X-Message-Number: 8105 From: Peter Merel <> Subject: CRYONICS Re: HAL Date: Sat, 19 Apr 1997 01:15:06 +1000 (EST) I wrote, >What's missing in HAL? Clearly, on almost any measure, HAL passes the >Turing test. If we agree that his behaviour was ultimately mechanical, >lacking some necessary human quality of consciousness, how should we >define that quality? Or, if we deem that HAL's actions were equivalent >to those of a human, and certainly there are no end of people who call >themselves human that are capable of such actions, does this imply that >such people are not truly conscious? Sorry to follow myself, but I have a little more to offer on this. It seems to me that any goal, truth, or category can become irrelevant in the course of events. HAL, and perhaps some humans, are not conscious because their behaviour is predicated on blind faith, a rigidity of values, or some other unquestioned assumption. Consciousness, true consciousness, can only maintain as goal a harmony with events - accomodating whatever happens. Regardless of whether the self is an emergent phenomenon, the equivalent of a "You are here" token on one of those maps you see in malls, or some divine dongle bolted onto an otherwise selfless brain, the self of someone who is truly conscious in the sense above must reflect in extreme detail the world around them. So it seems a truly conscious person's self must be coterminous with their whole mind. Peter Merel. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8105