On Thursday, April 18, 2013 4:32:25 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes 
> <te...@telmomenezes.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>  >> You may be pedantic about the use of anthropomorphic language but I am 
>>> not.
>>>
>>
>> > It can become distracting / misleading in deeper discussions about the 
>> mechanisms of evolution.
>>
>
> I don't care, anybody who was mislead or distracted and believed Evolution 
> could think would be so stupid that I wouldn't care to talk to them. And as 
> you once said "who are you to say what's useful or not as a tool for other 
> people to think and understand?".
>  
>
>> > Emergence is just a way to connect different levels of abstraction.
>>
>
> The trouble is people say X leads to Y but when asked how they just wave 
> their hands around and say it's a emergent property, as if that explains 
> something.  
>
> > What do you mean "useful"?
>
>
> I'm not going to tell you. Any definition I give you will be made of words 
> and I have no doubt you would then demand a definition of at least one of 
> those words.   
>  
>
>> >> That's the trouble with this list, everybody is a big picture man with 
>>> their own fundamental holistic theories about consciousness
>>>
>>> > Isn't "big picture" the theme of this list?
>>
>
> I thought the theme of this list was everything, and details are 
> something. Dilettantes are always big picture men because that is so much 
> easier than being a details man; they are VERY big picture men, so big that 
> their ideas have made absolutely no changes to science or to anything that 
> anyone can measure.   
>
> > If consciousness is easier than intelligence
>>
>
> Evolution certainly found that to be the case. 
>
> >  how come we have scientific progress in the latter and not in the 
>> former?
>>
>
> Today's computers are smarter than they were 10 years ago so I think it is 
> highly likely that they are more conscious too. 
>

Nobody could think that except someone who is trying hard to believe it.  
If anything, computers have become more disposable. Nobody seriously 
imagines that any digital device - from their cell phone to Watson, can 
tell the difference between being turned off and turned on. They can't 
tell, they don't care, there is no 'they' there. The number of circuits 
only matters of something cares about using them, and a computer does not 
care about anything.

Craig

 

> If you have another method for measuring consciousness other than 
> intelligent behavior I would very much like to hear about it. 
>

 

>
> > how do you know that intelligence is a requirement of consciousness?
>>
>
> The only consciousness I have direct experience with is my own and I note 
> that when I'm sleepy my consciousness is reduced and so is my intelligence, 
> when I'm alert the reverse is true. 
>
> > Somebody who puts  "philosopher" in the occupation line on his tax form
>>>
>>
>> Ok, I guess Plato and Aristotle and the rest of that gang are out then.
>>
>
> Archimedes was a mathematician and he discovered more philosophy than 
> Plato and Aristotle combined. 
>
>   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