Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83 based; site hounx.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!hounx!kort From: kort@hounx.UUCP (B.KORT) Newsgroups: net.ai,net.philosophy Subject: Re: A halting problem Message-ID: <518@hounx.UUCP> Date: Fri, 17-Jan-86 20:03:14 EST Article-I.D.: hounx.518 Posted: Fri Jan 17 20:03:14 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 18-Jan-86 09:28:04 EST References: <2175@aecom.UUCP>, <443@kepler.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Holmdel NJ Lines: 29 Xref: watmath net.ai:3184 net.philosophy:3814 John Donovan wonders whether humans are really aware of their state of awareness. I don't know how to prove the existence of such a state of meta-awareness, but it sure *feels* that I have such a state. I can't tell you the first time I entered that state; at the time I entered it, I wasn't aware of the possibility of being in such a state. It's a bit introspective, and I don't recommend dwelling there to the exclusion of more ordinary states of awareness. I think Hofstadter's notion of "jumping out of the system" was a key prerequisite for me to become aware of my own state of awareness. By the way, I find there is a useful function of meta-cognizance: I objectively (well, that's the goal) evaluate my level of ordinary cognizance, and look for ways to tune it up. I hope I'm not deceiving myself by engaging in this activity. By and large, I have to rely on feedback from outside sources to evaluate my progress. Like, Mayor Koch, I have to ask others, "How'm I doing?" By the way, a computer can have a monitor function that inspects all processes to see if they are running OK. There is no reason the monitor process can't inspect itself. If the code is dual redundant, half of the software can fail, and the remaining good half can sound the alarms and fix things up. When the monitor process checks itself (and its alter ego), isn't that very much like meta-cognizance? --Barry Kort Nondisclaimer: I assume full responsibility for my remarks.