🚀 go-pugleaf

mfinegan@uceng.UC.EDU (michael k finegan) writes:

>    Talk about comparing apples and oranges! P.D. Ouspensky is talking about
>attaining a state of 'supra-'consciousness (he was naive) and you are talking
>Grren Room - can the computer pass a Turing test.
>    Does this group ever contain A.I. (besides Green Room discussions!) ?

I was making the comparison between Ouspensky's characterization of
"consciousness" with Turing's similar characterization of "intelligence"
in order to highlight the fact that these terms are often interchanged,
at present, in AI and other areas.  I believe it is fruitful to attempt
to distinguish the two.  The fact that a conference on "Consciousness
Within the Sciences" has been organized and is being held in San Francisco
this month, with researchers in AI, psychology, physics, and philosophy
(Searle is one of the invited speakers) echoes this belief.

N.B.: "supra-consciousness" is not a naive concept.  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
- Eddie sez: ----------------------------------------------- (c) 1986, 1990 -.
|   {o >o                                                                     |
|    \ ^) "I'm afraid of widths."                                             |