On Aug 9, 10:06 am, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Aug 8, 8:53 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> The only way to guarantee identical consciousness would be to > >> replicate behaviour perfectly. Two entities that produce the same > >> outputs for all inputs would have the same consciousness. > > > What is an entity and an output? If one entity is made of wood, then > > it can output flames when I set it on fire. If it's made of solid > > rock, it cannot. Both could be sculpted into some kind of machine that > > sorts clothespins by size. If there is any consciousness going on, to > > me, it clearly takes place at the chemical level, where the material > > itself has to spontaneously reveal it's nature in it's native response > > to an energetic change. It takes place in the aesthetic difference > > between wood and stone - the texture and weight, the sound and > > durability against wind and rain. That is the awareness that the > > machine shares with us and with animals and plants, heat and light. > > There are differences between people that do not make a difference to > their intelligence or (by assumption) their consciousness.
Definitely. But only certain kinds of differences. Some differences which might seem insignificant to us, like an extra chromosome or deficiency of a neurotransmitter can make a huge difference/ > An amputee > does not behave in the same way as an intact person under all > circumstances but he can participate in a conversation and solve > problems, so the fact that he is an amputee does not affect his > intelligence. Right, but an amputated limbic system would affect his intelligence. As might a lack of cytoplasm in the neurons. I'm not saying that human- like consciousness can only exist within a human brain, just that the further from a human brain you get, the less like a human it is likely to be. If you use another species neurons to make a human-like brain, that might work. If you use another self-replicating molecule to make human-like neurons, that might work too. Making a logical schematic of the brain's assumed functions though it not likely to be successful if implemented on inorganic, solid state microelectronics though. > > There is no consciousness of the clothespins though. Even though > > that's what the machine's 'outputs' means to us. That's not a machine > > making sense, being intelligent, consciousness, or understanding. > > You've got to be kidding. All it is is human intelligence riding on > > the back of an unsuspecting pile of minerals or cellulose. To say that > > there might be some kind of understanding of clothespins going on > > there that is in some way comparable to a human understanding of > > clothespins is flat out sophistry. > > If the clothespins could have a normal conversation with you on any > subject then they would ipso facto be intelligent and, after careful > philosophical consideration, they would also be understood to be > conscious. But the only clothespins I know have been pretty stupid. haha. funny, but there is no such thing as a 'normal' conversation, let alone a conversation which would falsify consciousness or intelligence. I can have a normal conversation with a telephone, provided that there is someone on the other end doing the same thing. It doesn't mean that the telephone is intelligent or conscious. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
