rational theories. 
Theories of nature exist as populations of competing 
inductive  acts of imagination which can evolve over 
time via the questions deduced from each theory that 
can lead to the refutation of that theory.

If theories cannot be refuted then the
evolution of ideas using competing ideas
becomes impossible. Competing beliefs
(non refutable theories) require bodies
to fight and die for them so that the
beliefs and the bodies, can evolve. 
Both belief and theory must benefit
the Darwinian maximand fitness, i.e. 
theories and beliefs must increase the total 
i.e. absolute and not just relative fitness of 
every Darwinian selectee that employs them.

If any theory is rational then it has at least
one finite maximand. Only if it does can it be 
tested to refutation. Irrational theories can 
only be tested to non verification (which is
never definitive). Substituting non verification
for refutation only leads to hopeless witch 
hunting.

Regards,

John Edser
Independent Researcher

PO Box 266
Church Pt
NSW 2105
Australia

edser@tpg.com.au
---
ū RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info@bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/3/04 5:57:44 AM
 * Origin: MoonDog BBS, Brooklyn,NY, 718 692-2498, 1:278/230 (1:278/230)