Please, let me interject some remarks - I will use underlined *bold
Italics*inserts in the post
and keep them short
John M

On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 4:57 AM, Bruno Marchal <> wrote:

> On 19 Aug 2011, at 23:08, meekerdb wrote:
>  On 8/18/2011 11:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>> On Fri, Aug 19, 2011 at 1:33 PM, meekerdb<>  wrote:
>>>  According to Bruno we can look at how it works and conclude it's not a
>>>> universal computer and it's certainly not Lobian, so we conclude it's
>>>> not
>>>> conscious.
>>> *???? why not? what is really conscious? In my vocabulary it is
resonding to relations. - and (below): everything is complex no matter how
much of it we recognize.*

>  This accords with the common intuition that something conscious
>>>> has to be pretty complex and have memory at a minimum.  I know a guy who
>>>> studies neuroscience and cognition who won't eat anything with a
>>>> cerebral
>>>> cortex.
>>>>  What about the idea that a thermostat is conscious and feels hot and
>>> cold in its simple way? How would you devise an experiment to prove or
>>> disprove that?
>> I'm content to say a thermostat is conscious of hot and cold and desired
>> temperature.  It even communicates those things to us (via a dial).  But I
>> don't think it's conscious in human terms because it doesn't have memory and
>> it doesn't learn.
> *I deny the "human terms" in general concepts. The thermostat has memory
OK, you set it in May and it remembers it in July. It learned it (in its own
way, not as a pet)*

>  I agree with Jason's last post, an opinion I've expressed before in
>> slightly different terms.  I think we will eventually get to the point that
>> we will be able to engineer intelligent machines that act as if they were
>> conscious.  And then, in Bruno's terms, we'll "bet" that they are conscious.
>>  Consciousness will no longer be a unified concept, as "life" no longer is.
>>  We will distinguish many kinds and degrees of consciousness and
>> intelligence.
> *Thanks, Brent, wise words*

>  The "hard question" will not be answered, it will be bypassed.  Sometime
>> in the future some cognitive engineer will be asked,"But what makes your
>> robot conscious?"  And the engineer will answer, "Hypotheses non fingo."
> Hmm... This is a point where I disagree with you Brent. Life is a fake
> concept, I agree. Its definition can only be conventional, at least for a
> mechanist. It is 3-p reproduction, basically. I consider cigarettes to be
> alive, with a very complex reproduction cycle including transformation of
> the human brain.
> But consciousness is a fundamental and unavoidable 1p phenomenon. We don't
> need to make it into an hypothese: we live it. And as such it asks for an
> explanation.
*What do we "live"? that darn consciousness is a mix of many coexisting
factors what some expropriate for humans. Otherwise I am with you, Bruno.
Thanks *

> In fact what you say works for stuffy matter and primitive physical
> universe. This is more clearly a (strong) hypothesis, coming from a gross
> instinctive "animal extrapolation". And comp illustrates that not only we
> don't need that hypothesis, but that such hypothesis just cannot be used to
> relate consciousness and reality-experience.
> Bruno
>**marchal/ <>
> --
> 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+unsubscribe@
> ** <>.
> For more options, visit this group at**
> group/everything-list?hl=en<>
> .

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at

Reply via email to