Nature is not natural and can never be naturalized — Graham Harman

Tuesday, May 31, 2011

AI, Anti-Ai vs OOO, Enaction


A perceptive commenter writes:
Curious as to what you think about pan-psychism vs eliminativist position? Ah -- googling i see you've got a dozen posts on pan-psychos...
I respond: Eliminativism versus pan-psychism—these are apples and oranges. In other words, you could be an eliminativist who thinks that consciousness inheres in nerve firings. I'm neither an eliminativist nor a pan-psychist--I'm an object oriented ontologist.

In other words, I think that there is something that my mind does that isn't that different from what a pencil does when it rests on a table. It's the other way around: it's not that pencils have minds, it's that minds are pencil like. The onus is on AI and anti-AI to prove that consciousness is a special bonus prize for being highly organized or highly evolved, a suspiciously anti-Darwinian notion.

I was talking with a neurobiologist in New Zealand who also thinks that consciousness is much "lower down" than AI or anti-AI deem to be the case. The smart money is on consciousness as an interobjective configuration space that includes 1+n objects (such as enaction theory).

1 comment:

michael- said...

"The smart money is on consciousness as an interobjective configuration space that includes 1+n objects (such as enaction theory)."

That damn near made be break my face via a big ass smile. Enaction is the only why to fly...