On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:29:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> On 2/9/2013 3:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> > Evolution would have no need for generating values, since values are a 
> subjective 
> > motivation. 
> "Subjective motivation" is just a quantitative value seen from the inside. 

Why would quantitative values have an inside though? The only reason that 
we might presume that is because we are looking at it retrospectively. If 
you turn it around though, and assume quantitative mechanisms can exist 
without awareness, then there is no possibility of any interior experience 
being generated. How and why would such a thing arise?

> > All evolution would have to do is simply impose a script that assigns a 
> high priority to 
> > protecting ones own children and ones own life. 
> And that's what happened and that's what you feel as love of life and love 
> of children. 

I understand why that makes sense to you, but you are making that up by 
taking the undeniable existence of love and drawing a straight line to what 
you presume, unquestionably, to be the cause. It's an unfalsifiable 
misconception which begs the question. Lets say you wanted to make a 
computer program that did not feel anything, but just reproduced and 
survived. Are you suggesting that is impossible? Are you saying that 
whenever a sufficiently complex machine is programmed to avoid specific 
conditions that avoidance conjures an experience of pain out of nowhere?

> > Like any computer program, a quantitative equivalence which is 
> unsentimental and 
> > unconscious would always be more effective. 
> Unsentimental, maybe.  But not unemotional.  For example, rage is very 
> useful in defense 
> of one's children. 

No it isn't. You are only looking at it retrospectively. The effectiveness 
of rage is not in the experience of rage, it is in the boost of strength, 
endurance, aggressive behavior, etc. All of that could be engineered 
without inventing some kind of ridiculous 'emotional state' as a theatrical 
presentation. Look at it prospectively instead. You are trying to make an 
effective replicator. Why would you ever need to do anything but optimize 
its behaviors?


> Brent 

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 everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to