roger@yuba.wrs.com (Roger Rohrbach) (02/02/90)
mfinegan@uceng.UC.EDU (michael k finegan) writes: > Talk about comparing apples and oranges! P.D. Ouspensky is talking about >attaining a state of 'supra-'consciousness (he was naive) and you are talking >Grren Room - can the computer pass a Turing test. > Does this group ever contain A.I. (besides Green Room discussions!) ? I was making the comparison between Ouspensky's characterization of "consciousness" with Turing's similar characterization of "intelligence" in order to highlight the fact that these terms are often interchanged, at present, in AI and other areas. I believe it is fruitful to attempt to distinguish the two. The fact that a conference on "Consciousness Within the Sciences" has been organized and is being held in San Francisco this month, with researchers in AI, psychology, physics, and philosophy (Searle is one of the invited speakers) echoes this belief. N.B.: "supra-consciousness" is not a naive concept. It is possible to observe one's level of awareness waxing and waning, and to note the effect thereof on one's ability to process information, e.g., vividness of sensory experience, reliability of memory. Adopting the assumption that conscious- ness has degrees, the lowest of which is sleep, only simple observation is required to see that we do not occupy the high end of the scale on a moment- by-moment basis; we may at any point find ourselves closer to or further from sleep. This is not philosophy; it's an empirical study of the human mind, and therefore is relevant to any theory of artificial intelligence. Roger Rohrbach sun!wrs!roger roger@wrs.com - Eddie sez: ----------------------------------------------- (c) 1986, 1990 -. | {o >o | | \ ^) "I'm afraid of widths." |
roger@yuba.wrs.com (Roger Rohrbach) (02/04/90)
mfinegan@uceng.UC.EDU (michael k finegan) writes: > warning: I am extremely dogmatic Fortunately, the pursuit of knowledge respects no dogma and the history of science is littered with the shattered remnants of same. > I am sorry, but you are arguing from false reference. Ouspensky (et al) talk > specifically about raising consciousness levels until out of body experiences > are achieved, and believe that higher levels of consciousness include states > of immortality. If you don't think that is far-fetched, that is your right. You'd have to locate the "out-of-body" stuff for me- must have missed it. There is a discussion of "immortality"- as a relative concept. E.g., there is light reaching the earth from close to the beginning of time. This light has been around awhile :-) The physicist Geoffrey Chew hazards the opinion that light and consciousness are aspects of the same phenonomenon. I'm looking at a conference announcement right now with invited presentations on "A Quantum Theory of Consciousness" and "A Trans-Temporal Apporach to Mind-Brain Inter- action". Yes, it all sounds far-fetched. What of it? > But, is dreaming a lower level of consciousness than watching 'Wheel of > Fortune' ? I don't think you can answer that question, empirically, or > otherwise. Moral: consciousness is in the eye of the beholder. "Watching 'Wheel of Fortune'" is not a "level of consciousness". It is an activity involving sensory input, intellectual processing (not much!), and emotional stimulation, all of which can occur with varying degrees of consciousness (my original point: consciousness as distinct from thought, feeling, etc.). If you were implying that watching 'Wheel of Fortune' *evinces* a low level of consciousness, I might agree. If I were dozing on the couch, it would probably become "background noise"; were I paying attention, I would quickly discern the "signal" and, realizing its low information content, switch off the TV! Roger Rohrbach sun!wrs!roger roger@wrs.com - Eddie sez: ----------------------------------------------- (c) 1986, 1990 -. | {o >o | | \<>) "My head is my only house unless it rains." |
roger@yuba.wrs.com (Roger Rohrbach) (02/08/90)
mfinegan@uceng.UC.EDU (michael k finegan) writes: >One cannot assume a priori that thought and conciousness are separate. It's true that we cannot assume this. We can, however, perform an experiment: is it possible to be aware (conscious) of something (our surroundings, ourselves, both...) while having no discernable thoughts? These two points are central: that we have not exhausted the possibilities of empirical study in this realm; and that the distinction between con- sciousness and other psychic processes bears investigation. ...no need to turn off the TV! Introduce a topic of interest to you. Unlike television, a newsgroup hears you when you talk back to it. Roger Rohrbach sun!wrs!roger roger@wrs.com - Eddie sez: ----------------------------------------------- (c) 1986, 1990 -. | {o >o | | \<>) "My mommy sticks wood near my sloth." |