Youtube彼のYoutubeをみて興味を持ちました。
「受動意識仮説」を簡単に言えば、無意識の小人（ニューロン（神経細胞）の発火）が自動的に起こって、小人の間に民主主義的（？）な協議が起こる。「意識」はその結果を受け取っているだけ、ということです。
これだけだと、「なにそれ？」と思われるかもしれませんが、著者はロボット工学の専門家で、科学的なアプローチで「意識」「自分」「私」を説明しています。
つまり、ロボットは意識（心）を持てるか、というより、意識をどのように定義すれば、それをプログラム可能にできるかということです。
定義さえできれば作成可能、というのは当然であって、かつ「可能性」にすぎません。「三角形」を定義すれば、三角形の作成可能性が生まれます。でも、実際にはユークリッド幾何学の三角形は実際に「書く」ことはできません。また、それ以外の三角形の定義ができるよ、と言われます。
第1章 「心」ーもうわかっていること、まだわからないこと
ここで、「心」が定義されます。そして〈私〉「私」「自分」を定義するのですが、これがちょっと難しいです。でも、読みすすめるうちになんとなくわかってきます。
その土台となるのが、無意識という「小びと」たちです。
ちょっと考えればわかるのですが、私たちがやっていることで意識的にやっていることはほんの一部です。頭をかくとき意識的にやっていることはどのくらいあるでしょう。手を上げる、その角度やスピード、皮膚にあたった指の強さ、上下左右に振る速度・・・、そんな事を考えて頭をかく人はいません。無意識に頭をかくことだってあるでしょう。
照れ隠しじゃなくて頭がかゆいと思うのは、手が動いた後、あるいは頭をかき始めてから、ということも多いのではないでしょうか。
著者の専門であるロボットを作るときには、それを一つ一つをプログラムしなければなりません。皮膚感覚センサーから、ロボットのアームの位置、強さ、速度・・・。ある程度はプログラムし、それ以後は「学習」させることも考えなければなりません。
数十年前までは、コンピューターが学習することは至難の業でした。第一、記録容量が圧倒的に足りなかった。
じぶんが「主体的に（能動的に）頭をかいている」という、心の「クオリア」（質）を私たちの基本にあると思っている限りは、その心、能動的にすべての行動を規定する意思（意図）が必要だと思っている限り、「心を持つロボット」なんかは夢の夢です。でも、それを無意識の小人たちの行為、心をその結果を受け取るだけ、と定義すればプログラムは可能になります。
第2章 「私」は受動的ーー新しいパラダイム
この受動性が説明されています。ここで、「自分」が軽く定義されています。
「大腸菌は人間の一部か？」（P.50）と問いていて、その答えは微妙です。
「「自分」の「身体」は「物体」だが、「自分」の「生命」は「現象」なのだ。」（P.52）という結論は、ちょっと性急すぎるかなと思います。
「生命は動的平衡である」という、福岡伸一さんの考えをどこかで踏まえているのかもしれません。
ここで著者が言及している「内部と外部」の話を少しを、私なりに述べていきたいと思います。肺の中や、胃腸等の中は人間の外部です。肺は凹みだし、胃腸は人間をちくわのようなものだと考えれば間違いなく外部です。[1]肺胞や胃腸壁で人間は外部との代謝を行っています。もちろん体表でも行っています。
PCRによる「新型コロナウィルス」検査は、粘液に着いているウィルスを検査しています。粘液は体の内側でしょうか。普通は「粘膜は体の中（体の一部）だけど、粘液は体の外」ではないでしょうか。少なくとも、「体の一部」であることと「体の中」であることは違います。皮膚は体の一部ですが、フケや垢は体の一部ではないと思いたいです。よだれも体の一部ではない。だとすると、粘液は体の一部ではありません。だから、そこに「新型コロナウィルス」がいても、それは身体の中に入った（感染した）ということにはなりません。空気中のウィルスも、粘液中のウィルスも同じです。粘液は強力な免疫機構です。風邪（ウィルスです）をひくと、鼻水が出るでしょ。
でも、それを前提として付け加えるなら、外と中は「相対的」で、「境界は曖昧」としているということです。著者が取り上げている「ミトコンドリア」はその一例です。それは外部でもあり内部でもあります。また、ミトコンドリアと細胞質、細胞核との境目も教科書に載っているようにはっきりとしているわけではなく、「ぼんやりとこのあたりが、そんな機能を持っている」という程度です。
腸内細菌や、遺伝子の大きな部分を占める「レトロウィルス」などもそれなくしては人間が存在し得ないという意味では「外部」（対象化されるもの）ではないと言えます。庭の植物も、家族もそれなしには存在できないという意味では外部ではありません。「私」という「心」、つまり「自我」（内部）を設定することで、それ以外のもの、自分の体、脳ですら外部となります。
著者が、「心の地動説」「川の下流にいる「私」」というのは、相対的なものを別の視点から見ているものです。著者がいみじくも述べている通り「日常生活の中では、地球が中心だと考えても全く何も困らないのだ」（P.91）となります。
なお、「ニューロンは使ったものほど発火する」（P.98）というのは、データベース構造の考え方です。
第3章 人の心のたねあかしーー意識の三つの謎を解く
「第2章では、身体の内と外、中心とまわりといった空間的な常識と、ものごとのタイミングや原因と結果といった時間的な常識を見直す新しいパラダイムについて述べた。新シパラダイムとは、「私」とは錯覚する存在である、そして、「私」とは宇宙の周辺または川の下流にいる受動的な存在である、といって見方の逆転だ。（LF）このような新しいパラダイムによれば、第1章で述べた心の三つの謎、すなわち、バインディング問題、〈私〉の問題、クオリアの問題の答えが導ける。」（P.106）
「物理世界は、そうならざるを得ない結果としてそうなったのに対し、生命情報世界は、そうでありば都合がいいようにデザインされた結果だ。」（P.108）つまり、心（あるいは生命）は物理法則に従わないのでしょうか。
「心」は現実を（存在を）物理法則にしようとして「科学」を発展させてきました。それにもかかわらず、著者が引用している実験はその物理法則に反するように見えます。それは「科学」の限界なのでしょうか。
そうならば、わたしは大歓迎ですが（笑）、少なくとも実験を行った科学者たちはそうは考えていなと思います。
著者はその科学の最先端（情報科学）で「心」を作り出そうとしているわけです。その自己矛盾が整理されずに本書のあちらこちらに見えている気がします。
「脳が人工のバーチャルリアリティーと違うのは、まだいまの技術では、設計変更やオールクリアはできないという点だ。人工のバーチャルリアリティーのように「何でもあり」ではない。」（P.110）「ただし、将来は別だ。脳のどこで何が行われているかが明らかになってくれば、調節やリセットも可能になり、脳のフレキシビリティーも人工のバーチャルリアリティーに近づく可能性はある。それを人が望むかどうかは難しい問題だが。」（同）その問題こそが「いま」考えなければならないのだと思う。
脳の研究は進んできました。たとえば、エンドルフィンなどの脳内麻薬と呼ばれる物質を与えれば「ハッピーな気持ち」になれる、といったことがわかってきています。でもそれは、「ブラックボックス」がわかったということではありません。花を見れば気持ちが良くなる、風にあたれば癒やされる、といった刺激（入力）に対する反応（出力）がわかったということにすぎません。
わかったのは「どのようにして」であり「なぜ」ではありません。それでいて「記憶」や「経験」を操ろう（操作しよう）というのですから、なんとだいそれたことか。ナチスは間違いなくこういう思考、科学的な思考が招いたことなのです。「人が望む」って、その「望む」人は著者にとって何なんでしょう。人の行い、たとえばヒトラーの行いは科学的なものです。だからこそ、「受動的」などと軽く言ってはいけないのです。
進化論
著者の考え方は進化論的です[2]。最近の学者はほとんどそうですが。
生物は全体として変化します。自然の変化とともに、自然と一体として。
自然と生物を区別することこそ、自我が行なったことです。自我が自分の身体を、人間から自然を区別しました。その区別を残したままでは何も「進化」しません。
第4章 心の過去と未来ーー昆虫からロボットまでーー
この章で、著者は心を身体から究極的に分離します。それは「心」すなわち「意識」「自我」を否定するわけではありません。それを残しながら、他の動物やロボットのこと（その心）を語ることの危険性に著者は無自覚です。
わたしは、他の動物との平等は大切だと思っています。それは、わたしとあなたの平等と同様ですから。例えば、牛（野生であろうと食肉であろうと搾乳用に飼育されたものであろうと）と人間とは平等です。でもそれは対等だとか「同じ」という意味ではないでしょう。わたしは、牛を食べます。でも、牛はわたしを食べません。わたしと牛との関係は、対等でも同じでもありません。それでも平等というのは可能でしょうか。著者が牛の立場（食べられる立場）にたっても、本書と同じことがいえるのなら、それを示して欲しい。それが、わたしとあなたの、平等の基礎ですから。権力を持つ側、支配す者の側からの平等の発言は、たいてい（いつも）無意味です。腹が立ちます。
「人類の歴史は富と権利の拡大の歴史」ーー教科書どおりの歴史観です。つまり、支配者、富を持つものの歴史です。
「動物への人権の拡大」「ロボットへも人権拡大」ーーその支配者の歴史観を延長すると、こうなります。「幻想の私」を持っている著者が、現実を無視している証です。
「アニマルウェルフェア（動物福祉、家畜福祉）」という言葉をご存知でしょうか。食べる（あるいは卵を産ませる、乳を絞る）ための動物の福祉です。わたしはその運動を支持します。ただ、その運動は「鳥だって、可愛そうだね」「牛だって可愛そうだね」という、ペット感覚の延長では続けられません。ペットは食べないことが前提だからです。（小学校で飼育している豚に「名前をつける」かどうかの話は映画にもなったんでしたっけ。）
その運動は、結局「動物（家畜）を虐待することは、人間（自身）の食の安全を脅かす」という話を付け加えざるを得ません。
これは、ペットに対する飼い主の考え、奴隷に対する主人の考え、搾取する側の搾取される者に対する考えそのものです[3]。あなたは「健康診断」をどんな気持ちで受けますか。「健康診断」はナチスがはじめたことを知っていますか。
第5章 補遺ーー「小びと」たちのしくみ
この章は、コンピュータ（AI）の技術的な解説です。本文との直接の関係はありません。本文を理解するために読むのがいいと思います。専門書的な話ではないので。
自我の位置、無意識の位置
自我（『私」「心」）を相対化しようという著者の考えに興味を持ちました。でも、相対化しただけじゃだめなのです。「人間なんてララ〜ラララララ〜」と言っているだけじゃだめなんです。（大好きな歌です。青葉市子バージョン、最高です。でも、カラオケで歌うとみんな引きます（笑）。ついでにいうと「戦争反対」は大切だけど、「平和を我等に」まで言わなければだめです。）
自我を意識（自覚）してからの（一部の）人間の歴史は、その自我との戦いの歴史です。それは自分が離れてしまった「自然」への回帰欲望です。宗教はその一つです[*]。もう一つが哲学です。宗教と哲学が「いっしょ」にあるのはそのためです。
だから、支配する側の宗教と、支配される側の宗教は意味が異なります。
著者は「霊魂の存在」を否定することで、「非宗教的」な立場を表そうとしていますが、非常にあやふい。科学者がキリスト教徒であることは欧米では今でも当たり前です。宗教と科学は相容れないものではなくて、影響しあい補完します（それは、古代ギリシャやメソポタミア、インド、中国を見れば明らかです）。科学は「いかに（どのように、How）」を説明しますが、「なぜ（どうして、Why）」は説明しません。「なぜ」は宗教や哲学に委ねられます。（著者を含めて）「無神論者」の日本人は、科学で「いかに」を突き詰めれば、「なぜ」が説明されるかのような幻想に生きています。それは子供の簡単な質問で暴かれます。「太陽はなぜ赤いの？」「それはね、核反応時に〇〇マイクロメートルの波長が〜、それが大気圏を通って〜」と説明できても、それはどこまでいっても「いかに」ですよね。「なぜ太陽はあるの」という説明などは、神話の世界に逃げ込むしかありません。
ちなみに太陽を「赤い」と表現する国は少ないそうです
自我、つまり「主体」が生まれることで、自然は「客体」になります。客体になった自然は、人間が支配・所有できるものになります。「他人」も客体です。客体にすることで、支配・所有できるものになり、理解を超えたもの（理解できないもの）になります。自分の体も「客体」（支配・所有できるものであるとともに、支配・所有することを義務付けられているもの、強制されているもの）になります。そして、著者が行っているのはその「自我」そのものを「客体化」する試みです。でも、それは「常識はずれ」ではなくて不可能なのです。自我（心）の仕組みを説明する（How）ことは可能です。でも、それは自我の存在を否定（Why）することにはならないからです（著者も否定はしていない）。
一度自覚してしまった自我を放棄することは難しいです。否定することも難しい。もし、行えるとすれば、それは自我を「乗り越える」ことでしかないのではないでしょうか。
人間とロボットの平等
自我の「乗り越え」は「いかにして」可能なのでしょうか。わかりません。わたしにわかるわけがないですようね。古来さまざまな哲学者や宗教家が考え抜いて（ある場合は自分の生を賭して）もわからなかったことですから。
わたしが感じている（信じている？）可能性は「心は他の心を感じることができる」ということだけです。「他」には他人以外にも他の生物（動植物）や自然も含まれます。「私の心」以外のものです。
ロボットに心を与えることができるかもしれません。昆虫には心がないかもしれません。他人に心があるのかどうかすらわからないのですからどのようにも言えます。これは「不可知論」ではありません。自我が自然から離れてしまった、そして他人から離れてしまった以上しかたのないことです。でも、わたしは他人の心を感じることができます（「無神経」「人の気持ちがわからない人」とよく言われますが）。たぶん、多くの人がそうだと思います。そうじゃなければ、テレビや映画を見ても何も感じないだろうし、そういった文化の存在すらなかったと思います。
ペットを可愛いと思う心、花を見て美しいと思う心、ロボットを考える（作り出す）ことができる心です。ディスプレイ上の女の子（のかたちをした映像）が笑うと、コンピュータが笑ったように思います。Aiboが人気があるのはまさにそういうことですよね。囲碁ソフトを見るとAIが「考えている」と思ってしまいます。コンピュータの電源を切ると「寝ている」、壊れると「死んだ」と思ってしまいます。心は幻想でも、錯覚でもなく、そのように「見てしまう」「感じてしまう」ということそのものです。
人間の平等、人権、アニマルウェルフェア・・・の可能性は、「その心のあり方」にあります。他の人は他の人のあり方で考え、感じ、昆虫は昆虫のあり方で考え、感じます（「あり方」っていうのはうまく説明できません。「実在（Dasein）」くらいに思ってください。あるということ、存在のWhy）。それは、自分が他人にとっては客体であることを認めるということです。
だから、心は「心自体」を感じることができます（〈わたし〉を考えることができます）。哲学や美術の可能性はそこにあります。
つまり「心そのもの」が可能性なのです。自我を捨てるのではなく、乗り越えることは「心の存在を信じること」から始まるのではないでしょうか。
＜抜書＞
「実際、下等な哺乳類は、なんらかの「意味記憶」は持つが、「エピソード記憶」を持たないためにこのような生活をしているように見える。昆虫などのもっと単純な生物では、「意味記憶」さえ持たず、反射により生活している（FF）ように見える」（P.112-113）
「ただ、私は思い出した、とか、こう考えた、こう決めた、こんな感情状態にある、といったことを感じるためのシステムだ。実はそこには個性はない。「無意識」の小びとたちがどんな結果を出して、そのうちどれが選ばれて意識に運ばれるのか、によって、その人の個性は決まる。「私」は、その結果を感じているだけのシステムだから、どの人の「私」もさほど変わらない。（LF）〈私〉とは、その「私」の中から、自己意識の部分だけを取り出して、さらにその中から「自己意識についての意味記憶」も取り除いたものだというのだから、「私」にもまして個性がない。」（P.118）ーーその意識、著者の好みの言い方をすれば、無意識の表出が個性ではないか。
「従って、感情は、自他のクオリアを鮮やかにし、その結果としてエピソード記憶を強調しメリハリを付けるために存在するのだと考えられる。ほかに必要はない。（LF）だから、エピソード記憶のできない生物は感情がないに違いない。」（P.130）ーー
「つまり、言語とは、時間軸上に伸びた紐のような構造体だ。だから、聖徳太子以外の人は、二人以上の人が同時に話しかけてきたら混乱する。」（P.133）＿＿そうなんだけど、音声情報は（映像情報も同じだけど）一つの全体です。とりあえず脳には全体が入ってきます。そのなかで必要な情報を抜き出します。だから、大勢の話し声のなかで相手の話を聞くことができます。それ以外の音は、一時的には記憶されていますが、意識されないだけです。
「昆虫の運動・行動の全ては基本的にフィードバック制御により行われていて、何かを考えたり、何かを意識する「私」は存在する必要がない。昆虫は決して心を持ってはいない。」（P.154）＿＿でも、人間の心も幻想なんですよね。定義の問題です。なぜ人間は他人が心を持っていると思う（仮定、仮想）のか。それは自分が心をもっているからですよね。だから、自分の心で他人の心を感じるのです。昆虫には昆虫なりの感じ方があるとしたら。昆虫が「痛い」とか「悲しい」と感じていると、私の心が感じるとしたら、それも「心」なんじゃないでしょうか。
「もっといえば、生命現象にとって、自分と外界、中と外、という分け方が無意味だったのと同様、現実と幻想、という分け方にも意味がないということだ。」（P.159）＿＿その通りなんだけど、もう少し説明しないとならないと思う。現実=幻想じゃないからね。ただ、著者にとってはその必要はないんだろうけど。
「従来の心についての考え方、つまり、能動的な「私」を仮定する心の天動説は、キリスト教や西洋的世界観にあい通じるものがある。」「キリスト教徒であるか、ないかの境には歴然とした境界があるように、自分と外界とは別のモノだ。」（P.165）＿＿キリスト教＝天動説＝西洋的世界観ではないけど。
「東洋の宗教や思想が目指してきたものは、自然と一体で普遍的な〈私〉を探すことだったのかもしれない。」（P.166）＿＿浅いね。そうなんだけど、西洋の思想もその格闘の歴史です。
「進化的計算とは、ものの構造やプログラム自体をコンピュータ自身が自動的に作り出すやり方だ。たとえば、遺伝的アルゴリズムという方法がそれにあたる。ロボットの形を遺伝子のようなコードで表す。そして、その遺伝子を進化させるような計算をコンピュータにさせる。たとえば、速く歩けるロボットが生き残る、という条件のもとでロボットの形を計算させると、コンピュータは勝手に、思いもよらないおもしろい形のロボットを設計してくれる。」（P.179）＿＿コンピュータ（計算機）というくらいだから、計算は速い。でも、ロボットを作るというプログラム自身は人間が考えたもので、それをコンピュータが変更することはできない。変更するためには「上位」のプログラムが必要で、そのプログラムも人間が与えたものになる。プログラムを作るプログラムというのは、作られるプログラムより小さいかもしれないけど、作られるプログラム以上に複雑になる。もし、上位のプログラムが「簡単」なものになるとすれば、そのプログラムのプログラムのプログラム・・・は、1行のコードになってしまう。
「人間も動物もロボットも平等な社会」（P.185〜）＿＿そうなんだけどね。それは著者が食べられる立場じゃないからいえるんで、食用牛の立場でもそういえるんでしょうか。
＜個人的メモ＞
文字がわかるのは権力者、体制側
法律家と公務員
金持ちはわからなくていい。お金の言葉がわかれば。テレビがあれば、本がいらないのと同じ。
無意識を「発見」してよろこんでいるに過ぎない
心の複雑さを無意識に置き換えたにすぎない
無意識を意識することができないから、なんとでも言えちゃう。
自己を相対化したことは意味がある。
総無責任化？
数日、数週間…で世代交代する生物にはエピソード記憶は必要ないだろう。
昆虫に意識はあるか、ちゃんと論理的に思考することは意味がある。
牛を食べること、こめをたべること（牛に食べられること、米に食べられること）
ロボットを食べること、ロボットに食べられること
牛が幸せじゃない社会では、人も幸せじゃない。
文字は、言葉を何とか表した（地域ごとになんとか表そうとしてきた）。でも時とともに言葉か文字に従ってきた。むかしばなしが文字とはべつに生き残ってきたのは、女こどもなどの文字から離された人びとのお陰だ。
⟨impressions⟩
Youtube
I was interested in seeing his Youtube.
Simply put, the "passive consciousness hypothesis" is that unconscious dwarfs (fire of neurons (nerve cells)) occur automatically, and democratic (?) Discussions occur among the dwarfs. Occur. "Consciousness" is just receiving the result.
This alone may make you wonder, "What's that?", But the author is a robotics expert who uses a scientific approach to explain "consciousness," "self," and "me." I am.
In other words, is it not that the robot can have consciousness (mind), but how to define consciousness so that it can be programmed.
It is natural that it can be created if it can be defined, and it is just a "potential". Defining a "triangle" creates the possibility of creating a triangle. But in reality, Euclidean geometry triangles cannot actually be "written". Also, it is said that other triangles can be defined. form(
Chapter 1 "Mind" -What you already know, what you don't know yet
Here, the "mind" is defined. And I define "I" and "I", but this is a little difficult. However, as I read it, I somehow understand it.
The basis for this is the unconscious "little people."
As you can see with a little thought, only a part of what we are doing consciously. How much do you consciously do when you scratch your head? No one scratches his head thinking about raising his hand, its angle and speed, the strength of his fingers on the skin, the speed of shaking up, down, left and right. You may unknowingly scratch your head.
I think it's often the case that you feel itchy instead of being shy, after your hands move or after you start scratching your head.
When you make a robot, which is the author's specialty, you have to program it one by one. From the skin sensor, the position, strength, speed of the robot arm ... You should also consider programming to some extent and then "learning".
Until decades ago, computer learning was a daunting task. First, the recording capacity was overwhelmingly insufficient.
As long as I think that the "qualia" (quality) of the mind, which is "independently (actively) scratching the head," is our basis, that mind, As long as you think you need the will to actively regulate all actions, a "robot with a heart" is a dream dream. However, the program is possible if we define it as the act of the unconscious dwarfs, the mind as only receiving the result.
Chapter 2 "I" is passive --- a new paradigm
This passivity is explained. Here, "self" is lightly defined.
The answer is subtle when asked "Is E. coli a part of humans?" (P.50).
"The" body "of" self "is an" object ", but the" life "of" self "is a" phenomenon ". I think the conclusion (P.52) is a little too hasty.
Maybe it is based on Shinichi Fukuoka's idea that "life is a dynamic equilibrium".
I would like to give a little bit of the "internal and external" story that the author mentions here. The inside of the lungs and the inside of the gastrointestinal tract are outside humans. The lungs are dented, and the gastrointestinal tract is definitely external if you think of humans as chikuwa. [* 1] Humans metabolize to the outside in the alveoli and gastrointestinal wall. Of course, I also do it on the body surface.
The "new coronavirus" test by PCR tests for viruses on the mucus. Is mucus inside the body? Usually, "the mucous membrane is inside the body (a part of the body), but the mucus is outside the body". At the very least, being "a part of the body" is not the same as being "inside the body." I want to think that skin is a part of the body, but dandruff and dirt are not part of the body. No drool is part of the body. If so, mucus is not part of the body. Therefore, even if there is a "new coronavirus" there, it does not mean that it has entered (infected) into the body. Viruses in the air are the same as viruses in the mucus. Mucus is a powerful immune system. If you catch a cold (a virus), you will have a runny nose.
But if you add that as a premise, it means that the outside and the inside are "relative" and the "boundary is ambiguous". The "mitochondria" featured by the author is one example. It is both external and internal. Also, the boundary between mitochondria, cytoplasm, and cell nucleus is not as clear as in the textbook, but it is just that "this area has such a function vaguely."
It can be said that intestinal bacteria and "retroviruses" that occupy a large part of genes are not "external" (targeted) in the sense that humans cannot exist without them. .. Neither the plants in the garden nor the family are outside in the sense that they cannot exist without it. By setting the "mind" of "I", that is, the "ego" (inside), everything else, your body, and even your brain become external.
The author's "Heliocentric theory of the mind" and "I" in the lower reaches of the river are looking at relative things from a different perspective. As the author says, "In everyday life, even if you think that the earth is the center, there is nothing wrong with it" (P.91).
The idea of database structure is that "the more neurons you use, the more they fire" (P.98).
Chapter 3 The seeds of the human mind-Solving the three mysteries of consciousness
"Chapter 2 described a new paradigm to review the spatial common sense such as inside and outside of the body, the center and surroundings, and the temporal common sense such as the timing, cause and effect of things. The paradigm is a reversal of the view that "I" is an illusion, and "I" is a passive being around the universe or downstream of a river. (LF) This new paradigm leads to the answers to the three mysteries of the mind mentioned in Chapter 1, namely the binding problem, the problem, and the qualia problem. (P.106)
"The physical world is the result of having to do so, while the life information world is the result of being designed to be convenient." (P.108) In other words, does the mind (or life) not obey the laws of physics?
The "mind" has developed "science" in an attempt to make reality a physical law. Nevertheless, the experiments cited by the author appear to violate the laws of physics. Is that the limit of "science"?
If so, I'm very welcome (laughs), but at least I don't think the scientists who conducted the experiments think so.
The author is trying to create a "mind" at the cutting edge of that science (information science). I feel that the self-contradiction is not organized and can be seen here and there in this book.
"The difference between the brain and artificial virtual reality is that it is not possible to change the design or clear all with the current technology. It is not" anything "like artificial virtual reality. (P.110) "However, the future is different. If it becomes clear where and what is happening in the brain, it will be possible to adjust and reset, and the flexibility of the brain will become artificial virtual reality. There is a possibility of approaching. It is a difficult question whether or not people want it. "(Same) I think that is the problem that must be considered" now. "
Brain research has progressed. For example, it is becoming clear that giving a substance called an intracerebral drug such as endorphin can make you feel “happy”. But that doesn't mean that we've found a "black box." It's just that we understand the reaction (output) to the stimulus (input), such as feeling good when we see the flowers and healing when we hit the wind.
What I found was "how", not "why". Still, I'm trying to manipulate (manipulate) "memory" and "experience", so how did that happen? The Nazis are undoubtedly the result of this kind of thinking, scientific thinking. What does "a person wants" mean to the author? Human deeds, such as Hitler's deeds, are scientific. That's why you shouldn't say "passive" lightly.
Evolution
The author's idea is evolutionary [* 2]. Most scholars these days do.
The organism changes as a whole. As nature changes, as one with nature.
It is what the ego has done to distinguish between nature and living things. The ego has distinguished its body from humans and nature. Nothing "evolves" if the distinction is left.
Chapter 4 Past and Future of the Mind-From Insects to Robots-
In this chapter, the author ultimately separates the mind from the body. It does not deny the "heart," or "consciousness," or "ego." While leaving it, the author is unaware of the danger of talking about other animals and robots (its mind).
I think equality with other animals is important. It's the same as me and your equality. For example, cows (whether wild, meat or milked) and humans are equal. But that doesn't mean equal or "same." I eat cows. But cows don't eat me. The relationship between me and cows is neither equal nor the same. Is it still possible to be equal? If the author can say the same thing as this book even if he is in the position of a cow (the position of being able to eat), please show it. That is the basis of equality between me and you. Equality statements from the side of power and the side of the ruler are usually (always) meaningless. I'm angry.
"History of mankind is the history of expansion of wealth and rights" --- The view of history as in the textbook. In other words, the history of rulers, those with wealth.
"Expansion of human rights to animals" "Expansion of human rights to robots" --- If you extend the historical view of the ruler, it will be like this. It is a proof that the author who has "I of illusion" ignores reality.
Do you know the term "animal welfare (animal welfare, livestock welfare)"? Animal welfare for eating (or laying eggs, squeezing milk). I support the movement. However, the movement cannot be continued by extending the feeling of pets, such as "Birds look cute" and "Cow looks cute". This is because it is assumed that pets will not eat. (Isn't the story about whether or not to "name" pigs raised in elementary school became a movie?)
The movement has to add the story that "abuse of animals (livestock) threatens the food safety of humans (self)".
This is the owner's thoughts on pets, the master's thoughts on slaves, and the exploiter's thoughts on the exploiter [* 3]. How do you feel about getting a "health check"? Did you know that the "health check" was started by the Nazis?
Chapter 5 Addendum-Mechanism of "little people"
This chapter is a technical description of computers (AI). There is no direct relationship with the text. I think you should read it to understand the text. It's not a technical book.
Ego position, unconscious position
I was interested in the author's idea of relativizing the ego ("I" and "mind"). But you can't just relativize it. You can't just say "Human is la la la la la la la". (It's my favorite song. Ichiko Aoba's version is the best. But when I sing it at karaoke, everyone draws it (laughs). By the way, "against war" is important, but I have to say "peace to us". is.)
The history of (some) human beings after being aware of the ego is the history of the battle with the ego. It is a desire to return to "nature" that I have left. Religion is one of them [*]. The other is philosophy. That is why religion and philosophy are "together."
Therefore, the religion of the ruler and the religion of the ruler have different meanings.
The author tries to express a "non-religious" position by denying the "existence of the soul", but it is very vague. It is still commonplace in the West that scientists are Christians. Religion and science are not incompatible, they influence and complement each other (as you can see in ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, India, and China). Science explains "how" but not "why". "Why" is left to religion and philosophy. The "atheist" Japanese (including the author) live in the illusion that "how" can be explained by "how" in science. It is revealed by a simple question of the child. Even if you can explain "Why is the sun red?" "Well, the wavelength of OO micrometers during a nuclear reaction is ~, and it passes through the atmosphere ~", it is "how" no matter how far it goes. The explanation such as "Why there is the sun" has no choice but to escape to the mythical world.
By the way, it seems that few countries describe the sun as "red".
When the ego, that is, the "subject" is born, nature becomes the "object". Nature, which has become an object, can be controlled and owned by humans. "Others" are also objects. By making it an object, it becomes something that can be controlled and owned, and something that goes beyond understanding (thing that cannot be understood). Your body also becomes an "object" (one that can be controlled and owned, as well as one that is obliged to control and own, and one that is compulsory). And what the author is doing is an attempt to "objectify" the "ego" itself. But that's not "out of the ordinary" and it's impossible. It is possible to explain (How) the mechanism of the ego (mind). But that doesn't deny the existence of the ego (the author doesn't deny it either).
It is difficult to abandon the ego once you are aware of it. It is also difficult to deny. If it could be done, it would only be "overcoming" the ego.
Equality between humans and robots
How is it possible to "overcome" the ego? I do not know. I don't know. Since ancient times, various philosophers and religions did not know even if they thought through it (in some cases, betting their own lives).
The only possibility I feel (believe?) Is that the mind can feel other minds. "Other" includes other living things (animals and plants) and nature as well as others. It's something other than "my heart."
Maybe you can give your robot a heart. Insects may have no heart. I can say anything because I don't even know if someone else has a heart. This is not "agnosticism". There is no other way than the ego has moved away from nature and away from others. But I can feel the hearts of others (although it is often referred to as "insensitive" or "a person who does not understand the feelings of others"). Maybe many people do. Otherwise, I wouldn't feel anything when I watched TV or movies, and I don't think there was even such a culture.
A heart that makes pets cute, a heart that looks beautiful when looking at flowers, and a heart that can think (create) robots. When the girl on the display laughs, I think the computer laughs. That's exactly what makes Aibo so popular. When I look at Go software, I think AI is "thinking". When you turn off your computer, you think you're "sleeping", and when it breaks, you think you're "dead." The mind is neither an illusion nor an illusion, but the very thing of "seeing" and "feeling" like that.
The possibilities of human equality, human rights, animal welfare, etc. are in "the way of the heart". Others think and feel in the way of others, and insects think and feel in the way of insects (I can't explain "the way" well. Think of it as "Dasein". That, Why of existence). It means admitting that you are an object to others.
So the mind can feel the "mind itself" (think ). The possibilities of philosophy and art are there.
In other words, the "heart itself" is a possibility. Rather than abandoning the ego, overcoming it may begin with "believing in the existence of the mind."
⟨Excerpt⟩
"In fact, lower mammals seem to live this way because they have some" semantic memory "but no" episodic memory. " In simpler organisms such as insects, they do not even have "semantic memory" and appear to live by reflexes (FF) "(P.112-113).
"However, it is a system for feeling that I remembered, thought, decided, and is in such an emotional state. Actually, there is no individuality." Unconscious " The individuality of a person is determined by what kind of results the dwarfs produce and which of them is selected and brought to the consciousness. Since "I" is a system that only feels the result, no one's "I" changes much. (LF) is "I" because it means that only the part of self-consciousness is taken out from that "I" and "semantic memory about self-consciousness" is also removed from it. There is no individuality above all. (P.118) --- That consciousness, to put it in the author's favorite way of saying, isn't the unconscious expression a personality?
"Therefore, emotions are thought to exist to brighten one's own and other qualia, and as a result to emphasize and sharpen episodic memory. Nothing else is needed (LF). , Episodic memory must have no emotions. ”(P.130)
"In other words, language is a string-like structure that extends on the time axis. Therefore, people other than Prince Shotoku are confused when two or more people talk to each other at the same time." P.133) ＿＿Yes, but the audio information (same as the video information) is one whole. For the time being, the whole thing comes into the brain. Extract the necessary information from it. Therefore, you can hear the other person's story in a large number of voices. Other sounds are temporarily remembered, but only unconscious.
"All the movements and behaviors of insects are basically performed by feedback control, and there is no need for" I "to think or be aware of something. Insects never have a heart. (P.154) __But the human mind is also an illusion, isn't it? It's a matter of definition. Why do humans think that others have a mind (assumed, virtual)? That's because I have a heart. That is why he feels the hearts of others in his own heart. If insects have a way of feeling like insects. If my heart feels that an insect feels "painful" or "sad," that is also the "heart."
"More specifically, just as the division between oneself and the outside world and the inside and the outside was meaningless for life phenomena, the division between reality and illusion is meaningless. (P.159) __ That's right, but I think I have to explain a little more. Reality = not an illusion. However, I don't think it is necessary for the author.
"The traditional way of thinking about the mind, that is, the geocentric theory of the mind that assumes an active" I ", has something in common with Christianity and the Western worldview. "As there is a clear boundary between being a Christian and not being a Christian, I and the outside world are different things." (P.165) __Christianity = Ptolemaic theory = Western worldview ..
"The aim of Eastern religions and ideas may have been to search for a universal that is one with nature." (P.166) __ Shallow. That's right, Western thought is also the history of that fight.
"Evolutionary computation is a method in which the computer itself automatically creates the structure of things and the program itself. For example, a method called a genetic algorithm corresponds to it. The shape of a robot is represented by a code like a gene. Then, let the computer perform calculations that evolve the gene. For example, if you let the computer calculate the shape of the robot under the condition that the robot that can walk fast survives, the computer will arbitrarily make an unexpected and interesting shape. It will design a robot. "(P.179) __ Computer (computer), so the calculation is fast. However, the program itself to make a robot was thought by humans, and computers cannot change it. A "superior" program is needed to make changes, and that program is also human-given. A program that creates a program may be smaller than the program that is created, but it is more complicated than the program that is created. If the higher-level program becomes "easy", the program of the program of that program ... becomes one line of code.
"A society where humans, animals, and robots are equal" (P.185-) __ That's right. It can be said that the author is not in a position to eat, so can it be said from the standpoint of an edible cow?
⟨Personal memo⟩
It is the person in power, the system side who understands the characters
Law and civil servant
You don't have to know the rich. If you understand the word of money. If you have a TV, you don't need a book.
I'm just happy to "discover" the unconscious
It just unknowingly replaced the complexity of the mind
I can say anything because I can't be aware of the unconscious.
It makes sense to relativize yourself.
Total irresponsibility?
Episodic memory will not be needed for organisms that change generations in days, weeks, and so on.
Is it meaningful to think logically whether insects are conscious?
Eating cows, eating rice (being eaten by cows, being eaten by rice)
Eating robots, being eaten by robots
In a society where cows are not happy, people are not happy either.
The letters managed to express the words (I've tried to express them by region). But over time I have followed words or letters. It is thanks to the people who have been separated from the characters such as female children that the characters have survived in the past.
Youtube
I was interested in seeing his Youtube.
Simply put, the "passive consciousness hypothesis" is that unconscious dwarfs (fire of neurons (nerve cells)) occur automatically, and democratic (?) Discussions occur among the dwarfs. Occur. "Consciousness" is just receiving the result.
This alone may make you wonder, "What's that?", But the author is a robotics expert who uses a scientific approach to explain "consciousness," "self," and "me." I am.
In other words, is it not that the robot can have consciousness (mind), but how to define consciousness so that it can be programmed.
It is natural that it can be created if it can be defined, and it is just a "potential". Defining a "triangle" creates the possibility of creating a triangle. But in reality, Euclidean geometry triangles cannot actually be "written". Also, it is said that other triangles can be defined. form(
Chapter 1 "Mind" -What you already know, what you don't know yet
Here, the "mind" is defined. And I define "I" and "I", but this is a little difficult. However, as I read it, I somehow understand it.
The basis for this is the unconscious "little people."
As you can see with a little thought, only a part of what we are doing consciously. How much do you consciously do when you scratch your head? No one scratches his head thinking about raising his hand, its angle and speed, the strength of his fingers on the skin, the speed of shaking up, down, left and right. You may unknowingly scratch your head.
I think it's often the case that you feel itchy instead of being shy, after your hands move or after you start scratching your head.
When you make a robot, which is the author's specialty, you have to program it one by one. From the skin sensor, the position, strength, speed of the robot arm ... You should also consider programming to some extent and then "learning".
Until decades ago, computer learning was a daunting task. First, the recording capacity was overwhelmingly insufficient.
As long as I think that the "qualia" (quality) of the mind, which is "independently (actively) scratching the head," is our basis, that mind, As long as you think you need the will to actively regulate all actions, a "robot with a heart" is a dream dream. However, the program is possible if we define it as the act of the unconscious dwarfs, the mind as only receiving the result.
Chapter 2 "I" is passive --- a new paradigm
This passivity is explained. Here, "self" is lightly defined.
The answer is subtle when asked "Is E. coli a part of humans?" (P.50).
"The" body "of" self "is an" object ", but the" life "of" self "is a" phenomenon ". I think the conclusion (P.52) is a little too hasty.
Maybe it is based on Shinichi Fukuoka's idea that "life is a dynamic equilibrium".
I would like to give a little bit of the "internal and external" story that the author mentions here. The inside of the lungs and the inside of the gastrointestinal tract are outside humans. The lungs are dented, and the gastrointestinal tract is definitely external if you think of humans as chikuwa. [* 1] Humans metabolize to the outside in the alveoli and gastrointestinal wall. Of course, I also do it on the body surface.
The "new coronavirus" test by PCR tests for viruses on the mucus. Is mucus inside the body? Usually, "the mucous membrane is inside the body (a part of the body), but the mucus is outside the body". At the very least, being "a part of the body" is not the same as being "inside the body." I want to think that skin is a part of the body, but dandruff and dirt are not part of the body. No drool is part of the body. If so, mucus is not part of the body. Therefore, even if there is a "new coronavirus" there, it does not mean that it has entered (infected) into the body. Viruses in the air are the same as viruses in the mucus. Mucus is a powerful immune system. If you catch a cold (a virus), you will have a runny nose.
But if you add that as a premise, it means that the outside and the inside are "relative" and the "boundary is ambiguous". The "mitochondria" featured by the author is one example. It is both external and internal. Also, the boundary between mitochondria, cytoplasm, and cell nucleus is not as clear as in the textbook, but it is just that "this area has such a function vaguely."
It can be said that intestinal bacteria and "retroviruses" that occupy a large part of genes are not "external" (targeted) in the sense that humans cannot exist without them. .. Neither the plants in the garden nor the family are outside in the sense that they cannot exist without it. By setting the "mind" of "I", that is, the "ego" (inside), everything else, your body, and even your brain become external.
The author's "Heliocentric theory of the mind" and "I" in the lower reaches of the river are looking at relative things from a different perspective. As the author says, "In everyday life, even if you think that the earth is the center, there is nothing wrong with it" (P.91).
The idea of database structure is that "the more neurons you use, the more they fire" (P.98).
Chapter 3 The seeds of the human mind-Solving the three mysteries of consciousness
"Chapter 2 described a new paradigm to review the spatial common sense such as inside and outside of the body, the center and surroundings, and the temporal common sense such as the timing, cause and effect of things. The paradigm is a reversal of the view that "I" is an illusion, and "I" is a passive being around the universe or downstream of a river. (LF) This new paradigm leads to the answers to the three mysteries of the mind mentioned in Chapter 1, namely the binding problem, the problem, and the qualia problem. (P.106)
"The physical world is the result of having to do so, while the life information world is the result of being designed to be convenient." (P.108) In other words, does the mind (or life) not obey the laws of physics?
The "mind" has developed "science" in an attempt to make reality a physical law. Nevertheless, the experiments cited by the author appear to violate the laws of physics. Is that the limit of "science"?
If so, I'm very welcome (laughs), but at least I don't think the scientists who conducted the experiments think so.
The author is trying to create a "mind" at the cutting edge of that science (information science). I feel that the self-contradiction is not organized and can be seen here and there in this book.
"The difference between the brain and artificial virtual reality is that it is not possible to change the design or clear all with the current technology. It is not" anything "like artificial virtual reality. (P.110) "However, the future is different. If it becomes clear where and what is happening in the brain, it will be possible to adjust and reset, and the flexibility of the brain will become artificial virtual reality. There is a possibility of approaching. It is a difficult question whether or not people want it. "(Same) I think that is the problem that must be considered" now. "
Brain research has progressed. For example, it is becoming clear that giving a substance called an intracerebral drug such as endorphin can make you feel “happy”. But that doesn't mean that we've found a "black box." It's just that we understand the reaction (output) to the stimulus (input), such as feeling good when we see the flowers and healing when we hit the wind.
What I found was "how", not "why". Still, I'm trying to manipulate (manipulate) "memory" and "experience", so how did that happen? The Nazis are undoubtedly the result of this kind of thinking, scientific thinking. What does "a person wants" mean to the author? Human deeds, such as Hitler's deeds, are scientific. That's why you shouldn't say "passive" lightly.
Evolution
The author's idea is evolutionary [* 2]. Most scholars these days do.
The organism changes as a whole. As nature changes, as one with nature.
It is what the ego has done to distinguish between nature and living things. The ego has distinguished its body from humans and nature. Nothing "evolves" if the distinction is left.
Chapter 4 Past and Future of the Mind-From Insects to Robots-
In this chapter, the author ultimately separates the mind from the body. It does not deny the "heart," or "consciousness," or "ego." While leaving it, the author is unaware of the danger of talking about other animals and robots (its mind).
I think equality with other animals is important. It's the same as me and your equality. For example, cows (whether wild, meat or milked) and humans are equal. But that doesn't mean equal or "same." I eat cows. But cows don't eat me. The relationship between me and cows is neither equal nor the same. Is it still possible to be equal? If the author can say the same thing as this book even if he is in the position of a cow (the position of being able to eat), please show it. That is the basis of equality between me and you. Equality statements from the side of power and the side of the ruler are usually (always) meaningless. I'm angry.
"History of mankind is the history of expansion of wealth and rights" --- The view of history as in the textbook. In other words, the history of rulers, those with wealth.
"Expansion of human rights to animals" "Expansion of human rights to robots" --- If you extend the historical view of the ruler, it will be like this. It is a proof that the author who has "I of illusion" ignores reality.
Do you know the term "animal welfare (animal welfare, livestock welfare)"? Animal welfare for eating (or laying eggs, squeezing milk). I support the movement. However, the movement cannot be continued by extending the feeling of pets, such as "Birds look cute" and "Cow looks cute". This is because it is assumed that pets will not eat. (Isn't the story about whether or not to "name" pigs raised in elementary school became a movie?)
The movement has to add the story that "abuse of animals (livestock) threatens the food safety of humans (self)".
This is the owner's thoughts on pets, the master's thoughts on slaves, and the exploiter's thoughts on the exploiter [* 3]. How do you feel about getting a "health check"? Did you know that the "health check" was started by the Nazis?
Chapter 5 Addendum-Mechanism of "little people"
This chapter is a technical description of computers (AI). There is no direct relationship with the text. I think you should read it to understand the text. It's not a technical book.
Ego position, unconscious position
I was interested in the author's idea of relativizing the ego ("I" and "mind"). But you can't just relativize it. You can't just say "Human is la la la la la la la". (It's my favorite song. Ichiko Aoba's version is the best. But when I sing it at karaoke, everyone draws it (laughs). By the way, "against war" is important, but I have to say "peace to us". is.)
The history of (some) human beings after being aware of the ego is the history of the battle with the ego. It is a desire to return to "nature" that I have left. Religion is one of them [*]. The other is philosophy. That is why religion and philosophy are "together."
Therefore, the religion of the ruler and the religion of the ruler have different meanings.
The author tries to express a "non-religious" position by denying the "existence of the soul", but it is very vague. It is still commonplace in the West that scientists are Christians. Religion and science are not incompatible, they influence and complement each other (as you can see in ancient Greece, Mesopotamia, India, and China). Science explains "how" but not "why". "Why" is left to religion and philosophy. The "atheist" Japanese (including the author) live in the illusion that "how" can be explained by "how" in science. It is revealed by a simple question of the child. Even if you can explain "Why is the sun red?" "Well, the wavelength of OO micrometers during a nuclear reaction is ~, and it passes through the atmosphere ~", it is "how" no matter how far it goes. The explanation such as "Why there is the sun" has no choice but to escape to the mythical world.
By the way, it seems that few countries describe the sun as "red".
When the ego, that is, the "subject" is born, nature becomes the "object". Nature, which has become an object, can be controlled and owned by humans. "Others" are also objects. By making it an object, it becomes something that can be controlled and owned, and something that goes beyond understanding (thing that cannot be understood). Your body also becomes an "object" (one that can be controlled and owned, as well as one that is obliged to control and own, and one that is compulsory). And what the author is doing is an attempt to "objectify" the "ego" itself. But that's not "out of the ordinary" and it's impossible. It is possible to explain (How) the mechanism of the ego (mind). But that doesn't deny the existence of the ego (the author doesn't deny it either).
It is difficult to abandon the ego once you are aware of it. It is also difficult to deny. If it could be done, it would only be "overcoming" the ego.
Equality between humans and robots
How is it possible to "overcome" the ego? I do not know. I don't know. Since ancient times, various philosophers and religions did not know even if they thought through it (in some cases, betting their own lives).
The only possibility I feel (believe?) Is that the mind can feel other minds. "Other" includes other living things (animals and plants) and nature as well as others. It's something other than "my heart."
Maybe you can give your robot a heart. Insects may have no heart. I can say anything because I don't even know if someone else has a heart. This is not "agnosticism". There is no other way than the ego has moved away from nature and away from others. But I can feel the hearts of others (although it is often referred to as "insensitive" or "a person who does not understand the feelings of others"). Maybe many people do. Otherwise, I wouldn't feel anything when I watched TV or movies, and I don't think there was even such a culture.
A heart that makes pets cute, a heart that looks beautiful when looking at flowers, and a heart that can think (create) robots. When the girl on the display laughs, I think the computer laughs. That's exactly what makes Aibo so popular. When I look at Go software, I think AI is "thinking". When you turn off your computer, you think you're "sleeping", and when it breaks, you think you're "dead." The mind is neither an illusion nor an illusion, but the very thing of "seeing" and "feeling" like that.
The possibilities of human equality, human rights, animal welfare, etc. are in "the way of the heart". Others think and feel in the way of others, and insects think and feel in the way of insects (I can't explain "the way" well. Think of it as "Dasein". That, Why of existence). It means admitting that you are an object to others.
So the mind can feel the "mind itself" (think ). The possibilities of philosophy and art are there.
In other words, the "heart itself" is a possibility. Rather than abandoning the ego, overcoming it may begin with "believing in the existence of the mind."
⟨Excerpt⟩
"In fact, lower mammals seem to live this way because they have some" semantic memory "but no" episodic memory. " In simpler organisms such as insects, they do not even have "semantic memory" and appear to live by reflexes (FF) "(P.112-113).
"However, it is a system for feeling that I remembered, thought, decided, and is in such an emotional state. Actually, there is no individuality." Unconscious " The individuality of a person is determined by what kind of results the dwarfs produce and which of them is selected and brought to the consciousness. Since "I" is a system that only feels the result, no one's "I" changes much. (LF) is "I" because it means that only the part of self-consciousness is taken out from that "I" and "semantic memory about self-consciousness" is also removed from it. There is no individuality above all. (P.118) --- That consciousness, to put it in the author's favorite way of saying, isn't the unconscious expression a personality?
"Therefore, emotions are thought to exist to brighten one's own and other qualia, and as a result to emphasize and sharpen episodic memory. Nothing else is needed (LF). , Episodic memory must have no emotions. ”(P.130)
"In other words, language is a string-like structure that extends on the time axis. Therefore, people other than Prince Shotoku are confused when two or more people talk to each other at the same time." P.133) ＿＿Yes, but the audio information (same as the video information) is one whole. For the time being, the whole thing comes into the brain. Extract the necessary information from it. Therefore, you can hear the other person's story in a large number of voices. Other sounds are temporarily remembered, but only unconscious.
"All the movements and behaviors of insects are basically performed by feedback control, and there is no need for" I "to think or be aware of something. Insects never have a heart. (P.154) __But the human mind is also an illusion, isn't it? It's a matter of definition. Why do humans think that others have a mind (assumed, virtual)? That's because I have a heart. That is why he feels the hearts of others in his own heart. If insects have a way of feeling like insects. If my heart feels that an insect feels "painful" or "sad," that is also the "heart."
"More specifically, just as the division between oneself and the outside world and the inside and the outside was meaningless for life phenomena, the division between reality and illusion is meaningless. (P.159) __ That's right, but I think I have to explain a little more. Reality = not an illusion. However, I don't think it is necessary for the author.
"The traditional way of thinking about the mind, that is, the geocentric theory of the mind that assumes an active" I ", has something in common with Christianity and the Western worldview. "As there is a clear boundary between being a Christian and not being a Christian, I and the outside world are different things." (P.165) __Christianity = Ptolemaic theory = Western worldview ..
"The aim of Eastern religions and ideas may have been to search for a universal that is one with nature." (P.166) __ Shallow. That's right, Western thought is also the history of that fight.
"Evolutionary computation is a method in which the computer itself automatically creates the structure of things and the program itself. For example, a method called a genetic algorithm corresponds to it. The shape of a robot is represented by a code like a gene. Then, let the computer perform calculations that evolve the gene. For example, if you let the computer calculate the shape of the robot under the condition that the robot that can walk fast survives, the computer will arbitrarily make an unexpected and interesting shape. It will design a robot. "(P.179) __ Computer (computer), so the calculation is fast. However, the program itself to make a robot was thought by humans, and computers cannot change it. A "superior" program is needed to make changes, and that program is also human-given. A program that creates a program may be smaller than the program that is created, but it is more complicated than the program that is created. If the higher-level program becomes "easy", the program of the program of that program ... becomes one line of code.
"A society where humans, animals, and robots are equal" (P.185-) __ That's right. It can be said that the author is not in a position to eat, so can it be said from the standpoint of an edible cow?
⟨Personal memo⟩
It is the person in power, the system side who understands the characters
Law and civil servant
You don't have to know the rich. If you understand the word of money. If you have a TV, you don't need a book.
I'm just happy to "discover" the unconscious
It just unknowingly replaced the complexity of the mind
I can say anything because I can't be aware of the unconscious.
It makes sense to relativize yourself.
Total irresponsibility?
Episodic memory will not be needed for organisms that change generations in days, weeks, and so on.
Is it meaningful to think logically whether insects are conscious?
Eating cows, eating rice (being eaten by cows, being eaten by rice)
Eating robots, being eaten by robots
In a society where cows are not happy, people are not happy either.
The letters managed to express the words (I've tried to express them by region). But over time I have followed words or letters. It is thanks to the people who have been separated from the characters such as female children that the characters have survived in the past.
[著者等(プロフィール)]
前野/隆司
1962年山口生まれ。1984年東京工業大学卒業、1986年同大学大学院修士課程修了後、キヤノン(株)入社。超音波モータや精密機械の研究開発に従事。1995年慶応義塾大学専任講師、1999年同大学助教授、現在に至る。1990~1992年カリフォルニア大学バークレー校Visiting Industrial Fellow、2001年ハーバード大学Visiting Scholar。博士(工学)。大学移籍後は、新型アクチュエータ、ヒトの触覚、触覚センサ・触覚提示デバイス、遠隔操作型ロボット、生物の進化シミュレーション、進化・生命化するロボットなど、ロボットとヒトの研究に従事
URL:http://www.maeno.mech.keio.ac.jp
『脳はなぜ「心」を作ったのか』にご興味をお持ち頂き，どうもありがとうございます。また，特に，読んでいただいた方，ここにご意見や感想を書いてくださった方，どうもありがとうございます。ご意見・ご質問にお答えするために，私のHPにQ&Aのページを開設し，よくあるご質問にお答えしています。また，過去に開設していたBBSの情報も掲載しています。どうぞよろしくお願いいたします。
[1] ミミズやなまこを頭に浮かべると意識しやすいです。
[2] 進化論的というのは「ダーウィン的」だということではありません。進化論とは (講座 進化)（全巻持ってるけど、読んでいません。）
[3] つまり「偽善」です。「〜のために（for,für,pour）」です。
