On Saturday, March 16, 2013 1:42:29 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013  Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>
>  > What does the popularity of porn and gossip have to do with the 
>> capacity of computers to think and feel?
>>
>
> I have no idea, but that's one of the best Zen Koans I've ever heard.
>
>  >>>> There is no other logical conclusion to make given the FACT that if 
>>>>> your brain chemistry changes your emotions change, AND if your emotions 
>>>>> change your brain chemistry changes. 
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >>> So if I type comments on my computer and I see your answers on my 
>>>> computer, then there is no other logical conclusion to make than that you 
>>>> live in my computer.
>>>>
>>>
>>> >> In this lame analogy of yours what is the counterpart of my typing 
>>> into the computer, who the hell is typing into my brain?
>>>
>>
>> > John K Clark, who else? 
>>
>
> So the correct answer to the question "Why does John K Clark do what he 
> does?" would not involve Quantum Mechanics or biochemistry or neurons or 
> genes or the environment or psychology or even cause and effect; according 
> to you the correct answer to the question "Why does John K Clark do what he 
> does?" is "Because of John K Clark". Wow, what a deep theory!
>

QM, biochemistry, neurons, genes, the environment, psychology, and 
causality all contribute to why you do what you do, and you contribute to 
why all of those things do what they do. With all of the other phenomena, 
you can trace it back to this force or that Law of physics, but where you 
exclude your own personal perspective as a viable influence, I do not. I 
see that as an anthropocentric (inverted) compulsion. It is a compulsion 
which makes a lot of sense in the wake of the success of post-Copernican 
science, but in the end, the careful study of consciousness reveals this 
impulse to be a simple minded counter-neurosis which tells us more about 
how we react to fear, failure, hope, and success than the scientific 
reality of self and the universe. Just because God is not a giant person in 
the sky does not automatically mean that the universe is a giant machine 
with no personality. This opens the door to an entirely new dimension of 
the universe - perceptual relativity, significance, panpsychic or quorum 
mechanics, etc. Why do we disinvite ourselves from the universe? and when 
we do, why do we seem to take it so personally one way or the other?


> > consciousness can't be a byproduct of anything because it would be 
>> completely unexplainable and superfluous 
>
>
> It is in the very nature of byproducts to be superfluous, otherwise they 
> wouldn't be byproducts; and you can't explain a byproduct until you 
> explaine something else. You can't explain how a spandrel came to be until 
> you explain a arch and you can't explain consciousness until you explain 
> intelligence.    
>

Byproducts aren't superfluous, they are just unintentional. The interaction 
of substances and surfaces can cause 'dust' to accumulate - that is a 
byproduct. If instead the same dry conditions and particle shedding caused 
invisible semi-hypothetical alternate universes to appear and disappear, 
that would be unacceptably surprising. The idea of spandrels is really a 
relativistic term that only makes sense within a context of aesthetic 
teleology. We see things in terms of primary effects and side effects based 
on the projection of intention, but in natural selection, features can be 
adaptive whether they serve their presumed 'original purpose' or not. It's 
a strange judgment to be inserting in a process which has no purposes.


> > no matter what you try to attach it to. It is completely implausible in 
>> every way.
>>
>
> You're telling me something is implausible?! Craig, you continue to insist 
> that X being not X and X being not not X makes perfect sense, 
>

Only in real life. There are a number of rigid logical systems in which 
such subtleties are not allowed.
 

> and you say that if changing X always changes Y and changing Y always 
> changes X that does not in any way mean that the change in X caused the 
> change in Y.
>

Right, just like I can go East by walking either forward or backward 
without either one causing 'East' at the expense of the other. It all 
depends what direction I am facing. Moving East by walking forward doesn't 
mean I can't also walk forward and move West.
 

>   Having thus inoculated yourself against the disease of logic you
>

The logic that I am using is more flexible to accommodate the nuances of 
reality is all. If you are going swimming, you might want to ditch the suit 
of armor.

are bewildered when I say you are not interested in finding the truth but 
> rather have first decided what you would prefer to be true and then 
> resolved to shut your eyes if something that contradicts your preference 
> should dare to enter your view. 
>

To the contrary, nothing that I have found contradicts my view, which does 
not follow my preference but rather my curiosity. If you find a real world, 
common sense example of something which contradicts my view, then I would 
be interested in hearing about that.
 

> Therefore I will let you have the last word on this thread when you reply 
> to this message with one of your patented "yeah but this this and this is 
> conscious but that that and that is not and I know this because I have free 
> will".  
>

What is conscious and what seems conscious to us or what does not is a very 
advanced problem. I am only looking at the basics of what consciousness is 
in the first place and what is it doing in the universe. We only get into 
it because of AI, which my view reveals to be rooted in backwards 
assumptions about consciousness. Why this approach can't work is not about 
what kind of substance can or can't be conscious, but that consciousness is 
a unique event in time rather than a product (or byproduct) which can be 
reverse engineered from public form-functions.

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