On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 3:37:09 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
> On 9/26/2012 12:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 2:35:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>> An interesting paper which comports with my idea that "the problem of
>> consciousness" will be "solved" by engineering.ï¿½ Or John Clark's point
>> that consciousness is easy, intelligence is hard.
> Consciousness is easy if you already have consciousness. It is impossible
> if you don't. Intelligence is hard if you already have consciousness, but
> it is impossible if you don't.
> So are you now contending that intelligent machines *must be* consciousï¿½
> and that therefore there are no intelligent machines?
I am saying that consciousness is a prerequisite for developing
intelligence. If you are conscious and intelligent, you can record
intelligent functions and automate their playback in an intelligent way in
physical media which support that level of control (not fog, not live
hamsters...computers need reliable discrete bits that change or don't
change unless they are supposed to.)
What you call intelligent machines I would call advanced automated
services. They have no consciousness at all at the personal level, but in
order to function, those services must be supported by consciousness on the
sub-personal (molecular-electronic correlate) level. Our personal sense and
motives are riding on top of the impersonal consequences of the
sub-personal activities of the machine.
See if this diagram helps:
There are qualitative distinctions on the right hand side, and quantitative
distinctions of scale on the left. To create automated services, we exploit
the impersonal side of lower levels to reflect back our own reconstructed
depersonalized self image. An automaton. A meticulously crafted emptiness
to serve our personal motives.
By conflating the left and right sides and flattening the levels, it
becomes plausible to think of an exterior as the same thing as an interior
or a collection of digits as a gestalt whole. All of these distinctions,
however, require a conscious agent to provide sense, participation, and
perspective to begin with - things which are qualitative, right-hand
features and never impersonal left-hand functions.
> Everything assumes that consciousness exists as a possibility in the
> universe prior to the existence of the universe itself.
> I don't even know how to parse "everything assumes"?
Eh, yeah, that was maybe not such a good way to put it. I meant that every
way that we can possibly think of to model the universe already takes for
granted the assumption of the potential for consciousness. Without that
assumption, there is no way to get from whatever we are starting with to
where we are now.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at