Re: Peterson's Death Sentence

From: Rich The Philosophizer (rtp_at_example.net)
Date: 01/30/05 

Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2005 21:22:49 GMT

On Sun, 30 Jan 2005 18:03:55 +0000, John Woodgate wrote:

> I read in sci.electronics.design that John Fields <jfields@austininstrum
> ents.com> wrote (in <c13qv0d0sm9crf9t9bpro72bg97283rtn9@4ax.com>) about
> 'Peterson's Death Sentence', on Sun, 30 Jan 2005:
>
>>Yes, but extending that to the argument of when human consciousness
>>occurs, if consciousness occurs, when traversing the spectrum, at the
>>yellow line, then the 'when window' will be anywhere within the jitter
>>region of the line, somewhat akin to suddenly waking up, somewhere,
>>while crossing Consciousness Street.
>
> You are arguing after assuming the result you want to prove. Consider
> that there is 'red' consciousness', and so on all through the spectrum
> to 'violet' consciousness, which is what we have.
>
> The 'threshold' of consciousness is the FUZZY boundary between infra red
> and visible red. I suppose insects and fish may be in this area, but I'm
> prepared for the animal behaviourists to produce other evidence.

John, you're half-way there. You've got the spectrum of consciousness down
pat here. :-) Now, superimpose the spectrum of feelings - sensitivity,
empathy, sensory stuff - that's "sentience". There is nothing that isn't
sentient, to one degree or another. When you poke an ameba, the mechanists
explain away its response as "chemical reactions". This may be the
_implementation_, yes. But I submit that the ameba feels it, and flinches.
How do they decide what to eat? Maybe by the taste? How do the wild
critters know what to eat, and when to run away from a predator? Sentience
is _way_ underestimated, by humans these days, anyway.

(BTW, the polarities of these two superimposed spectra are opposite, as
I'm sure you've been able to figure out. :-) )

And it's impossible for Mr. Data to be sentient in the sense i'm talking
about here, although if the machinery is sophisticated enough, I
believe that it could be possible for a machine to have a
sophisticated enough algorithm as to be indistinguishable from
consciousness - self-awareness, if you will.

So, if he can say, "I", then they shouldn't disassemble him without his
consent. Or, they could download him to some crystal like they did with
Dr. Moriarity that time. %-}

But could he have _intent_? What would motivate him to do anything? His
orders, of course. He could never "feel like" doing something.

Hey - I've drifted into the purview of on-topic - since most computers are
electronic - what kind of progress are they making these days with self-
directing robots? And, on the metaphysical side (actually, I should drop
that epithet as well - the new field I'm introducing would more accurately
be called 'infraphysics'.), without a certain amount of self-direction,
how hard would it be to write a set of contingency rules that would cover
every possibility? Hard? I think probably. However, I submit, that's what
Will is "for". :-)

Cheers!
Rich

P.S. - way off the wall:
When the ovum that became you started splitting, blastulating and
gastrulating, what happened to those first cells? Are _all_ of our cells
brand new? Which of the "daughter cells" dies?

I wonder weird ***, sometimes, expecially(sic) right after a righteous
bong hit. %-}

For more information, please feel free to visit http://www.godchannel.com
;^j

Quantcast