From: Raymond G. Van De Walker (rgvandewalker@juno.com)
Date: Wed Jun 23 1999 - 01:10:01 MDT
On Tue, 15 Jun 1999 13:52:03 -0700 (PDT) Eugene Leitl
<eugene.leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de> writes:
>I think usage of philosophical terms such as 'qualia' to explain
>(away) intelligence is a definite dead end.
The phenomenologists of the '30s were the first people to discover the
deep complexity of natural intelligence. Analysis always comes before
synthesis.
I find human qualia uninteresting because
I think they are a side-effect of our pattern-recognition mechanisms.
On the other hand, one can't design intelligence without designing a
pattern-recognition system that can recognize patterns in its own
behavior.
For me the real question was always, "What _should be_ the qualia of a
thought?"
___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:18 MST