On Monday, April 29, 2013 7:48:34 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: > > On 4/29/2013 2:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, John Clark > > <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]<javascript:>> > wrote: > >> > >>>> I also believe that some isolated tribes assume everything is > conscious. > >> > >> If they're right then that certainly solves the consciousness problem > and we > >> can move on to solving the REALLY hard problem, figuring out why some > things > >> behave intelligently. > > I don't really understand why you insist that intelligence is a harder > > problem than consciousness. > > I think John's point is that it's easy to theorize about the "hard > problem" of > consciousness because the problem isn't even well defined
It's easy to theorize about the hard problem of consciousness being ill defined if you don't really understand it. A lot of people don't agree on what energy is or time. That doesn't mean that it is easy to theorize about them sensibly. > and there's no way to test the > theories because consciousness is taken to be a first-person-only > phenomenon by > definition. It just means that some phenomena cannot be understood in the same way as others. What qualia lack in public measure, they more than make up for in private intensity. > On the other hand it is pretty easy to test intelligence - we do it all > the > time. But creating intelligence is a "hard" problem. > Creating intelligence without consciousness isn't conceptually hard, it just takes a lot of resources. > > > I think we have very solid hypothesis on > > why some things behave intelligently, you explained it yourself. The > > problem becomes easier if we reject meaning, and accept that evolution > > is just a mindless process of complexification. > > > > In any case, through a modern combination of computer science, > > neuroscience and biology, we know a lot about intelligence. We know > > nothing about consciousness (scientifically, that is -- I know a lot > > about my own consciousness). > > Maybe because (scientifically) there's nothing to know. What would > constitute a solution > to the "hard problem" that could be tested? The solution is that the problem can't be solved externally, it has to be experienced directly. Why qualia exists is self-evident: because that is what the universe actually is. > I think the best we will be able to do is to > understand human brains to the point that we can manipulate thoughts and > emotions as > reported by subjects and we can make AI robots that behave like humans and > whose > "character" we can design as desired. When we've done that we'll "bet" > (as Bruno would > say) that we've solved the problem. > That's like saying "We won't need auto mechanics once we have mastered driving." Craig > Brent > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
