Thanks David King for sharing Greenland 2014 - great series! At 18:50 of this video, Dennett makes unfounded assumptions (I call them Escher constructions) when he says (slightly edited) //Why I like so much to make the robot move... where we know there are no cards up their sleeves, no PSIonic forces, no proto-psychist phenomena. I think we understand causation in robots from the ground up. Consciousness is going to be a complexity level phenomenon. Its not going to need some basic physical property as part of the explanation. With enough complexity, structure, functional interdependencies and dispositions, youre going to have a conscious robot.// 1) However, we just may need highly advanced robotic technology that is NOT yet UNDERSTOOD to achieve sufficient complexity structure, etc. to have consciousness. 2) Such a futuristic robot may also for technical reasons we do not yet understand need a very specific lower level ORGANIC/BIOLOGICAL substrate to support complexity, structure, etc. for higher order consciousness to emerge. 3) Therefore, Dennetts prediction that a robot (as we currently understand it) could in principle achieve consciousness IS AT LEAST as much an unsupported guess as is my prediction that such a conscious robot would need to be a biological life form at least as advanced as a naturally evolved conscious biological life form. 4) So we may be nothing more than physical robots but maybe only living physical robots can have consciousness. And maybe such living robots DO utilize PSI forces and/or proto-psychic phenomena, etc. Who knows? We only know that current robots dont use these exotic forces, but current robots are not conscious either. https://youtube/watch?v=ZI3YqXWmkuo&list=UUei3l9jF1JnpuGp9ok855pg&index=1
Posted on: Wed, 27 Aug 2014 23:48:12 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015