🚀 go-pugleaf

roger@yuba.wrs.com (Roger Rohrbach) writes:

>N.B.: "supra-consciousness" is not a naive concept.
#flame on
BULLS__T
#flame off (almost)
>							It is possible to
>observe one's level of awareness waxing and waning, and to note the effect
>thereof on one's ability to process information, e.g., vividness of sensory
>experience,  reliability of memory.  Adopting the assumption that conscious-
>ness has degrees, the lowest of which is sleep, only simple observation is
>required to see that we do not occupy the high end of the scale on a moment-
>by-moment basis; we may at any point find ourselves closer to or further from
>sleep.  This is not philosophy;  it's an empirical study of the human mind,
>and therefore is relevant to any theory of artificial intelligence.
>Roger Rohrbach                                  sun!wrs!roger    roger@wrs.com

I am sorry, but you are arguing from false reference. Ouspensky (et al) talk
specifically about raising consciousness levels until out of body experiences
are achieved, and believe that higher levels of consciousness include states
of immortality. If you don't think that is far-fetched, that is your right.
Does this enable you to create a computer that will pass the Turing test ?
No. That is a very different 'consciousness' than the 'expert source' you
quote, out of context, was refering to.

While I don't want to enter into a long winded (hollow) discussion with you,
there are certainly different levels of activity in the human mind.
(or would you prefer brain - since you dropped Searle's name)
But, is dreaming a lower level of consciousness than watching 'Wheel of
Fortune' ? I don't think you can answer that question, empirically, or
otherwise. Moral: consciousness is in the eye of the beholder.

					mfinegan@uceng.UC.EDU

warning: I am extremely dogmatic