On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.

But it makes a very big difference to know when to turn that red flashing
light on and the best way to do that is by interpreting the data in 3D.

> Synesthesia proves that.

People with synesthesia, like Duke Ellington and Leonard Bernstein and
Richard Feynman, seem to be able to process data better than those without
that trait. Here is what Feynman had to say about it:

"When I see equations, I see the letters in colors – I don't know why. As
I'm talking, I see vague pictures of Bessel functions from Jahnke and
Emde's book, with light-tan j's, slightly violet-bluish n's, and dark brown
x's flying around. And I wonder what the hell it must look like to the

> I understand that survival of the fittest is bunk.

As I said, you don't know Evolution 101.

 > You are assuming that memory is encoded 'in' the brain rather than
> through the brain.

Memory encoded through the brain into.... into where? Heaven? Santa Claus's

> Besides, personal experience is of no use anyways if it isn't connected
> to free will.

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.

>>> Absolutely, clearly, and unarguably: not possible.
>> >> Bullshit.
> > He said, with no counter-argument.

Before I can give a counter-argument you must give a argument and all
you've done is decree that computers can never become conscious as people
are, but you never explain why.

>>> 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.

Oh I see, you don't need to detect the presence of a tiger you just need to
detect a tiger's presence. No I take that back, I don't see.

> We have computers which we know don't need to be able to see jpegs in
> order to allow us to see images.

Not true. A JPEG of a page in a book is just a picture of a bunch of
squiggles to a computer until you run a optical character recognition
program on it, then the computer sees letters and words and if it's as
advanced as Watson sentences and paragraphs.

>  >> I believe that once you have intelligence the existence of
>> consciousness *is not an option*.
> >Huh?

Huh yourself. If you've got intelligence then like it or not there is no
option and you've got consciousness too. Probably.

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

I agree with that last part: WHAT?!

> My whole point is that it is impossible that compression algorithms could
> cause presentations to arise.

If I gave you a jumble of data points and asked you which one of them seems
out of place you would have a hard time picking it out, but if I found a
way to present the data in a nice looking symmetrical pattern except for
one point sticking way out and breaking the symmetry then it would be easy
for you to find it. That's why people draw pretty graphs when they're
trying to explain something statistically to someone and don't just give
the audience a glob of raw numbers.

> The computer doesn't care whether the file is supposed to be text or
> music or a movie,

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

> > to do the thought experiment, you have to temporarily block the idea
> that consciousness could ever exist in the universe out of your mind.

OK, if consciousness could not exist in the universe then consciousness
would not exist. I must say this is a pretty dull thought experiment.

> evolution itself didn't evolve from non-evolution.

Of course it did, 4.5 billion years ago Evolution did not exist, at least
not on planet Earth, but 3.5 billion years ago it did. We don't know the
details of how that transition happened but somehow during that billion
years heredity happened for the first time, it probably didn't use
something as advanced as DNA for that as we do today, it probably used RNA
or perhaps even inorganic clay; but however it happened once you have
heredity Evolution can start.

> If physics didn't make consciousness, and evolution didn't make
> consciousness,

Evolution DID make consciousness as I've said many many times, but
Evolution can not see consciousness thus it must be the byproduct of
something that Evolution CAN see.

> > 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.

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

> What is evolving is not random or deterministic,

Then what is evolving is gibberish. I don't believe what is evolving is

  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