¥5,830¥5,830 税込
ポイント: 58pt
(1%)
無料配送 6月12日-17日にお届け
発送元: uk_books_and_music 販売者: uk_books_and_music
¥2,290¥2,290 税込
ポイント: 23pt
(1%)
無料配送 7月1日-6日にお届け
発送元: USA_CART 販売者: USA_CART
無料のKindleアプリをダウンロードして、スマートフォン、タブレット、またはコンピューターで今すぐKindle本を読むことができます。Kindleデバイスは必要ありません。
ウェブ版Kindleなら、お使いのブラウザですぐにお読みいただけます。
携帯電話のカメラを使用する - 以下のコードをスキャンし、Kindleアプリをダウンロードしてください。
World in My Mind, My Mind in the World: Key Mechanisms of Consciousness in People, Animals and Machines ハードカバー – 2005/9/1
購入オプションとあわせ買い
Not consciousness, but knowledge of consciousness: that is what this book communicates in a fascinating way. Consciousness is the thread that links the disappearing gorilla with the octopus suffering from a stomach ache, and the person under anaesthetic with a new born baby. How these are different, yet illustrative, of consciousness is revealed in this accessible book by one of the world's leading thinkers and neural computing engineers. Igor Aleksander addresses this enigmatic topic, by making us understand the difference between what happens to us when thinking consciously and when sort of thinking when dreaming or when not conscious at all, as when sleeping, anaesthetised or knocked out by a blow on the head. The book also tackles the larger topics of free will, choice, God, Freud (what is 'the unconscious’?), inherited traits and individuality, while exploding the myths and misinformation of many earlier mind-hijackers. He shares the journey towards building a new model of consciousness, with an invitation to understand 5 axioms or basic ideas, which we easily recognise in ourselves.
- 本の長さ200ページ
- 言語英語
- 出版社Imprint Academic
- 発売日2005/9/1
- 寸法13.49 x 1.6 x 21.01 cm
- ISBN-101845400216
- ISBN-13978-1845400217
商品の説明
レビュー
"His book makes a welcome change from the cataloguing of neural phenomena and their experiential correlates. It demonstrates that those who advocate the possibility of machine consciousness need not be behaviourists; one need not appeal to a consciousness variant of the Turing test to claim that an artificial system is conscious."
(Ron Chrisley Trends in Cognitive Sciences)"Aleksander's solid engineering background is evident in the straight-forward flow of this book."
(Keith Harris Metapsychology)"Aleksander's most important contribution is in considering how a machine could be conscious and what would make it so."
(Susan Blackmore Times Higher Education Supplement)"Aleksander's approach to understanding isn’t the only one that science has developed, nor should it be. And, of course, no one expects any simple answers to appear any time soon. Nevertheless, consciousness is something that science can and should shed light on."
(Stephen Pincock Financial Times)著者について
登録情報
- 出版社 : Imprint Academic (2005/9/1)
- 発売日 : 2005/9/1
- 言語 : 英語
- ハードカバー : 200ページ
- ISBN-10 : 1845400216
- ISBN-13 : 978-1845400217
- 寸法 : 13.49 x 1.6 x 21.01 cm
- カスタマーレビュー:
著者について
著者の本をもっと発見したり、よく似た著者を見つけたり、著者のブログを読んだりしましょう
著者の本をもっと発見したり、よく似た著者を見つけたり、著者のブログを読んだりしましょう
カスタマーレビュー
他の国からのトップレビュー
aber diese neue Amazon Bewertung mit mindestens 20 Wörtern kostet zu viel Zeit, keine gute Idee!
On consciousness we may ask such things as: What makes me, "me", and you, "you"? Is it a spiritual soul that makes me, "me"? If not, then what is it? Why am "I" not "you"? I can talk to myself - who, or what, is this "I" that is talking to "myself"? Is my dog conscious? How about my cat? My goldfish? If not, why not?
On free will, which we instinctively feel that we have - and which mankind has accepted as being the basis for both our religious and temporal accountability for the actions that we take - we find that if we logically try to pin down the concept of free will, that to maintain it we must relinquish the law of cause and effect. Do we have a choice in what we decide to do? Do we actually decide at all? If every effect must have a cause (which seems reasonable) then free will does not exist. If everything that happens, including what we do, is an inevitable (although tremendously complex) outcome of a cause and effect chain, then how could we have done otherwise? And if that is true then how can we be held morally responsible, either from a religious or temporal point of view, for that which we inescapably had to do? And if I insist that I do have free will, then, does my dog have free will? My goldfish??
In an extremely interesting book Professor Aleksander attempts to take the subject of consciousness back into the scientific world. His work involves some fundamentally new approaches:
1> He suggests that as the world of consciousness lies within ourselves that any investigation of it must be based on consideration of one's own consciousness. In his case, that means from within himself. In my case, from within myself. In your case, from within yourself. This is a fundamentally subjective approach to the investigation of consciousness which is at odds with the normal rules of objectivity demanded by scientific analysis and experimentation. But there is no other way to proceed with this subject other than from within oneself. I think his decision to adopt this subjective method works well and does not undermine his overall analysis in any way.
2> From within himself he seeks to define his own consciousness, and by extension all consciousness, in terms which he describes as axiomatic. He defines features which he suggests must be present if the subject being considered is to be attributed the characteristic of consciousness. He settles on five such features, which he calls axioms, and says that if those axioms are present in the subject being considered then that subject is conscious. He makes it clear that the present extent of this axiomatic approach to definition is not presented as being final in content, but as being a beginning of an innovative scientific method in which to deal with this super-elusive concept.
3> His view is that consciousnesses is not a "thing" such as a leg, or an arm, but an emergent property of the physical operation of the brain. For instance, when we "see" things, this involves the retina of the eye converting the photons of light which fall on it into electrical and chemical signals which are then transmitted to the brain via the optic nerves, which is followed by the reaction of the brain to these signals on a physical level, firing stupendous numbers of neurons in extraordinarily complex ways, resulting in the image that we "see" of the outside world. The key thought in this is that there is no "little man" inside our brain in some tiny cinema looking at the final image produced by the brain's activity as described above. This activity does not PRODUCE an image. The activity itself IS THE IMAGE. In the same way Professor Aleksander's theory holds that the physical activity of the brain in its workings to produce thoughts, ideas, sounds, sights and everything else, is not an activity that produces a result that is then considered by a separate conscious part of us. His view is that this neuronal activity itself IS THE CONCIOUS PART OF US.
4> Finally: is my dog conscious? Is my goldfish conscious? The professor argues that this can be so if we can show that the five axiomatic characteristics apply. More intriguingly he argues that while immense scientific obstacles stand in the way of developing a conscious machine, that they are problems of scale and not of principle. Is it theoretically possible to build a conscious machine? Yes, he says, absolutely possible theoretically. I must say that I agree with him.
This is a fascinating book which makes more progress discussing the tremendously difficult concept of consciousness than I have read elsewhere to date. And free will is in there too.
On a slightly negative note I found his writing style a little heavy, perhaps more in the style of a written lecture than I would have liked. And it is a complicated read in places. I had to skim some of the more theoretical passages as to how things might work physically at brain-neuron level, but still took away from those sections the gist of his thoughts. Other parts of the book, most of it, I found absolutely riveting. As the professor himself notes, this is clearly not the last word on the subject. But it certainly points to a new way of looking at things.
By the way, my dog is definitely conscious. I bet you believe that yours is too. What about the goldfish?