I guess it really depends on how you define "consciousness". If by consciousness you mean the ability to think, perceive, and reason, than it's relatively easy. However, it sounds as if you're trying to equate consciousness with life (e.g., how do you make a toaster conscious). Well, if you add a microprocessor to a toaster, does it become conscious?
I think you're reading a little too much in to this - they are basically talking about groups or networks of neurons. Not sure how quantum coherence would play a role in this.
You're right, we don't have a clue how consciousness works. But this article is about the process of becoming unconscious, which is vastly different. It is significant that we can now associate precise physical components with the act of becoming unconscious. Since we are the ones putting the person under, we know that it's at least a partial explanation, which is something we didn't know before.
That is correct. FTA: "The joke in the image below may have been about Doom and shooters in 2010, but it still fits when talking about Duke Nukem Forever."
According to this survey, 42% of Groupon SMBs would not repeat. That's quite a lot, and it's from this and cases like this story that I suspect that the Groupon-like business model will not last too long, once the fad has died.
I'd give you mod points if I had any. The article mentions one of the benefits is "getting good exposure". But it works both ways. If you have to rush to get all 300 done and do a bad job, you've just delivered a product for a lower profit margin and provided yourself with bad publicity - worst of all worlds.
Hmmm...so you have a lot of explanatory power with that statement. You can explain pure altrusim (my tribe will all start acting nice because they saw me do it for some reason, creating a bright shiny utopia), and you can also describe selfish behavior (I saw that guy mug someone and get away with it, that's why there's so much selfish behavior in the world). So which is it?
Hmmm? Sorry, that department is already taken care of. All my kids are quite mature at this point, and my wife would certainly not appreciate me hitting on the lady in line. No, this to me seemed like pure altruism (e.g., the right thing to do)
So the gamble is this: I can take the immediate reward and spend it on groceries, or I can give the $ back to the lady on the off chance that I might drop some money in the future and the even more remote chance that some complete stranger will give it back? Sounds like I made a really bad choice, evolutionarily speaking.
So, the lady in front of me in a checkout line dropped some money. I picked it up and gave it to her (true story). How is this helping my survival and not hers in the least?
It's also interesting how many of the features are persistent. There is a face mask and single tail fin in v2-4 that keep coming back in the future versions. In fact, these two features are really the only thing that really distinguishes the early versions from a normal car.
That would be interesting, although I'm not sure it's possible. The other stats they have are all available from some sort of database. I think you'd have to poll every single person on the earth to get that info. Slight exaggeration, but you get the idea.
I'm not debating whether or not the babies actually thought the robot was sentient or not (who knows what babies think?). But it's a logical leap to assume that "gaze following" equates to "sentience". It might be that the babies know enough about technology to know that even a robot can focus a gaze. Assuming that a baby is smart enough to know what a gaze is implies they're smart enough to know what a robot is.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess it really depends on how you define "consciousness". If by consciousness you mean the ability to think, perceive, and reason, than it's relatively easy. However, it sounds as if you're trying to equate consciousness with life (e.g., how do you make a toaster conscious). Well, if you add a microprocessor to a toaster, does it become conscious?
I think you're reading a little too much in to this - they are basically talking about groups or networks of neurons. Not sure how quantum coherence would play a role in this.
You're right, we don't have a clue how consciousness works. But this article is about the process of becoming unconscious, which is vastly different. It is significant that we can now associate precise physical components with the act of becoming unconscious. Since we are the ones putting the person under, we know that it's at least a partial explanation, which is something we didn't know before.
That is correct. FTA: "The joke in the image below may have been about Doom and shooters in 2010, but it still fits when talking about Duke Nukem Forever."
According to this survey, 42% of Groupon SMBs would not repeat. That's quite a lot, and it's from this and cases like this story that I suspect that the Groupon-like business model will not last too long, once the fad has died.
I'd give you mod points if I had any. The article mentions one of the benefits is "getting good exposure". But it works both ways. If you have to rush to get all 300 done and do a bad job, you've just delivered a product for a lower profit margin and provided yourself with bad publicity - worst of all worlds.
Hmmm...so you have a lot of explanatory power with that statement. You can explain pure altrusim (my tribe will all start acting nice because they saw me do it for some reason, creating a bright shiny utopia), and you can also describe selfish behavior (I saw that guy mug someone and get away with it, that's why there's so much selfish behavior in the world). So which is it?
Hmmm? Sorry, that department is already taken care of. All my kids are quite mature at this point, and my wife would certainly not appreciate me hitting on the lady in line. No, this to me seemed like pure altruism (e.g., the right thing to do)
So the gamble is this: I can take the immediate reward and spend it on groceries, or I can give the $ back to the lady on the off chance that I might drop some money in the future and the even more remote chance that some complete stranger will give it back? Sounds like I made a really bad choice, evolutionarily speaking.
So, the lady in front of me in a checkout line dropped some money. I picked it up and gave it to her (true story). How is this helping my survival and not hers in the least?
...was to nose it a hair to the left
Urine for a shock if you think you'll ever get mod points using puns
European spring
We joyously watch the blooms
no ISP block
European court
Has preliminary rule
BI now gives finger
This is the best slashdot post I've ever read. You, sir, are a genius.
Ha ha...I can't stop thinking about the sound effect that mental image produces
It will probably deflate the earth like a giant beach ball
It's also interesting how many of the features are persistent. There is a face mask and single tail fin in v2-4 that keep coming back in the future versions. In fact, these two features are really the only thing that really distinguishes the early versions from a normal car.
I was noticing that too. Also, why is he getting in on the wrong side of the car? Is he driving in England?
That would be interesting, although I'm not sure it's possible. The other stats they have are all available from some sort of database. I think you'd have to poll every single person on the earth to get that info. Slight exaggeration, but you get the idea.
You can play with the data used to create this graph on his website. Very highly configurable...Warning: serious prodictivity killer.
Justin? Is that you? How come you turned down my friend request?
It's a good thing it wasn't an article on syphylis
I'm not debating whether or not the babies actually thought the robot was sentient or not (who knows what babies think?). But it's a logical leap to assume that "gaze following" equates to "sentience". It might be that the babies know enough about technology to know that even a robot can focus a gaze. Assuming that a baby is smart enough to know what a gaze is implies they're smart enough to know what a robot is.
What, behind that rabbit?
Nice attempt at levity.
Yeah, except we want levitation, not levity.
Dooood. Same root word. Lighten up :^)