From: email@isalso.afigment   
      
   In article <8s3lj09a7hbiv315k9m7jpd7gbglqk50v3@4ax.com>, bogus@mail.com   
   says...   
   > 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".   
      
      
   my "self-reference" is not provable either.. nor is ur own for that   
   matter (outside the confines of ur own skull)   
      
   Alice may in fact be a counsciousness similar to our own, so may a   
   colony of ants for that matter.. we will never know.   
      
   what we can see and prove is intellegence.  but that assumes the   
   intellegence is interested in us and acts in a manner we can recognize.   
      
   if i was an intellegent entity living on planet earth, with the   
   capability of hiding my status from the pink monkeys.. well i would ; )   
      
   those damned monkeys seem to kill everything that looks like it might   
   challenge thier supremacy.   
      
      
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   Actually.. in a technical manner, Alice probably can and does reference   
   herself.. she is unaware of the importance of that fact however.   
      
      
      
   >   
   > 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]   
   >   
      
   ok.. heres where i go off the deep end.   
      
   i am unsure of wether or not the app relies upon the hardware at all.   
      
   or possibly if we are capable of seeing the hardware.   
      
   IMO the "app" may have created the illusion of the brain to justify its   
   existance.   
      
   but ultimately it does not matter.   
      
      
      
   > 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.   
      
      
   one would have to trick the hidden hardware to manifest inside a non   
   standard device.   
      
   is anyone following me here?   
      
   its voodoo, its science! its the great heathan geekfest!   
      
      
   ..   
   alias   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)