God:the early answer to a problem?

except of course that computer also requires an operator to make its calculations meaningful or even operational
Not quite, computers can learn for themselves all they need is a basic programming (-> DNA, if you will).
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/022305/Humanoid_robots_walk_naturally_022305.html
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/learningrobots.html

if you could indicate a functioning mechanistic model for consciousness, yes
I don't have to:
Consciousness has not been shown to exhibit any scope for application or existence outside of the life forms that utilize it.

without consciousness you could possibly talk of making a move (like a chess computer for example) but not a wrong move
Why do you need consciousness to make a wrong move ?

Do bacteria talk about making a wrong move ?
 

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
except of course that computer also requires an operator to make its calculations meaningful or even operational

Not quite, computers can learn for themselves all they need is a basic programming (-> DNA, if you will).
http://www.trnmag.com/Stories/2005/0...ly_022305.html
http://www.idsia.ch/~juergen/learningrobots.html
are these computers happy to be learning new things?
Or is it the computer programmers who are happy?

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
if you could indicate a functioning mechanistic model for consciousness, yes

I don't have to:
Consciousness has not been shown to exhibit any scope for application or existence outside of the life forms that utilize it.
you jump the gun
consciousness has not been shown (mechanistically speaking) full stop.

Originally Posted by lightgigantic
without consciousness you could possibly talk of making a move (like a chess computer for example) but not a wrong move

Why do you need consciousness to make a wrong move ?
because consciousness also includes a sense of self ("I")

Do bacteria talk about making a wrong move ?
they certainly exhibit a different sense of self when they are alive (as opposed to when they are dead)
 
are these computers happy to be learning new things?
Or is it the computer programmers who are happy?
Are bacteria happy ? Are plants ?

you jump the gun
consciousness has not been shown (mechanistically speaking) full stop.
Yet you use it to define life..

because consciousness also includes a sense of self ("I")
Why do you need a sense of self to make a wrong move ?

they certainly exhibit a different sense of self when they are alive (as opposed to when they are dead)
Certainly ? Bacteria have an ego ? That is news to me... link ?
 
certainly


it means you can indicate an opposite state of being by introducing its absence.
For instance you can indicate light by dimming it
You can indicate warmth by turning off the heater - etc etc

What is the definition of light ?
 
What [valid] definition of consciousness do you claim it falls under?
its existence cannot be sufficiently detailed by mechanistic/inorganic analysis

IOW reducing a mashed up cocoon to its bare material elements does not grant a result identical to reducing a still living mashed up cocoon to its bare elements (the living one can proceed to give rise to a metamorphised moth whereas the dead cocoon will not give rise to anything like that in a million years)
 
much like the simplest definition of heat would involve turning off the heater

Umm... classic bullshit :bugeye:

its existence cannot be sufficiently detailed by mechanistic/inorganic analysis

Under what [valid] definition of consciousness do you claim it falls?
 
Back
Top