Do you believe that you have a house when you aren't standing in it? > If they have minds under those circumstances then rocks must have them too > and whatever you mean by "mind" can't be anything very interesting and I > don't care if something has a "mind" or not. > What you think is a rock is actually an event shaped by experiences on the molecular and geological scale, but not on a biological or zoological or anthropological scale. This means that this event doesn't correspond to a human mind, but a human mind does have access to some of the same kinds of geological and molecular experiences, which are presented to humans as tactile, acoustic, kinetic, visual experiences (and olfactory in the case of sulfurous minerals). > > > for evolution to generate consciousness there has to exist a gradient to >> climb. >> > > Yes. > > > Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles into consciousness >> > > If Evolution just stumbled onto consciousness by a lucky chance and was > not the byproduct of intelligence then it is of neutral survival value and > the human race would have lost that property long ago by genetic drift. > Exactly. And since we know that all behaviors could be accomplished 'in the dark', as it were, unconsciously and without any magical qualitative presentation (which exists invisibly in never never land), then we should suspect that consciousness, or the potential for consciousness precedes evolution itself. > That's the reason creatures that have lived in dark caves for thousands of > generations have no eyes; elsewhere a mutation that rendered a creature > blind would be a disaster but in a cave it wouldn't hinder its genes > getting into the next generation at all. > > In short if consciousness improves survival > It doesn't. If we presume that every other process in the cosmos which operates with fantastic precision by being unconscious is not missing out on anything important, then no, there is no conceivable advantage that some kind of interior presentation of feeling and storytelling would have over biological mechanism. After all, these unconscious mechanisms presumably operate consciousness itself, so anything that could be accomplished through conscious awareness could certainly be accomplished biologically. A human organism looking for food is no more in need of consciousness for their survival than a mitochondria or a T-Cell is. > it can only do so by effecting the behavior of the organism and then the > Turing Test must work for consciousness as well as intelligence. if > consciousness does not effect behavior then if MUST be a byproduct of > something that does or Evolution would never have produced it and yet I > know for a fact it has at least once and probably many billions of times. > > > So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of >> consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious than >> entity B. >> > > I am saying A is certainly more intelligent that B and consciousness is a > byproduct of intelligence. > Consciousness would be the stupidest byproduct of intelligence imaginable. "Hey we need a compression algorithm for this data. How about we invent a spectacular multi-dimensional participatory environment with billions of sensations created from nowhere? That should reduce throughput, no? It's like hiring Led Zeppelin to play inside of your motherboard to inspire the data to move faster. > > > What would that even mean? >> > > In dealing with consciousness the only experimental subject I have to work > with is myself and I note that when I am sleepy I am both less conscious > and less intelligent then when I am wide awake > That suggests that your intelligence supervenes on your consciousness (how awake you feel), not the other way around. Stupid people aren't always sleepy. > > My cat seems conscious to me (but I can't know for sure). Is he less >> conscious than me? Well I know stuff that he doesn't, but he also knows >> stuff that I don't -- for example he knows how it feels to be a cat. > > > You think your cat is conscious even though you're a lot smarter than a > cat, so why wouldn't a computer who was a lot smarter than you also seem to > be conscious. You could say that you'll never be able to prove the computer > is conscious but the exact same thing is true of your cat or even your > fellow human beings. > If a computer did what it does naturally, without human intention to program a device to mimic mental functions, then certainly it could seem to have some intelligence - although it would be an oddly unbalanced, on-trick-pony kind of intelligence. We don't have to be fooled by that though, because we can understand that computers don't self-organize out of their own sensory experience, they are put together programmed by humans for humans. Craig > > John K Clark > > > > > > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.