On Aug 9, 10:06 am, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 9, 2011 at 12:21 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 8, 8:53 pm, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> 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.


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 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to