thread: 2011-06-28 : Designing Philosophical Arguments
On 2011-06-30, Ry wrote:
I see what you're getting at about the robot. Maybe it's a giant fighty robot with a human pilot. The fighty robot's systems are the analogy for the consciousness, and the human pilot is the analogy for the preconsciousness.
I like that idea, but when I think hard about it I don't know if just splitting them solves the problem.
Regardless of where an action came from, the robot has to feel like "I did that" - but I think the human controller has to say "I did that" too. I mean, both of them see themselves as the one in the driver's seat.
My intentional brain thinks "I decided to go to work today, and I left early enough not to be late, so my coworkers won't think less of me", my preconscious brain thinks "I got to the safe place in time to prevent the other sapiens from making angry faces that make my heart start racing." They're both under the impression that it's all about them. They only talk when I meditate. Right?
The mech thinks "I solved the problem of getting object X labeled 'missile' to intercept with object Y, labeled 'threat'. Y was on an intercept course to Z. I solved the problem because Y was removed from the grid before Z=Y could in 3-space" The pilot thinks "I piloted my mech and fired a missile at the monster before it could reach the town."
What I'm saying is that I love the giant fighty robot metaphor but I don't think the pilot gets to be the smart one to the robot's dumb one. They're both smart and both dumb. Problems arise when they're out of sync. Does that make sense?
