Content-Transfer-Encoding: |
7bit |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 24 Feb 2002 09:05:13 -0500 |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset=us-ascii |
MIME-Version: |
1.0 |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Peter Borst wrote:
> David Chalmers:
>
> Consciousness poses the most baffling problems in the science of the
> mind. There is nothing that we know more intimately than conscious
> experience, but there is nothing that is harder to explain. All sorts
> of mental phenomena have yielded to scientific investigation in
> recent years, but consciousness has stubbornly resisted. Many have
> tried to explain it, but the explanations always seem to fall short
> of the target. Some have been led to suppose that the problem is
> intractable, and that no good explanation can be given.
There have been some excellent writing about consciousness, especially
as they relate to computers and artificial intelligence. Which is one
reason why the issue is difficult to define, because once you define it
you open up a pandora's box of ethical problems.
But our discussion is with bees and planning. I have no problem with
instinct as the driving force.
Another word is behavior when we apply it to humans, but it is instinct.
We have it mapped in our genes just like the honeybee, but we also have
conciseness, which allows us to override that instinct.
Bill Truesdell
Bath, Me
|
|
|