From: Colin Hales (colin@versalog.com.au)
Date: Thu Jun 27 2002 - 01:35:17 MDT
Jef Allbright:
<snip>
> At the risk of sounding too "zen", we never know the ultimate basis of
> reality, but can deal only with appearances,ever changing,
> fully aware they are only that, and then continue to behave as
> we would in any case. All the
> rest is window-dressing -- interesting, worthy of discussion, but not
> fundamental, and always misleading to some extent.
> Paradox means seeing something from too low a level. At a higher level,
> these fit together and one can pursue more subtle mysteries.
> - Jef
The misdirection we perceive from low level paradox making itself
felt at higher levels is exactly what I'm on about. I'm trying
to put my head in the space of the lawyers of the future. If you
nail up a benchmark at Homo Sapiens Sapiens, you can then fill the
same physical form with different sentiences. Then you imbue objects
normally inanimate with various levels of sentience.
Later you mix the two. Very tricky, but the assignment of rights
seems to hinge on the sophistication of the self model that the
sentience maintains, as a driver of the overall intellect of the sentience.
For example, CYC may be able to out-answer any human on Sale of the Century
or in various classes of deductive reasoning, but does it deserve any more
'rights'
than your toaster or a word processor?
The only true clarity that has emerged so far:
When you do this kind of analysis, the 1st person experience of it cannot
be used as a factor in determining rights, all else being equal.
The subtle mystery of the 'self' and self referentiality is the key to it.
>
>
> Jef: You can add "Am I the same as my duplicate?" to this list.
Done. Thanks. (Putnam's Twin Earth/Doppleganger scenario).
---------------
I may post more DA/Colin squabbles from the tome.
It works a lot better than reams of philospeak.
cheers,
Colin
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:02 MST