You're putting the cart before the horse. Until you explain what "consciousness" is and how you know we have it, why should I accept what you say? Simply claiming that everything I think and dream is part of my consciousness, without showing it exists or even precisely defining it, does not make it so.
To get back to the main discussion, once you get me a precise testable definition of what we're discussing, then we can really start talking. Of course, once that's done, there will be no reason to believe that a brain made out of silicon is any less capable of achieving it than a brain made out of carbon.
No one wants to be exterminated, but if we've reached a level of understanding to be able to design new intelligences from scratch, who's to say we won't be able to upgrade ourselves the same way we buy a pair of glasses or a prosthetic organ? I suspect we'll be swept up in the wave of progress rather than drowned in it.
And how do you know that such a nebulous concept as "consciousness" is even something worth talking about and not something we just made up to convince ourselves of our own uniqueness?
If "consciousness" is a scientific concept with real meaning, we can test for it, find it, and prove that it's really there. If not, it's not even worth serious consideration in the first place. You might as well say that an A.I. won't have a "soul"...
Then that means that the way to express admiration for humanity is to talk about abstract qualities you admire, not specific instances. After all, for every Einstein and Ella Fitzgerald there's a Stalin and a Mao. Who's to say which is more representative and which is the exception?
But in any case, I suspect the reason Hofstadter doesn't talk about abstract qualities is because the moment he does that he has to admit that none of them are essentially tied to these bags of flesh and blood that he seems to admire so much.
I.Q. has a very precise meaning and is not the same as the vernacular term "intelligence". It's instructive to note that neither the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - III nor the Stanford-Binet IQ test (the one used by Mensa) use general knowledge questions in their test, as I.Q. is supposed to be a test of mental acuity, not a test of "smartness".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scalehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford-Binet
Even Dawkins admits that, strictly speaking, he's an agnostic. He doesn't know that God doesn't exist. But there's any number of things that could just as easily apply to. No one says they're an agnostic with respect to unicorns. They just say "Unicorns aren't real."
Only when it comes to this "God" concept, does everyone become such a pedant. If we applied the same standards to God that we did to unicorns, no one would take Dawkins to task for saying he's an atheist.
He explains this all in "God Delusion." I suggest you read it.
But he's only famous/infamous for his atheism, and he knows it. He certainly wouldn't be invited to be on "Dr. Who" if he wasn't an Atheist. There are plenty of atheists who aren't famous. I'm one of them. Dawkins isn't famous for his atheism, he's famous for being a vocal advocate of his atheism and doing it rather well.
It's a subtle distinction, but an important one.
Ironically, atheism may have work out financially for him, but he sends the wrong evolutionary message by promoting it for society. Theists do better in society, so that's what he should remind people of, "survival of the fittest". Dawkins should promote theism, as those who embrace God are the fittest to survive in our society, due to social stigmatism on atheists.. And this, of course, is silly. Don't confuse Social Darwinism with Biological Darwinism. The rest isn't even worth a response.
I don't know about you, but I certainly don't do more than four hours of real work a day. And if spending hours on slashdot and wikipedia can be considered "study", then I'd say they got pretty close to the mark with that one.
Slashdot Mirror
You're putting the cart before the horse. Until you explain what "consciousness" is and how you know we have it, why should I accept what you say? Simply claiming that everything I think and dream is part of my consciousness, without showing it exists or even precisely defining it, does not make it so. To get back to the main discussion, once you get me a precise testable definition of what we're discussing, then we can really start talking. Of course, once that's done, there will be no reason to believe that a brain made out of silicon is any less capable of achieving it than a brain made out of carbon.
No one wants to be exterminated, but if we've reached a level of understanding to be able to design new intelligences from scratch, who's to say we won't be able to upgrade ourselves the same way we buy a pair of glasses or a prosthetic organ? I suspect we'll be swept up in the wave of progress rather than drowned in it.
And how do you know that such a nebulous concept as "consciousness" is even something worth talking about and not something we just made up to convince ourselves of our own uniqueness?
If "consciousness" is a scientific concept with real meaning, we can test for it, find it, and prove that it's really there. If not, it's not even worth serious consideration in the first place. You might as well say that an A.I. won't have a "soul"...
Then that means that the way to express admiration for humanity is to talk about abstract qualities you admire, not specific instances. After all, for every Einstein and Ella Fitzgerald there's a Stalin and a Mao. Who's to say which is more representative and which is the exception?
But in any case, I suspect the reason Hofstadter doesn't talk about abstract qualities is because the moment he does that he has to admit that none of them are essentially tied to these bags of flesh and blood that he seems to admire so much.
I.Q. has a very precise meaning and is not the same as the vernacular term "intelligence". It's instructive to note that neither the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - III nor the Stanford-Binet IQ test (the one used by Mensa) use general knowledge questions in their test, as I.Q. is supposed to be a test of mental acuity, not a test of "smartness". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wechsler_Adult_Intelligence_Scale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford-Binet
5. Facebook.com 107.09 ...right.
Microsoft is no longer the big cheese? Did I miss a memo?
Even Dawkins admits that, strictly speaking, he's an agnostic. He doesn't know that God doesn't exist. But there's any number of things that could just as easily apply to. No one says they're an agnostic with respect to unicorns. They just say "Unicorns aren't real." Only when it comes to this "God" concept, does everyone become such a pedant. If we applied the same standards to God that we did to unicorns, no one would take Dawkins to task for saying he's an atheist. He explains this all in "God Delusion." I suggest you read it.
Microsoft Patents Ones, Zeroes
I don't know about you, but I certainly don't do more than four hours of real work a day. And if spending hours on slashdot and wikipedia can be considered "study", then I'd say they got pretty close to the mark with that one.