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