I don't have one
And I am not sure if such a criterion is even possible. Minds are emergent properties. At some point AI will be smarter than us. Whether it will be "conscious" is a philosophical red herring.
I don't have one
Worms are capable of drawing correlations between things that exist in their entirety prior to becoming a part of the correlation.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:33 amYou mean a creature which feels pain like a worm?
A creature whose "mind" (neural system) we have managed to completely digitise? https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists ... connectome
That would make an interesting argument for your "whatever thought/belief" is made of
So any system that can draw correlations seems to meet your criteria then?
Why would I do that? It's much less fun, and you wouldn't be helping me to sharpen the position I argue for.
Yes, as humans we think in quite complex ways. However, if all of these ways include drawing correlations between different things, and drawing correlations between different things does not require language but still counts as a rudimentary form of thinking, then we arrive at an outline that serves as a continuum of complexity with the simplest kinds of thought on the one end and the most complex on the other.
Well no. The justification for the notion came from our language use(all our notions of all the different mental ongoings, namely "thought" and "belief"). Part of what all those uses have in common is physiological sensory perception(which I usually leave out of the description for it becomes a bit cumbersome). This brings about the need to discern between stimulus/response and thought. The former does not require correlations be drawn.
You're conflating being in a causal relationship with having the ability to draw correlations.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 3:54 amSo any system that can draw correlations seems to meet your criteria then?
The simplest such system is a one which can draw exactly 1 distinction. It can differentiate A from B This requires 1 bit of information. 1 input.
An amoeba is sufficient.
Plants can draw correlations. Sunflowers correlate light.
Even protein folding seems to meet your correlation criterion.
Basic chemical reactions are sufficient. Valence can be thought of as a primitive correlation mechanism.
Slowly heading for a truism
Actually. Quantum entanglement meets your criterion too. Two entangled particles' quantum states always correlate.
No I am not. I am merely uncertain about your inclusionary and exclusionary criteria for "ability to draw correlations".
Finally.TimeSeeker wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 5:32 pmNo I am not. I am merely uncertain about your inclusionary and exclusionary criteria for "ability to draw correlations".
Suppose that we have a set of entities X (organism, organelle, protein, molecule, atom or as low down the abstractions as you wish to go).
Suppose I ask you to sort those things into two groups:
Group 1: Things which are able to draw correlations
Group 2: Things which are unable to draw correlations.
This is binary classification 101: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_classification
Now, I am sure that you can successfully complete the task according to your own criteria/understanding of what "ability to draw correlations" means.
The problem is that I am not on the same page as you and so until you provide me with your classification rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classification_rule I will probably sort the items differently to you.
Which would mean that we interpret "ability to draw correlations" differently.
There is no way for me to "check your work" and hold you accountable. Every single human distinction suffers from this problem. Because our taxonomies are different.
The only way I can actually get an understanding of your meaning is if you sort the objects and I sort the objects and then we debate why you put atoms in Group 1 and I put them in Group 2 etc.
Yes, I can see that it's a continuum.However it has been said that humans have evolved as they have, and differently from other animals, because unlike other animals,human culture affects genetics. Not, I stress, in a Lamarkian way but slowly like Darwinian evolution.creativesoul wrote: ↑Tue Nov 13, 2018 4:50 pmYes, as humans we think in quite complex ways. However, if all of these ways include drawing correlations between different things, and drawing correlations between different things does not require language but still counts as a rudimentary form of thinking, then we arrive at an outline that serves as a continuum of complexity with the simplest kinds of thought on the one end and the most complex on the other.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests