X-Message-Number: 11163 From: "John Clark" <> Subject: The "self circuit Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1999 23:53:10 -0500 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 In #11143 on Wed, 20 Jan 1999 Wrote: >If a different location raises a real conceptual difficulty with survival >through duplication(as I believe it does), Location with respect to what? The center of your house? The center of the Earth? The center of the sun? The center of the galaxy? The center of the Virgo cluster 5 billion light years away? My location is constantly changing yet I still feel I'm the same person, and if I feel I'm the same then I don't care if I "really" am or not. >then that difficulty is underscored with consideration of the self circuit. I honestly don't see how the "self circuit" underscores that, or anything else for that matter. >The self circuit emphasizes the importance of the physical system, >as opposed to merely the pattern of information and the processing of information. How? All you said was that the "self circuit" generates a feeling of self, you gave no reason why similar mechanisms or even "circuits" of radically different design couldn't produce exactly the same output. >if "your" brain evidences this phenomenon HERE, then the physical >thing HERE that feels is you, and another thing THERE, If brain experiences have a place at all it is most certainly not where the brain is located, it's where the sense organs are located. >The existence of the self circuit is not arguable, because I define it merely >as the part(s) or aspect(s) of the brain or its functions giving rise to feeling >or subjectivity or qualia. If that's how you want to define the "self circuit" then I agree, it most certainly exists and if you define it in a similar way a "Beethoven circuit" exists also. However the "self circuit" idea would be about as useful to a computer scientist or a philosopher as the "Beethoven circuit" would be to an engineer designing a radio. >Its possible importance, once more, arises because it suggests that >subjectivity is not just an "emergent" phenomenon that automatically arises at >some level of complexity in the brain, but a specific feature of the brain's >anatomy/physiology I find absolutely no way to reach that conclusion from your definition given above unless you amend it to say that the "self circuit" generates qualia and does nothing else. >The Turing Test doesn't prove ANYTHING True, but what is your point? The Turing Test may not prove anything but it's useful, for example, I find it useful to assume that Robert Ettinger is conscious. Except for pure mathematics you'll never find a proof of anything, but many tests are nevertheless useful because unproven knowledge is still knowledge. >The self circuit could easily act as a kind of fuzzy logic filter, in effect >providing quick-and-dirty answers to important questions affecting the survival >of the organism as a whole. Encountering a new situation, a robot, or a lower >life form that might not have a self circuit, might have difficulty categorizing >it and devising an appropriate response. In other words you think the "self circuit" effects behavior, but then The Turing Test must work because we could detect this "self circuit" by examining the quality and the quantity of the organism's answers. You can't have it both ways, if Turing is wrong then so is Darwin. John K Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP for Personal Privacy 5.5.5 iQA/AwUBNqqnNt+WG5eri0QzEQLp/QCgtugYO+SJy2zB1N0jxnrd/5y4k9IAoMtw AG5IkS5bTwblDrECj5pTb5E3 =z84m -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=11163