[ExI] Digital Consciousness .

[Giovanni Santostasi]

Have you seen this recent paper that show "intentionality" can actually be
realized by a simple law that looks similar to a thermodynamical entropic
force?

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/46

Giovanni




On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 9:50 AM, Eugen Leitl <eugen at leitl.org> wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 03:57:09PM +0200, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> > Eugene, part of this is merely terminology. Power in philosophy is
>
> Yes, I realize that some of it is jargon. However (and not for
> lack of trying) I have yet to identify a single worthwhile
> concept coming out of that field, particularly in the theory of mind.
>
> You used to be a computational neuroscientist before you
> became a philosopher (turncoat! boo! hiss!). What is your professional
> opinion about the philosophy of mind subdiscipline?
>
> > something different than in physics, just as it means something very
> > different in sociology or political science.
> >
> > Then again, I am unsure if intentionality actually denotes anything, or
> > whether it denotes a single something. It is not uncontroversial even
> > within the philosophy of mind community.
> >
> >
> >> "The word itself, which is of medieval Scholastic origin,"
> >> ah, so they admit it's useless.
> >
> > Ah, just like formal logic. Or the empirical method.
>
> Ah, but philosophy begat natural philosophy, aka the sciences.
> Unfortunately, the field itself never progressed much beyond
> its origins. The more the pity when a stagnant field is
> chronically prone to arrogant pronouncements about disciplines
> they don't feel they need to have any domain knowledge in.
>
> >> See, something is fishy with your concept of consciosness. If we look
> >> at at as ability to process information, suddenly we're starting to
> >> get somewhere.
> >
> > Maybe. Defining information and processing is nearly as tricky. Shannon
> > and Kolmogorov doesn't get you all the way, since it is somewhat
> > problematic to even defining what the signals are.
> >
> > Measurability is not everything. There are plenty of risks that do not
> > have well defined probabilities, yet we need and can make decisions
> > about them with above chance success. The problem with consciousness,
> > intentionality and the other theory of mind "things" is that they are
> > subjective and private - you cannot compare them between minds.
>
> I really like that the Si elegans has identified the necessity of
> a behavior library.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20130424/c5a3eeff/attachment.html>