Ben Goertzel (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Sun, 18 Apr 1999 19:32:31 -0400
>> Your problem seems to be to understand the mechanism of humans'
>> machinery of consciousness. My position is that such knowledge could be
>> e.g., in constructing AI, and may be gotten in some future to the extent
>> the knowledge would suffice to make AI, but I think the same problem
>> a subject of science if we go down to the essential level of the problem,
>> to the level of the recognition that one cannot know oneself. I.e. even if
>> human could create AI creatures by their understanding of the _machinery_ of
>> recognition and/or consciousness, that understanding of the machinery could
>> not help us to understand ourselves more than the understanding of the
This is not entirely quite accurately expressed, but I agree with the
spirit in which it was written.
My experience is that studying the machinery of mind and the embodiment in AI
~does~ help one to understand oneself. In my own life, inner spiritual
progress in understanding cognitive science and AI have gone hand in hand.
However, one is never led to a ~complete~ understanding of mind, there is
always a mystery
that remains, and this mystery is the essence of consciousness (mystery =
randomness from a subjective perspective, which is the only kind of
exists in a finite universe)
We can understand a lot about how this mystery interacts with and
influences the more structured
part of the world, without understanding the mystery itself.
Here I am on much firmer ground than in physics ;)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sun Oct 17 1999 - 22:31:52 JST