On 1/14/2012 1:15 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 14.01.2012 18:12 John Clark said the following:
On Fri, Jan 13, 2012 meekerdb<meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
There is no way consciousness can have a direct Darwinian
so it must be a byproduct of something that does have that virtue,
and the obvious candidate is intelligence.\
That's not so clear since we don't know exactly what is the
relation of consciousness to intelligence. For a social animal
having an internal model of ones self and being able to model the
thought processes of others has obvious reproductive advantage.
To do any one of the things you suggest would require intelligence,
and indeed there is some evidence that in general social animals tend
to have a larger brain than similar species that are not social. But
at any rate we both seem to agree that Evolution can only see
behavior, so consciousness must be a byproduct of some sort of
complex behavior. Thus the Turing Test must be valid not only for
intelligence but for consciousness too.
How would you generalize the Turing Test for consciousness?
John K Clark
Perhaps we can generalize the Turing test by insisting on questions
that would require for their answer computational resources in excess of
that would be available to a computer + power suply in a small room.
Think of the Berkenstein bound
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bekenstein_bound>.... But the Turing Test
is a bit of an oxymoron because it is impossible to prove the existence
of something that is solely 1p. There is no 3p of consciousness. I
recall Leibniz' discussion
<http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/> of this...
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at