On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > I have no trouble at all saying that zero computers are conscious and > that all living people have had conscious experiences. >
Fine say what you want, but I'll never be able to prove you right and I'll never be able to prove you wrong so what you're saying on that subject, even if you're managing to say it with no trouble, is of little interest. > Why do you think that you know that? What makes a behavior intelligent? > Over how long a time period are we talking about? Is a species as a whole > intelligent? Are ecosystems intelligent? Caves full of growing crystals? > Sorry but 6 rhetorical questions in a row exceeds my rhetorical quota. > When did I ever say that I am the only conscious being in the universe? > I give up, when did you say that you are the only conscious being in the universe? And if you didn't say it I'd be curious to know why you did not say it as no behavior by your fellow creatures can prove you are not. > They are literally automatons. > Computers and automatons are no different from you, they do things for a reason or they do not do things for a reason. > A rock will not sing showtunes if given a chance. > That is totally incorrect. A rock will sing show tunes so beautifully it will make the original cast of Cats weep, all it needs is for the atoms in the rock to be organized in the correct way, and to do that all you need is very small fingers and information. > If they [computers] caused everything to happen without us, then there > would be no us. > Yes. > What does that have to do with this idea of yours that intelligence can > exist without consciousness? > I don't know because I don't know what the hell you're talking about. That's not my idea, in fact although I can't prove it I've said many times that I very strongly suspect that intelligence can NOT exist without consciousness, that's why I very strongly suspect that my fellow human beings are conscious like me, at least they are when they are not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. The reason I'm so confident of this is that Evolution would have no reason to produce consciousness if it were not linked with intelligence. >> I give up, who claims to know that intelligence without consciousness >> exists? >> > > > You. Very insistently: "intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness > confers a Evolutionary advantage. > Yes I said that and I stand by the fact that intelligent behavior without consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage over non-intelligent behavior with or without consciousness, and I stand by my comment that intelligent behavior with consciousness confers no additional Evolutionary advantage. However important consciousness may be to us to Evolution it's a useless fifth wheel, and yet it produced this useless thing, so it must be a byproduct of something that is not useless, like intelligence. > A computer beating you at chess is evidence that the intelligent behavior > of conscious computer programmers is effective at fooling you that the > computer is intelligent and conscious. > Fooling you?? It is a factual depiction of reality that the computer beat you at chess and there is no doubt about it, its right there in front of your eyes! You lost, the computer won, its a fact. If there is any fooling going on it's directed inward and you're trying to fool yourself into thinking that you have not really lost, or you're just being a sore looser and whining that the computer cheated in some vague undefined way. And if the computer's intelligence, as displayed by skillfully playing the game, is just due to "the intelligent behavior of conscious computer programmers" then I don't understand why the machine can beat those programmers as easily as it beat you. And I don't even understand why you believe those computer programmers were conscious. >> what behavior gave you the clue that it would be a misinterpretation to >> attribute consciousness to something? >> > > > Every behavior of a computer gives me the clue. They will sit and do the > same thing over and over forever. > It's true that existing computers seem a tad autistic, but then humans went to great pains to give them that attribute. > They [computers] are incapable of figuring out when they are wrong > Exactly precisely like some human beings I know. > Piaget proved it. > Bullshit! Piaget proved stuff about behavior but he proved nothing about consciousness, not even that it exists. > I agree that emotion is more primitive than actual intelligence > So you think it would be easier to make a emotional computer than a intelligent one. > "behavior that is not hardwired in the genes". Sounds like free will. > Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII characters "free will" mean. > My explanation works (at least to the extent that you have no > counterfactuals). > I don't understand what sort of counter factual you're talking about. > Why is panexperientialism begging the question if it's true? > Because it just says that consciousness exists because consciousness exists and consciousness is made of consciousness. I already knew that and, although true without a doubt, it is not one bit helpful in figuring out how the world works. > Intelligence has no use for consciousness if it can already behave > intelligently > Correct, and yet consciousness exists, thus if Darwin was right then consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence. 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 protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
