"No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that
it is doing. ..."

Hi Craig,

How could you possibly know this to be true or false? Consciousness is not
3p falsifiable! Seriously, Turing tests... LOL! Umm, I think that we all
can safely ignore your post here as some kind of temporary reactionary
insanity... maybe... or ???


On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, April 18, 2013 9:44:31 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>> Ummm, Craig, you couldn't tell if you were switched off and on unless you
>> had environmental clues that time when by/shit moved around... I think that
>> you are being a bit specist here. Computers are very much conscious, just
>> not self-aware in  any way relatable to our experience of such.
>>
>
> No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that
> it is doing. Services do not know what each other are doing, none of the
> messages in the logs are meaningful to the computer itself. What the
> computer produces is only potentially meaningful to a user, and it produces
> nothing which is useful to itself. What I meant by a computer not knowing
> the difference between between being turned off and turned on is that it
> makes no difference to them - they can discern no preferred state - no
> computer wants to commit suicide so that it can be turned off.
>
> It's so obviously the Pathetic fallacy to attribute consciousness to these
> representational systems that its hard for me to take the counterargument
> seriously. The counterargument seems to be nothing more than the assumption
> that since some generic, anesthetic mind-like functions can be simulated
> that consciousness itself should work the same way.
>
> Craig
>
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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>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 a topic in the
>>> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/**
>>> topic/everything-list/K7E-**Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en<https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en>
>>> .
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
>>> everything-li...@**googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>>
>>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>> group/everything-list?hl=en<http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en>
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_out<https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out>
>>> .
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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.
>
>
>

-- 
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