Engineering News

Was anybody awake when this got posted ? Mapping the coast is a completely different book, and has nothing to do with the header. "Intriguing" was not the word that came to my mind from reading the book review.

Congrats! -- You passed the consciousness test!

_{/The OP did not.}

lol - At first I thought it might be an automated feed. Trouble is, I couldn't spot the word 'intriguing' in the link. It could still be auto copied to CR4 from someplace, but there's no way to know.

Tornado has given me a disturbing thought - they might be testing us to see if we're conscious ! Del spotted a good on the other day; What should have been 'leading project' got typed as 'bleedin project' (or something very similar).

I nominate CR4 Admin for the naughty step until one of them owns up .

OK, only kiddin' admins, it must be hard to supply all this stuff, but the book still looks like gibberish. The use of Phi in that fashion is reason enough.

Always watching - always testing. Our data sets on you all are making perfect lines, we may even release "it" on time at this rate.

You too? What sort of data-mining techniques are you using?

We're using all the Googles.

Gopher it .

That almost sounds like a confession !

Next time you lot are around the table, perhaps you can give consideration to a sort of 'supere-admin', name of which can simply be 'it'. There might be some confusion when people talk of 'they', but no more than my apostriphical economy causes (" is a rather squanderous use of ' in these eco/green times*). The squirrel committee hath spoken, and deeply apologize for the horse specification that churned out a camel .

* That should maybe be ^"_"" and ^"_'" but it has confused me too much !

But why Phi? As a mathematical symbol it represents the ubiquitous Golden Ratio. Why not (small) Epsilon? You know, to represent the informational content of that article?

Better yet, the BS symbol (alas, already taken).

That article came right up with the 'coasts' book piece shown below. No worries, mate, you weren't missing a thing.

In true Meh Scientist tradition, the article had nothing to say, save that a Wisconsin-based researcher came up with a new concept which he calls 'integrated information', to explain consciousness. The article asserts that this is somehow moving us beyond the Ancient Greeks' understanding of same. How this is done, exactly, is not at all clear, which is likely why our understanding of consciousness still hasn't left downtown Athens. Merely calling something by a new name doth not new knowledge create. Perhaps this is the true point of the article, however unconsciously conveyed.

Administer a Turing Test.

Turing was a really smart guy, but I've never been comfortable with the "Turing Test". I don't see how making a simulation of a live person good enough to fool everybody really proves anything. I think that some of the computer programs nowadays, e.g. "Siri", might fool more people than some live persons might, and the state of the art is only going to improve in the future.

It's funny - I can imagine everyone else as a very good computer simulation. I just can't imagine being one myself!

"It's funny - I can imagine everyone else as a very good computer simulation. I just can't imagine being one myself!"

I couldn't either, until I saw the source code.

Bluddy hackers.

Pointless (er, great philosophical) exercise. Most of us most of the time go thru life without a flicker of it. Human centric overrated.

Correct functioning does not require, what we call consciousness. But we tend to describe equipment in human terms. The latest and greatest of the Mars lander is gradually "awakened" according its makers. The scientist speak quite affectionately of its smallest detail. Watch the NASA reportage for many such examples.

There's certainly a trend towards anthropomorphizing stuff. People don't need such descriptions to understand, they simply leave people with less understanding.

I just used a very big word (for what you put in clear terms), and now feel in serious need of a rest !

I, and my consciousness, think this computational theory is a piece of crap!

This reminds me of the fledgling engineers we get here who insist that everything must fit into some sort of mathmatical equation, or it can't be.

I'm pretty sure I'm conscious right now and I don't need no stinking formula to tell me that.

"How to measure consciousness?"

Just fart.

I had to stop giving my dog leftover pieces of steak. Her consciousness would fill the room and I'd have to open a window.

Wish you could beam your dog's emissions into the vehicles around here. Imagine their surprise. "Elvira? Whose car is this? When did we move here? Holy Toledo!! Would you take a look at them gas prices!!! :-)

Our dog died.

So, no more silent killers at our house.

With 3 small boys, we still have plenty of audibles.

After reading this and the comments following it I have came to the conclusion that either I had a stroke and thats why nothing makes sense or that I need to have one to be able to view this as understandable.

Either way I think some level of brain damage is involved.