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 
> > <johnk...@gmail.com<javascript:>> 
> wrote: 
> >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013  Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com<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 


> 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 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