[Wittrs] Is Homeostasis the Answer? (Re: Variations in the Idea of Consciousness)
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 04 Feb 2010 16:31:08 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "jrstern" <jrstern@...> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@> wrote:
> >
> > > But the issue that I am addressing and have always been
> > > addressing, even when asking your for explication of your
> > > reason for thinking AI is on the wrong track, is not what
> > > cognitive agents do but how they come to be in a world chock
> > > full of apparently inanimate things.
>
> Is this a special case?
>
> Do you worry about how cats come to be in a world chock full of non-cats?
> Hot things in a world chock full of cold things?
>
I said this, Josh, not Neil (in case you are confusing the two of us in your
question above). My issue, in saying it, was not to wonder how there could be
minds in the world at all but to wonder how minds happen in the world, given
the evident physical and, therefore, apparently inanimate, nature of this world
in which minds occur?
That is, my "how" was not a metaphysical "how" (how can things come to be,
whether particular things or things in general) but a scientific one, i.e.,
what is it about some physical things that produces the subjectness of minds
that have manifestly come to be in this world?
The rest of what you wrote (which followed the above) seems to be directed to
Neil's own words so I won't intrude in that discussion. I just wanted to make
sure that 1) if you WERE responding to me, I didn't ignore it or 2) if you
thought this was something Neil had said you were not unfairly tarring him with
a brush better meant for me.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
