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.

Craig

-- 
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 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to