On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 1:45:48 PM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
> >> > I don't really understand why you insist that intelligence is a
> >> > problem than consciousness.
> > As I've said many times and people just shrug off,
> John, I never shrugged off any of your ideas, I always considered
> them. Maybe you're projecting a bit?
> > Evolution figured out how
> > to make a brain that produces intense emotion about 500 million years
> > but it only figured out how to make intelligence, the sort of
> > that we're proud of, a few hundred thousand years ago. The facts are
> > undeniable, either Charles Darwin was wrong or consciousness is a
> > of intelligence. And I don't think Charles Darwin was wrong.
> I don't think Charles Darwin ever wrote anything about consciousness.
> Evolution is not a theory of consciousness. It's a theory on the
> origin of biological complexity.
> Again, you're creating a false dichotomy by using your dogma (not
> Darwin's) that consciousness arrises from intelligence. But borrowing
> Bruno's argument, will you be in Moscow or New York if you get
> >> > I think we have very solid hypothesis on why some things behave
> >> intelligently, you explained it yourself.
> > We know why Evolution produced intelligence but not how.
> Oh we know a lot about how already. It's just harder to grasp if you
> reject emergence.
> > I explained why
> > Evolution selects for intelligence but does not select for
> > but If I knew the General Theory of Intelligence I'd be the richest man
> > ever lived, and I'm not. On the other hand just about everybody on this
> > has their own personal General Theory of Consciousness, and they're all
> > different and they all work equally well; in other words they're all
> > useless.
> >> > We know nothing about consciousness
> > So you're saying that after all the verbiage written about it on this
> > and all the electrons that have given their lives to discuss this
> subject on
> > the internet the end result is that nobody knows anything or has
> anything of
> > interest to say about consciousness. Well that doesn't sound too far
> > the truth to me, so maybe that means its time to think about something
> I meant that we know nothing scientifically about consciousness.
> Possibly because it's a problem outside of the scope of science. This
> realisation is what makes me agnostic instead of atheist.
> >>> >> as I said before, I personally would not work fine if I thought I
> >>> >> the only conscious being in the universe
> >> > Ok, but please notice -- this is exactly the same reason a lot of
> >> > claim for being religious. That they couldn't face life without god.
> > Very true, and that would be a very good reason to believe in God with
> > truth of the matter being irrelevant. If someone really could not
> > without the belief in God (I doubt that many people actually fall into
> > category, but never mind) then the logical thing to do would be to
> > in God even though that belief is false.
> > And in a similar way it's logically possible that I am the only
> > being in the universe, but it would be foolish of me to believe that is
> > actually the case because that would render me non functional. And I
> > the same would be true of you unless you really are a intelligent
> One possibility, of course, is that consciousness is the fundamental
> stuff. That doesn't change the fact that me, as a particular
> instantiation of that fundamental stuff, have a context and
> experiences. I want to avoid pain and seek pleasure. I don't see how
> believing in a single consciousness, for example, changes that.
Right. Consciousness being fundamental indeed makes human qualities of
consciousness (sensation+awareness+emotion+cognition) more sophisticated
than animal qualities (sensation+awareness+emotion) or biological qualities
(sensation+awareness) and inorganic qualities (sensation/detection). There
is no comparison between any particular type of experience and experience
itself. The former is a matter of elaboration and variation on aesthetic
themes but the latter is not possible to do without. The hard problem is
the impossible problem, because it can only be asked by something which is
already conscious. There is not any other way for the universe to be
defined or exist except through some sort of aesthetic presence - be it
geometric/topological, or algebraic/functional, emotional-cognitive, etc.
All forms and functions supervene on sense perception and motor
participation. Without sense and motive, there is no possibility of
> > John K Clark
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
> > To post to this group, send email to
> > 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 post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.