Lots of concurrency

Justin Walsh jwalsh at bigpond.net.au
Fri Oct 26 19:41:37 UTC 2001


Hi Alan
"I think" that the point is grossly being lost here.
First; Decartes,  father of the enlightenment, was a "mechanist". His
dualist theories, expressed in the "cogito ergo sum": "I think, therefore I
am" is proven incorrect.
To replace "think" with "experience" does not change that fact. This "mode"
of argumentation is  called  "word smithing".
Please study the whole expression again from the "point of view" of the "I"
that is doing the thinking.
The above expression is only half of the syllogism. Look for the Major which
expresses the "unity of the concepts"         ie the Idea itself.
Transcend the Minor and the Consequent!
Therein lies the clue: Logic of Transcendence.
Transcendent logic
      Analytic logic
           Synthetic logic
                 none
Sorry! I could not let that one pass without comment.
Justin

 http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/ideal.html

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alan Grimes" <alangrimes at starpower.net>
To: <squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Sent: Saturday, October 27, 2001 3:13 AM
Subject: Re: Lots of concurrency


> > Descartes said "I think, therefore I am".  Maybe a more illuminating
> > thing to say in this context would be "I experience self-consciousness,
> > therefore I am".  If we go down that road, then many things seem more
> > clear.
>
> ERROR: USE OF FORBIDDEN TERM, SELF CONSCIOUSNESS!!!!!!
>
> -- Ooops, this is not arcondev but squeaklist... I published a list of
> forbidden terms to arcondev at yahoogroups.com  including "self
> consciousness."
>
> Her's a few argument fragments indicating why this is grosly bogus:
>
> - I hardly consider *myself* to be self conscious. Any successful
> attempt at self-concious AI will *certainly* be far for more
> self-conscious than I. =\
>
> - I do not see anything that would indicate any special status of what
> may be called "self consciousness" from any other form of consciousness,
> Infact I consider the self the least interesting form of consciousness
> and I can prove that evolution agrees with me.
>
> - If humans were indeed even remotely as self-conscious as some of them
> claim to be, Attempts at creating artificially intelligent machines
> would have been created in the 50's...
>
> Summary: If you invent consciousness one morning, you will have
> 'self-consciousness' by mid afternoon....
>
>
> > The processor runs two threads which provide us the magic of
> > self-consciousness: an observer/scheduler thread, and an observed
> > thread.  The role of the observer/scheduler is to literally observe and
> > schedule the observed thread.  The observed thread is usually a
> > particular interface to the resources of the brain.  These threads are
> > usually the ones we say that think.
>
> Bullshit!
> 1. threads have no meaning in the brain, everything is just one huge
> computation.
>
> If I were to submit to this conceptualization, I would insist that there
> only exists the "observed" thread. It has absolutly no nead to be
> "scheduled".
>
> > The sense of identity comes from the observer thread. It is where the
> > decision regarding who we are is made, it's also where we interpret our
> > perceptions according to our intentions.
>
> Bull.
> Those functions are the foundation of motovation, Look for them in the
> hipocampus and hypothalamus.
>
> There is no "decision" involved, We just *are*. These are hard-coded
> aspects of ourself that cannot be changed except through nanosurgery...
>
> --
> Uncle Sam has the Gremlin's touch.
> http://users.erols.com/alangrimes/  <my website.
>
>





More information about the Squeak-dev mailing list