On Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:23:52 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > > >> Why would being generated in a single moment through cell > >> fertilization have any bearing on consciousness? > > > > > > Because consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time, or > > rather through which time is created. > > That's not an explanation. >
It's a hypothesis. > > >> Why would something > >> created by someone else not have consciousness? > > > > > > Because it is assembled rather than created. It's like asking why wood > > doesn't catch on fire by itself just by stacking it in a pile. > > That's not an explanation. > It's a hypothesis that is consistent with my model and with observation. > > >> Why would something > >> lacking internally generated motives (which does not apply to > >> computers any more than to people) lack consciousness? > > > > > > Why would computers have an internally generated motive? It doesn't care > > whether it functions or not. We know that people have personal motives > > because it isn't possible for us to doubt it without doubting our > ability to > > doubt. > > You're saying a computer can't be conscious because it would need to > be conscious in order to be conscious. > I'm saying that a computer is not physically real. We are using a collection of physical objects of various sizes as a machine to serve our motives to do our computations for us. It is not a structure which reflects an interior motive. What makes computers useful is that they have no capacity to object to drudgery. That is the capacity which is inseparable from unconsciousness. > > >> To make these > >> claims you would have to show either that they are necessarily true or > >> present empirical evidence in their support, and you have done > >> neither. > > > > > > You would have to show that these criteria are relevant for > consciousness, > > which you have not, and you cannot. > > You make claims such as that a conscious being has to arise at a > moment of fertilization, which is completely without basis. You need > to present some explanation for such claims. "Consciousness is a > singularity of perspective through time" is not an explanation. > I don't think that a conscious being arises at a moment of fertilization, I say that fertilization is just one milestone within biological stories. The stories are what is physically real, the private presentation. The cellular fusion is a public representation. I see nothing wrong with observing the singular nature of consciousness and its role in providing a private perspective in creating time as an explanation. I don't see that anything that physics has produced is more explanatory than that. What is energy? What is space? What is quantum? > > As long as you fail to recognize > > consciousness as the ground of being, you will continue to justify it > > against one of its own products - rationality, logic, empirical > examples, > > all of which are 100% sensory-motor. Consciousness can only be explained > to > > consciousness, in the terms of consciousness, to satisfy consciousness. > All > > other possibilities are subordinate. How could it be otherwise without > > ending up with a sterile ontology which prohibits our own participation? > > Again, you've just made up "consciousness is the ground of being". > Not at all. I have eliminated all other possibilities through rational consideration. It's very simple. A universe which contains only matter or only information has not possible use for participating perceivers. If you can provide a reason why or how this would occur, then I would be very interested and happy to consider your position. It's like saying "consciousness is the light, light is not black, so > black people are not conscious". > Nope. It's like saying that both light and dark are aspects of visual sense, and that visual sense cannot arise from either light or dark. > > >> You don't think it would happen, but would you be prepared to say that > >> if a robot did pass the test, as tough as you want to make it, it > >> would be conscious? > > > > > > It's like asking me if there were a test for dehydrated water, would I > be > > prepared to say that it would be wet if it passed the test. No robot can > > ever be conscious. Nothing conscious can ever be a robot. Heads cannot > be > > Tails, even if we move our heads to where the tails side used to be and > > blink a lot. > > So you accept the possibility of zombies, beings which could live > among us and consistently fool everyone into thinking they were > conscious? > I don't even believe in the possibility of the word zombie. It is a misconception based on a misplaced expectation of consciousness in something which deserves no such expectation - like a puppet or a cartoon. Do I accept the possibility of puppets or cartoons who could be mistaken by everyone into thinking they were conscious? In a limited context, sure. There could be a politician who is an idiot but has very good speechwriters that make him seem intelligent. So what? That says absolutely zero about the quality of the sensory-motor capacities, i.e. consciousness of a puppet. Craig > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
