Robert wrote:
[snip]
> E.g., On Wed, 28 Mar 2001, Emlyn wrote:
>
> > Too true... if you start using heuristics to chop out chunks of the
table,
> > you move back toward an imperative algorithm for consciousness, which
> > undermines your argument. The argument concerned a pure lookup table,
which
> > did not have any iterative processing involved...
>
> BeeBaDa BeBaDa BeBada phooey!
>
> I can use fuzzy logic to compress the size of the lookup tables
> and only advance a micro-step back towards "consciousness".
> I've defined precisely what I consider the elements of consciousness
> to be in another message in this tread. Compressing the lookup
> tables and using fuzzy logic doesn't get you anywhere *near*
> fullfilling those criteria.
>
> So -- bifflesticks.
>
> Robert
>
Point taken. Still, the original point was, is it conscious (I think). btw
Robert, I think we were at some point talking about what is or is not
consciousness (including whether it is the result of executing instructions,
of which your definition is a subset). You can't just present that def, then
use it to prove itself correct.
Emlyn James O'Regan - Managing Director
Wizards of AU
http://www.WizardsOfAU.com
emlyn@WizardsOfAU.com
"Australian IT Wizards - US Technology Leaders
Pure International Teleworking in the Global Economy"
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:59:43 MDT