X-Message-Number: 21405 Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 00:53:19 -0700 From: Mike Perry <> Subject: On Emergence Robert Ettinger writes in part: >Mike Perry writes again that he favors the view that, roughly speaking, >semi-intelligent computers have a low level of consciousness. This is the >"emergence" idea. > >However, Mike also agrees that we may discover special anatomy/physiology >underlying qualia. Yes, but mainly because I can't prove otherwise and I don't want to be in the position of being overly dogmatic. Actually, I think it is unlikely this special anatomy/physiology exists, and it's not anything I would consider as a working hypothesis. >This is not easily compatible with emergence. No, but again, I think it's unlikely. ... >He notes correctly that the inclination to reject the idea of feeling in >computers is at least in part owing to the fact that we already build fairly >fancy computers, but have no reason to attribute feeling to them. Some artificial systems (robot pets for instance) may not be so easy to dismiss as having "no feeling" though I don't see them as serious rivals of their natural counterparts. Insects don't seem to have much feeling either, at least compared to the higher vertebrates, though they are naturally evolved and quite complex by human technology standards. This does not diminish my confidence in the emergence view. Feeling, at a really deep level, no doubt is not easy to engineer. But I think it could reasonably be said to exist in very small doses in other, even quite dumb systems that still exhibit attractions and aversions. Perhaps it is reasonable to say there is a quantum of consciousness in every bit that flips. Mike Perry Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21405