Talk:Artificial consciousness/Archive 2

message: I searched the Google for consciousness and predict and found easily an article where is said that the ability to predict is necessary to consciousness, not "influenced by me", the one I didn't know at all. But I don't say it to you Paul because I don't talk to you before you apologize, this is an unfortunate obstacle you made. If you like, I can say it to Matt Stan or anybody of your choose. tkorrovi
Apologise for what?  Paul Beardsell 15:15, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Pistols at dawn

message: I do not have Powerpoint on my computer so I cannot look at the first link mentioned at your AC forum article (link above).  But I have followed the second link and I quote from it 
:So can we create a situation/experiment/test, such that when the thing passes this test, we can assume it is conscious? (Not passing the test thus does not say it is NOT conscious!) Most of us agree that the test should check the ability to learn, to predict and to generalize previous experiences. 
This makes exactly my point not yours:  Three examples of tests are suggested one of which is the ability to predict and "Not passing the test thus does not say it is NOT conscious!"  Precisely!  None of the three examples of desirable qualities of the conscious being need NECESSARILY be there.  That is what your own reference says!
Paul Beardsell 16:41, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Predictability not necessary 

message: I want a new version as an attempt to get past the impasse.
tkorrovi was not happy with that and reverted back to a much earlier version.  
Back to before I showed that the reference he quotes does not say what he thought it said.  
I suggest that a third party pick one of the recent versions and freeze that for the time being pending comments here.  Hopefully there are lots of them.
Paul Beardsell 19:04, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit war

message: You first revert because content is lost.  Now, I add content to your favorite version, none of the new content you care to object to here, and you revert.  Essentially you prevent me now from adding non-controversial text to the version of the article you like.  This is not the action of a reasonable person, by saying so doubtless I insult you again.  Paul Beardsell 20:00, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: New Merged Version

message: From what I see this is a pointless variant spelling. What is the purpose of it? Is it a U.K. spelling, or what? Sam Spade 21:25, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think this is a UK/US thing. My Shorter Oxford English Dictionary gives: artifact n. var. of ARTEFACT. Your reference gives: Variant of artifact. I'm not really fussed either was, though it was I changed it not realising the American spelling. Are there conventions in Wikipedia for this? Matt Stan 21:50, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

text: By "this way" and by "approval" I mean that there is some "Master Editor".  I have asked a question about "Master Editor" at the Wikipedia:Village pump.  Ataturk 02:23, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  artefact 

message: I have protected this page until the two involved in reverting each other concile their differences. ugen64 00:12, Mar 14, 2004 (UTC)
Thank you. Ataturk 00:17, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: FREEZE