Re Matt Mahoney's below post: The implication in the below post that it is false to assume consciousness exists appears to have substantially less evidence than the very assumption it attacks.
Something generates within my mind a sense of awareness of my sensations, thoughts and feelings, a sense of awareness many people call "consciousness". Even if you contend that this sense of awareness is an illusion, at least the illusion has enough reality that I am aware of it, and it has most of the properties normally associated with the meaning of the word "consciousness". Many others have said they have a similar sense of awareness of their own sensations, thoughts, and feelings. This is a substantial body of evidence that something that corresponds to what people call a consciousness does in fact exist. I am not aware of any evidence that indicates nothing corresponding to consciousness exits. If there is any such evidence that merrits repeating, please tell me. Ed Porter -----Original Message----- From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2008 3:56 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [agi] CEMI Field --- Günther Greindl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi guys, > > I though this might be interesting: > http://www.surrey.ac.uk/qe/cemi.htm This is another example of starting with the false assumption that consciousness (or qualia) exists, and then deriving bizarre theories to explain it, like Penrose's quantum gravity. A better explanation would be that evolution selects for animals whose behavior is consistent with the belief in qualia. -- Matt Mahoney, [EMAIL PROTECTED] ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?&; ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=89227552-80e59c
<<attachment: winmail.dat>>
