From: bogus@mail.com   
      
   On Sun, 05 Sep 2004 00:17:39 GMT, Kevin Calder   
    wrote:   
      
   >he doesn't believe that systems of formal symbol   
   >manipulation, *representing* brain activity are capable of causing   
   >consciousness in the way that real brains do.   
      
   What makes "consciousness" of man different than, say, a pile of   
   Opterons running an application [something like a multi-threaded   
   version of the chatterbot 'Alice' but with a database for storage of   
   "past history"]?   
      
   It appears to me to be the difference of "self-reference".   
      
   Alice can't reference herself. If she could,  that self-reference is   
   not "provable". My acceptance of you or any one being conscious is a   
   "subjective" choice.   
      
   It's not the hardware that is important other that providing the   
   "platform" for the self referencial application. One without the other   
   is not conscious.  Is that provable? No. Tho' you probably can't have   
   one without the other-- You can't have an app run without the right   
   platform.   
      
   We have no problem understanding that hardware platforms can be   
   different but the code writen on one can be re-compiled to run [with a   
   little bit of cleverness] on another.   
      
   I'll go as far as saying that consciousness probably requires a   
   special "platform"-- in our case a "brain" [call it "the minimum   
   hardware requirements] but I won't conclusively discount a platform   
   that is equivalent to the brain in functionality is impossible.   
      
   The issue is not that "brains are special". Our "app" [consciousness]   
   is inseparable from our platform [brain]. The strong AI folks don't   
   know how to create a platform that can be "aware" of its own   
   "awareness" nor are they [yet] smart enough to write the app [or even   
   know what has to go into the app]   
      
   Are the Strong AI folks smart enough to write such an app? Probably   
   not. Nor are they likely to find the right platform unless they do it   
   like Nature did: Grow the platform and the software at the same time.   
      
   Complexity can come from simplicity as the last 20 years of   
   discoveries in cellular automata / chaos - catastrophe theory have   
   shown... but... how do you create a simple platform and then put it   
   through millions of years of evolution to get the app "embedded" in   
   the self-aware platform? [which seems to be what we are].   
      
   It's not likely to happen in the short term: We barely have the   
   computing power to unfold proteins much less understand what the   
   application is that's embedded in DNA that gives our brains the   
   quality to think that it is aware of itself.   
      
   I won't say it's impossible but I expect it will take something along   
   the lines of a good sized quantum computer to shorten those millions   
   of years of evolution in both the hardware and the software. maybe in   
   30 to a 100 years then again maybe never-- we've never been really   
   good at looking at ourselves objectively].   
      
   I am willing to guess that the app can't be written... it will need to   
   write itself [much the way DNA has]. AI, if it everhappens, won't be   
   brewed with "off the shelf hardware" well at least until Quantum   
   Computers are "off the shelf" items.   
      
   If it can, there's only one thing I hope: That the OS / app is not   
   written by AOL / Microsoft:   
      
   "you've got mail---   
      
   BSoD: ERROR at 0x0BADF00D --- SYSTEM HALTED -- If this is the first   
   time you've received this error please reboot. Otherwise contact your   
   System Administrator or the Application Vendor"   
      
   cheers,   
      
   the ded goat   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)