Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:45, 13 December 2004

Mediationpage

This is the mediation page for Artificial consciousness. Please sign in below; to indicate cognisance of this page.

• Cimon 09:13, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)
• User:80.3.32.9 9:46 9/12/04
• Paul Beardsell 09:47, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Matt Stan 13:09, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
• Tkorrovi 14:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to go further to arbitration, concerning trolling by Paul Beardsell, and Matthew Stannard. Tkorrovi 18:26, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In revolutionary times, those who accord themselves, with an extraordinary arrogance, the facile credit for having enflamed anarchy in their contemporaries fail to recognise that what appears to be a sad triumph is in fact due to a spontaneous disposition, determined by the social situation as a whole. (Auguste Comte - Philosophie Positive, Leçon 48) Matt Stan 12:48, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes that's right, considering you. Considering me, you and Paul don't allow me to have a dignity of a simple human. Tkorrovi 15:12, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I note that Tkorrovi is now allowing the typically constructive and interesting edits by 80.*.*.* to stand despite his repeated assertions that 80.*.*.* is someone's sock puppet. I like the direction the article is taking. If it is the "trolling" (and, of course, the word is misused by him) which has made him sit back and think again then the outcome is positive. Edit boldly, 80.*.*.*. Come back, SlimVirgin. Paul Beardsell 09:19, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This was the most impudent. I never wanted to prevent editing by anybody. Because of the danger of your trolling, I almost cannot edit the article at all, whenever I do, the trolling begins again. Tkorrovi 15:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A couple of things trouble me about the current article, firstly it needs tidying stylistically, secondly I did not stress sufficiently that if it were possible to create a system that has the appearance of being conscious then either consciousness is an epiphenomenon or there are at least two ways to do what we do. Epiphenomenal consciousness is not at all impossible and is actually favoured by theorists who posit a many minds interpretation of the multiverse.User:80.3.32.9

Keep up the good work! I'm just about keeping up. Matt Stan 12:50, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This epiphenomenalism bothers me, though. To use an analogy: equate a car at rest (engine off) to a sleeping/unconscious person; and the car in motion (engine running) to a conscious person. The motion, the "runningness" of the car is an epiphenomenon of the physics and chemistry of the internal combustion process in way that is well understood. If the car is moving and the engine is running, it may of course be free-wheeling, but we could reasonably infer that the internal combustion process is driving the car, and that when that process ceases the car stops moving, stops being a means of transport. By this analogy, consciousness is equivalent to the internal combustion process. Now internal combustion process involves the drawing in and mixing of petrol and air, the application of heat, timing controls, and a mechanism in which the whole process can operate. By this analogy, a process which results in a manifestation which observers (in all likelihood, with the help of the would-be conscious entity itself) call consciousness is the only yardstick we have. It would unknowable whether something which gave the "appearance" of consciousness was different from actual consciousness, and essentially worthless to try to make this distinction. The "appearance" of consciousness is all that anyone/anything can give, and therefore has to be the only means one has of detecting any form of consciousness. The fact that I can't provide you with a proof of my own consciousness surely supports this point. Matt Stan 18:45, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry but, who recently said on Cimon Avaro talk page, that he is a black hat thinker? Tkorrovi 15:31, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

De Bono's point about the black hat thinker (itself derived from the Vatican's institution of the devil's advocate) is that it is more constructive to criticise in a ritualised context by indicating in advance that one is playing devil's advocate (or putting on the black hat). That's not to say that the person playing that role can't also provide praise where praise is due. Matt Stan 14:49, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I thought about physics, the system developed by me for example has many similarities for example with the implicate order of David Bohm, and this seems to be not just a coincidence. And this is true also concerning other systems, potentially capable of implementing AC. Also, considering the suggestions that neuron works based on quantum effects, there may even be a practical connection, if we for example consider using quantum computer. But the problem is, that there are yet no good published theories about the connection between AC and physics, and nothing like that has been proved anyhow. So at present, it is at the best just a speculation. This is why I preferred not to mention that in the article, it's better to explain AC, which is much better determined, has its sources in the papers, and is something which at least can be in some extent properly explained. Not even to talk about original research, it's better not to connect it with the theories of universe or such, which at present are not more than speculations, the whole thing may look like a doubtful speculation then, and the article cannot anyhow be considered anything serious then. People can read about all the philosophy there is, and make the connections themselves, the way they like. We may provide some links though. Please consider. Concerning style, it's not so good, just an inevitable consequence of editing by different editors in the condition of trolling. Tkorrovi 15:02, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New

As a preparation for arbitration, I archived the article, archives, and history of both the article and its discussion, at http://adsproject.sourceforge.net/acw.zip to prevent deleting comments from the history.

As you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Artificial_consciousness/Archive_2 I asked Paul to apologize. I remember previously there was a comment when I asked it first time, and there was an offense by Paul before that. But now all that is deleted, deleted from the history, not just a talk page, and it gives an impression like I asked an apology for nothing. The history has been tampered with, don't know by who or how it could happen though.

So for any occasion for whatever reason the parts of the history to be lost from now on, the whole discussion is archived now in addition to the archives on discussion pages. Tkorrovi 18:41, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

TKorrovi, the history will be found by pressing the "history" button. Nothing has been lost. But, for the avoidance of doubt, no archiving of the AC article or its talk pages has ever been done by me. And, if there is anyone left who is interested, please do follow the link in the above posting. Thanks. Paul Beardsell 06:01, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Remind us, Tkorrovi, what did you ask me to apologise for? Paul Beardsell 21:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I don't remember, I don't want to remember the bad things, I want to remember the good things. But now it was only as much important, that I found it necessary to archice the discussion and history, just as a precaution. But if one wants to see an offense by Paul Beardsell, now they will follow. Tkorrovi 22:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You remind me of this. Paul Beardsell 05:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey, is this what was meant by "mediation"? Paul Beardsell 05:53, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I think it's almost a kind of steganography. We are dealing with someone about whom we can known in advance (in line with the claimably dubious notion about a conscious entity necessarily having the ability to predict) that he will predictbly misunderstand and react negatively to any assertion made by you, regardless of context, claiming that he is not being treated as a human. In order for mediation to be successful, a mediator - probably not Paul or myself - needs to get involved to defuse this situation. Otherwise I fear that this will just become another of those enormous archives, of which there are now many (and stuff can't be deleted out of wikipedia without the intervention of a developer, incidentally) characterised by a Tower of Babel-like inane, though it has to be said, at times, highly entertaining, chatter. Paul, why don't you take your own advice posted elsewhere and not take any notice of Tkorrovi, i.e. just don't respond, just let him have the last word, and focus on the content of the articles? Matt Stan 15:34, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

In the cartoon that is what the chatting pedestrians should do too. Easy to say, more difficult to do. Paul Beardsell 16:05, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)