Quote:
Originally Posted by dissonance
Yeah, I mentioned the halting problem before (or the universal debugger problem). It has to apply to human perception as well, though.
|
Not that I disagree, but what evidence is there that the it applies to human perception as well? Is it based on categorizing human beings as mechanistic things? Or is there experimental evidence?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissonance
We can't define the word "consciousness" in any way that could really separate the limits of computers out and keep all humans in.
|
This is my main point of contention.
What if, as we learn more about the mathematical properties of conciousness as a function, we find out that its Kolmogrov complexity is such that no amount of consiousness can be applied to consciously design another concsiousness? --That is highly self-refential, but I think you'll get what I am saying.
Note, it is an important distinction about consciously desing another consciousness. We can already create other consioucsiosness, it's called reproduction. We need little understanding to do this, we've done it since the caveman days--that's why we are here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dissonance
Meh, I still am not getting my point across about deduction, I guess.
All I'm trying to say is that humans are systems built up out of (and only out of) little functions. Same with computers. (Same with everything, even).
Anyway, we can control the functions we put on a computer. So if we replicated the right ones, we would get the same emergent trait of consciousness.
|
I think I do understand your point. But some fuctions cannot be defined--What if consciousness is one of those functions that
cannot be defined?