Transcript Baroness schreef:I'm not sure whether you're conscious or not, but what i am sure of is, if you are it's not my consiousness. It's not like mine. Yeah. So that's what's make consiousness so subjective and so special.
...
Machines...you can approach them in two ways.
1)
You can say i'm going to model it. Perhaps that is one of the claims of the blue brain project. Now think about that.. what is a model. A model is not a simulacrum.
1-joke)
If you want a simulacrum of the brain just have a baby.
1-serious-a)
So if you want to model something you want to identify the salient features to the exclusion of the extraneous ones. If i wanted to model flight i would know the essential part was to defy gravity and i wouldn't be too fast about incoperating beaks and feathers.
1-serious-salient)
So therefore if you're trying to model consiousness the problem arises what is the salient feature that we want to put in, what are the extraneous features that we can leave out. And i would submit we don't know that.
1-good warning)
If we knew that we wouldn't have to model it anyway, because we'd have solved the problem.
2-hardware-device)
The second approach is to build a non-biological device of enhancing and increasing complexity, someone like Ray Kurzweil (advocate of singularity), people like that think that if you have something is very complex then consiousness will just emerge as a product of complexity.
Now one can't prove that's not the case, because you can't prove something isn't the case, you can only prove positives and the owners would be on such individuals to prove it was,
2-Turing-intermezzo)
but then you have the problem of the Turing test. ..... As yet no computer have passed althought there is a human being that's failed it.
..
2-warning-for Boeing-loose parts complexity emergence)
So this operational definition is very hard because even if you were given clever or things as you know, you can just sit there, the whole point of consiousness is not about responses or behaviors, it's about what goes on inside. And that i think it is very hard to, with absolute conviction, demonstrate in something, that (like John Searle the philosopher said) might be built of old beer cans.
3-Ja natuurlijk is dat de evo-surprise die te ontraadselen valt.)
I think the thing that it's built of, brain cells, chemicals, modulators, integration with the whole body, for my money, those things are significant features. I can't prove that they are, but then the onus would be on you to proof with your beer can that they are consious.
Petra,
Dank! De Q&A had ik nog niet opgepakt.
Inderdaad meer van wat ik al vond: keurige probleemomschrijving die niemand de nek kan kosten.
Het wachten is op onderzoeksresultaten, die ik achter mijn aanrecht niet kan aanmaken.
ad 3)
Gelijk komt dan wel de gedachte op aan de vele soorten ogen die los van elkaar zijn ontstaan, wat het vermoeden opwekt dat er misschien wel meer dan een enkele wijze zou kunnen zijn om een bewustzijn te implementeren.
En waarom zou daar dan geen electronische bij kunnen zijn?
Onze electronische telepathie is toch ook al beter dan de vleeschelijke?!
En radar kijkt ook heel wat verder en ook doooor de mist heen.
Roeland
Begrip is een waan met een warm gevoel. Dus Mijdt Spijt.
Zodanig dat ze met haar kop mijlenver boven het maaiveld dartelt. Dat blijkt niet alleen uit dit filmpje of een paar stukjes tekst maar zij als mens in het geheel. 
