On Saturday, February 23, 2013 1:56:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>
> > A successful evolutionary outcome doesn't have anything to do with the 
>> veracity of the content of a signal. 
>
>
> If the interpretation your brain performs on a sequence of impulses that 
> come from your eyes is not compatible with the facts in your external 
> environment then you are going to be eaten by something that has fewer 
> incompatibilities than you do, it's as simple as that. 
>

No, it's not as simple as that. You are taking perception for granted. If 
the condition of being threatened by a predator is delivered to me as a 
flashing red light or the lilt of angelic chimes in my ear it doesn't make 
any difference whatsoever. Synesthesia proves that. Blindsight proves that. 
The universality of binary code proves that. There is no reason in your 
universe for perception at all. You think there is because you keep 
cheating and drawing a straight line from your own personal experience to 
the universe as a whole, but if you follow your own logic rather than your 
experience of perception, you will see that you must conclude that 
perception is unreal and unnecessary - this is particularly and glaringly 
true if you believe that free will is a fraud. Surely these perceptions 
can't influence your actions if your actions are going to happen anyways.
 

> That was true for your parents and for their parents and for hundreds of 
> millions of your ancestors before that to a time when the Earth was young. 
> And you can't fool it, Evolution is not concerned with philosophical 
> bullshit, it cares about getting genes into the next generation and nothing 
> else.  
>
> > I don't know why you're going over evolution101 with me.
>>
>
> Because you don't know Evolution 101.
>

That's a baseless accusation. What is it that you claim I don't know about 
evolution? The common misconceptions of evolution that I posted, I posted 
to show that in fact *you* have a biased view of evolution. I have never 
subscribed to those listed fallacies - I understand that survival of the 
fittest is bunk. My conception of evolution is superior and more accurate 
than yours.
 

>  
>
>> > The interpretation may not be local to the brain, but to the lifetime 
>> of the personal experience associated with the brain. 
>>
>
> Personal experience is of no use unless it is remembered and memory is 
> encoded in the brain.
>

You are assuming that memory is encoded 'in' the brain rather than through 
the brain. Besides, personal experience is of no use anyways if it isn't 
connected to free will.

 
>
>>  >> The 3D visualization of space would be very useful indeed if it's the 
>>> most efficient way to figure out how to jump out of the way when a saber 
>>> toothed tiger lunges at you on the African savanna.  
>>>
>>
>> > But it could not be any more efficient than no presentation at all. 
>>
>
> How did you learn this, did it come to you in a dream?
>

No, it's obvious. If you have to have a symphony orchestra play every time 
you use a damn can opener, it's going to be more efficient without the 
orchestra.
 

>
> > Absolutely, clearly, and unarguably: not possible.
>>
>
> Bullshit.
>

He said, with no counter-argument.
 

>  
>
>> > The reason would be the that they received a neurological to move - 
>> just like a computer does. IF TIGER = 1 THEN RUN. 
>
>
> Sure, but to do that you have to interpret a sequence of impulses from 
> your eye as a tiger 
>

Not really. You can just detect that sequence as the condition of a tiger's 
presence. There's no need to format the sequence into some holographic full 
color projection at all. Again, there is no argument here. We have 
computers which we know don't need to be able to see jpegs in order to 
allow us to see images. They don't have to taste turkey to print out a 
Thanksgiving recipe. Data is data - there is no presentation layer required 
to connect real world conditions with maximally effective actions.
 

> and that is not a trivial thing to do, computers are only now starting to 
> be able to do image recognition and they still are not nearly as good as 
> people are at it, but then Evolution had a 600 million year head start. 
> Computers are improving at great speed and if we talk again about computer 
> vision 10 years from now the story could be very different. 
>

It doesn't matter how complex the data is, there is no point at which it 
just has to taste like turkey in order to be manageable. Even if there 
were, there would be no mechanical way to make that happen. Please explain 
to me, step by step, the process by which data from your olfactory bulb 
actually turns into the aroma of roasting turkey, and why it does that.
 

>
> > you are unwilling or unable to imagine thought experiments in which the 
>> existence of consciousness *is not an option*. 
>>
>
> Not true, I believe that once you have intelligence the existence of 
> consciousness *is not an option*. 
>

Huh? Intelligence puts people in a coma? Kills them? What?
 

>
> > Evolution is not going to invent geometry to make data look pretty if 
>> pretty is meaningless. 
>>
>
> Pretty is not meaningless if pretty data can be manipulated with less 
> mental fire power than the same data presented in a ugly way. 
>

Sure, but don't you see that begs the question? It's rhetorical, of course, 
I know that you don't see. My whole point is that it is impossible that 
compression algorithms could cause presentations to arise. You want to drop 
null values, or do some condensing transformation, fine, but what does that 
have to do with pain or brightness or sour? Computation - we know for a 
fact - works without them. The computer doesn't care whether the file is 
supposed to be text or music or a movie, you can change the file extension 
and it will barf it out as that kind of content. It doesn't matter whether 
you look at the HD as sectors in a rainbow map or as a list of hex codes. 
It matters to you, but it surely does not matter to the HDs performance.
 

> In fact that's probably at least part of the reason that people have a 
> aesthetic sense, pretty is simple symmetrical and elegant.  
>

Uggh. Where are you getting symmetry and elegance from? If you are trying 
to justify the existence of awareness you can't call upon the aesthetics of 
awareness itself to pre-figure itself. Ughghh.. Headdesk headdesk headdesk. 
Hard problem. Face it with your eyes and mind open and you might see it 
someday. 
 

>
>  > Don't you see that you aren't questioning consciousness? 
>>
>
> Are you questioning consciousness, do you consciously believe that 
> consciousness does not exist?
>

Neither, I'm saying that to do the thought experiment, you have to 
temporarily block the idea that consciousness could ever exist in the 
universe out of your mind.
 

>
> > There is consciousness, therefore it must have evolved.
>>
>
> Yes.
>

Yet evolution itself didn't evolve from non-evolution. Why are they 
different?
 

>
> > If it evolved it must have an evolutionary purpose.
>>
>
> No, it might have no Evolutionary purpose whatsoever, consciousness could 
> be a spandrel, it could be the byproduct of something else, something that 
> did have a evolutionary purpose.
>

ok, so even more of a supervenience on evolution  - it must have been 
accidentally included as part of an evolutionary purpose.
 

>
> > But consciousness violates conventional physics far more egregiously 
>> than magic.
>>
>
> Physics neither insists that consciousness exists nor insists that it does 
> not, physics is in fact just like you, it has nothing of interest to say 
> about the subject. 
>

If physics didn't make consciousness, and evolution didn't make 
consciousness, then you are positing a spontaneous metaphysical phenomenon 
which has no explanation or meaning - yet is the source of all explanation 
and meaning. Is that about right?


>  > This is what you are not explaining - the gap between data and 
>> experience of some kind.
>>
>
> If consciousness is fundamental as you insist it is then there is nothing 
> you can say about it except that consciousness is the way data feels like 
> when it is being processed.
>

No, I say that data is how feelings look when they aren't ours. All 
feelings are not equal however. The feelings represented by a silicon 
crystal are not the same quality as the feelings represented by a living 
human being, or even a dog or an octopus.
 

>  
>
>> > Within the experience of the individual, the qualia of significance is 
>> even more of a driving force for a person than survival. 
>>
>
> Maybe for some individuals, but most certainly NOT for Evolution, and if 
> we're talking about why people have the sort of mind that they do it is 
> only Evolution's opinion that is important. 
>

So culture has nothing to do with it? Books are unimportant to the mind or 
genetic. 

 
>
>> > You are right about evolution not valuing sense 
>>
>
> Thank you.
>
>   > that's because chance and teleonomy are driven by consequence - the 
>> flip side of choice/teleology.
>>
>
> The driving force for Evolution is mutation and natural selection, 
> teleology has nothing to do with it. Mutation is random while natural 
> selection is deterministic, and choice is either random or deterministic.
>

Agreed. My point is that is only half of the picture. What is evolving is 
not random or deterministic, it is participatory and to an increasing 
degree teleological.
 

>  
>
>> If it behaves in exactly the same way that John Wayne would have behaved 
>>> (and not one of John Wayne's characters)  in those circumstances  then yes, 
>>> that would be John Wayne because it would be matter behaving in a 
>>> Johnwayneian way. However as a practical matter I have no idea how you 
>>> could determine that is what John Wayne would have done, so the Scorcese 
>>> Test is of little use.
>>>
>>
>> But you couldn't determine that it is not what John Wayne would do or say 
>> either. 
>>
>
> True, which is exactly why the Scorcese Test is of little use.
>

I meant that the movies produced don't look like computer animation, they 
look like movies of actual locations with real actors.
 

>
> > you are saying that you could bring John Wayne back from the dead just 
>> by doing a perfect impersonation of him. 
>>
>
> Yes, that is exactly what I am saying, although using the word "just" does 
> not seem appropriate for something that profound.
>

If you can't see why that isn't true then there's nothing I can say to make 
it clearer.
 

>
> > If you don't see why that isn't realistic, 
>>
>
> Thought experiments don't need to be practical economic or realistic, they 
> just have to avoid breaking any known laws of physics.  
>

It's not the thought experiment that I'm saying isn't realistic, it's the 
idea that someone can be literally resurrected by talking and walking in a 
way that reminds you of them. It's the reverse p-zombie. The more I 
impersonate Elvis, the more that I become *the actual man: Elvis* Aaron *
Presley* (January 8, 1935 – August 16, 1977). Instead of fading qualia, I 
would have to get qualia which is growing stronger and stronger. The better 
my haircut, the more memories of my upbringing in Tupelo, Mississippi will 
come back to me, and I will be The King!
 

>
> > then I just have to accept that you live in a different world from me 
>> entirely.
>>
>
> I figure that out a long time ago.
>
> > You know that no computer product has ever been anything but impersonal
>>
>
> It must be grand being a "hard problem" theorist because it's the easiest 
> job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say 
> "yeah but it's not conscious" and there is no way anybody can prove you 
> wrong.  
>

check and mate.

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 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