>> I assume by "the universe" you mean ours. Understanding human
>> consciousness properly means we will eventually be able to prescribe
>> what
>> level of consciousness applies to the rest of the universe that is 'not
>> humans'. Including animals ...I predict 'not as much'....rocks, fridges
>> etc..... I predict 'not much at all'.
> I am extremely sceptical of claims of consciousness going down in some
> degree to simpler animals, plants, nonliving things. My main
> counterargument is the "Why ants are not conscious" argument, which is
> in my book, but I haven't published seperately yet.
> This is still room for consciousness is some higher order animals -
> chimpanzees, dolphins, elephants perhaps.

I would predict extremely primitive phenomenal scenes to a single cell
organism...Perhaps LIGHT/NOT-LIFGT...With causal efficacy. I think
paramecium might operate this way. 'Phenomenal scenes' and 'abstraction
from/via phenomenal scenes' are two independent axes of intellect. It is
the single cell version which I would hold responsible for the cambrian
explosion. Ants may have a collective intellect, but it's based on
primitive phenomenal scenes (not zombies). The very first single-cell
non-zombie had an amazing survival advantage even if their reflex
behaviour was random (anything rather than nothing). In my AGI model
certain types of single celled creatures cannot help but have 'phenomena'
- it comes with their membrane and can't be helped. Fill it with genetic
material and the cell goes negative....make it selectively permeable...job

>> I would also predict that a UD reified in our universe would be like
>> that...'not much' consciousness (the consciousness of the computer =
>> that
>> of which it is made, not that of the program). There are no phenomena
>> reified as a result of the UD operating. The only phenomena happening
>> are the machinations of the hardware of the UD.
> Fair enough, but this is a direct contradiction with the assumption of
> computationalism.

This is a 'assume comp' playground only? I am up for not assuming
anything.....but if computationalism is actually false then it becomes a
religion or a club or something.

I have no emotional/religious attachment...I just want what works. I can
mount (and have) a case for it being false (zombies can't do
science)...also.... computationalism has produced nothing but failure in
AGI to date.... I have physics to point at in brain material perfectly
suited to the type of phenomena (virtual bosons) needed for phenomenal
consciousness using neurons/astrocytes... I have a mathematical formalism
(EC yes ... under contruction!!!) that predicts it be like that....I have
a complete set of evolutionary cues that support it....I have consistency
with every pathology I have thrown at it..I have ethological
consistency... the latest empirical neurosience evidence confirms that
small groups/single cells have phenomenality (outside cortex)....so.... I
have an entire axis of neural modelling that is currently missing and has
been missing ever since Hodgkins and Huxley and before which is
explanatory of why AGI and related neural modelling won't work... so....

....until someone can undo all of it (in particular, just now, the zombie
scientist issue)...comp is false. I look forward to useful encounters to
that effect, not just 'assume this....believe that'....


 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to