On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Ok, which computers do you think have conscious experiences? Windows
> laptops? Deep Blue? Cable TV boxes?
How the hell should I know if computers have conscious experiences? How the
hell should I know if people have conscious experiences? All I know for
certain is that some things external to me display intelligent behavior and
some things do not, from that point on everything is conjecture and theory;
I happen to think that intelligence is associated with consciousness is a
pretty good theory but I admit it's only a theory and if your theory is
that you're the only conscious being in the universe I can't prove you
> Is it a fact that you have conscious experiences?
Yes, however I have no proof of that, or at least none I can share with
anyone else, so I would understand if you don't believe me; however to
believe me but not to believe a computer that made a similar claim just
because you don't care for the elements out of which it is made would be
> Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment
> does not control you.
The difference between influence and control is just one of degree not of
kind. Usually lots of things cause us to do what we do, if all of them came
from the outside then its control, if only some of the causes were external
and some were internal, such as memory, then its influence.
>> intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary
>> advantage. Having difficulty with your reading comprehension?
> > but what example or law are you basing this on? Who says this is a fact
> other than you?
It almost seems that you're trying to say that intelligent behavior gives
an organism no advantage over a organism that is stupid, but nobody is that
stupid; so what are you saying?
> Who claims to know that intelligence without consciousness exists?
I give up, who claims to know that intelligence without consciousness
>> The only intelligent behavior I know with certainty that is always
>> associated with subjective experience is my own. But I know with certainty
>> there are 2 possibilities:
>> 1) Intelligent behavior is always associated with subjective experience,
>> if so then if a computer beats you at any intellectual pursuit then it has
>> a subjective experience, assuming of course that you yourself are
>> intelligent. And I'll let you pick the particular intellectual pursuit for
>> the contest.
>> 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in
>> which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I
>> have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I
>> am the only conscious being in the universe.
> > I choose 3) The existence of intelligent behavior is contingent upon
> recognition and interpretation by a conscious agent.
That's EXACTLY the same as #1, you're saying that intelligent behavior
without consciousness is impossible, I can't prove it but I suspect you're
probably right. And if we are right then a computer beating you at a
intellectual task is evidence that it is conscious, assuming only that you
yourself are intelligent and conscious.
> Behavior can be misinterpreted by a conscious agent as having a higher
> than actual quality of subjectivity when it doesn't
But that's what I'm asking, what behavior gave you the clue that it would
be a misinterpretation to attribute consciousness to something?
This started with your question "Which intelligent behavior do you know
that you can be certain exists without any subjective experience associated
with it?" I said there was no behavior to enable us to determine what is
conscious and what is not, all you're basically saying is that conscious
intellectual behavior is intellectual behavior in which consciousness is
involved; and I already knew that, and it is not helpful in figuring out
what is conscious and what is not.
> No being that we know of has become conscious by means of intelligence
Other than ourselves we know with certainty of no other being that is
conscious PERIOD. All we can do is observe intelligent behavior and make
guesses from there.
> Every conscious being develops sensorimotor and emotional awareness
> before any cognitive intelligence arises.
How they hell do you know?
> Babies cry before they talk.
Yes, without a doubt babies exhibit crying behavior before talking
behavior, their brains need further development and they need to gain more
knowledge before they can advance from one sort of behavior to another; and
that is perfectly consistent with my belief that emotion is easy but
intelligence is hard.
> You think that every behavior in biology exists purely because of
Every biological structure exists purely because of Evolution, however one
of those physical structures, the brain, allows for a far far richer range
of behavior than Evolution can provide, behaviors contingent on
astronomically complex interactions between the environment and the brain.
The brain allows for behavior that is not hardwired in the genes.
> except consciousness, which you have no explanation for
My explanation is that intelligence produces consciousness, I don't know
exactly how but if Evolution is true then there is a proof that it does.
And I would be the first to admit that's not as good a explanation as I'd
like, but it's one hell of a lot better explanation than your Fart
Philosophy can provide.
> It's begging the question.
It's not begging the question to admit that I don't know how intelligence
produces consciousness, but it is when you say everything is conscious.
> You assume the cart pushes the horse, and that you don't know how, but
> that if the cart gets us places then it must be proof that it is true.
I assume that Evolution produced the horse, and if my car is broken and I
can't walk then the horse must have taken me there.
> I am asking what conceivable process has, as a byproduct, everything that
> has ever been experienced?
Intelligence. I've answered this question nineteen dozen times before.
> Why do you assume that purpose has to belong to someone in particular?
I don't. To you the purpose of a violin may be to make music but to me it
may be to swat a fly; however I don't think simple molecules like Thymine,
which is composed of only 6 atoms, or Adenine which has 8, has a opinion on
the nature of purpose. If you believe those molecules can think and have
desires and goals and seek to fulfill their purpose in the universe then I
don't want to hear you criticizing me for anthropomorphizing future
> If I see a commercial on TV for pizza, and then eat a frozen burrito
> because my wife bought a dozen of them, whose purpose am I serving?
Being a complex and intelligent entity you are in the purpose conferring
business and the purpose you gave the burrito is to relieve your hunger.
What purpose you care to give Adenine and Thymine is entirely up to you and
I may give them a quite different purpose. And Adenine and Thymine, being
quite literally as dumb as dog shit, can't confer purpose on anything.
> Computers aren't intelligent for the same reason Bugs Bunny is not
I don't believe Bugs Bunny is intelligent because Bugs can't beat his
animators at checkers, but computers have been beating their programmers at
this game for half a century.
> A picture of a pipe is something,
And you believe (for reasons you cannot coherently articulate) that
everything is conscious, therefore if you are correct a picture of a pipe
is conscious. QED
> You don't have to believe me...because you have FREE WILL :) ah
Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII characters "FREE WILL" mean.
> How does intelligent behavior occur?
Intelligent behavior is produced by a intelligent brain, and a intelligent
brain is produced by Evolution because it can get its genes into the next
generation better than a less intelligent brain.
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
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