On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 10:35:24 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 Telmo Menezes <[email protected] > <javascript:>>wrote: > > >> The facts are undeniable, either Charles Darwin was wrong or >>> consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence. And I don't think Charles >>> Darwin was wrong. >>> >> >> > I don't think Charles Darwin ever wrote anything about consciousness. >> > > Probably because he thought it was so obvious he didn't need to spell it > out, but if you insist I will spell it out. Again. > > Darwin's idea was that he was the product of Evolution. Darwin knew that > Evolution could see intelligent behavior and select for it. Darwin knew > that Evolution could not even see consciousness much less select for it. > Darwin knew for a fact that he was conscious. And I know for a fact that > Darwin was a intelligent man, therefore I conclude that Charles Darwin > thought that consciousness was a unavoidable consequence of intelligence or > his theory was wrong. Darwin did not think his theory was wrong and neither > do I. > > >> > I want to avoid pain and seek pleasure. >> > > Yes, and there were probably mutant animals that found sex painful and so > avoided it and grievous bodily injury pleasurable and so sought it out, but > you and I are not like that because none of our ancestors were like that, > in fact mutants of that sort left no descendants at all. >
That would not make sense if you assume that qualia evolve from functions. If, as you say, consciousness is what data feels like when it is processed, then it could not be possible for the data of sex to be processed and feel differently than that particular data feels. You can't have it both ways. Either qualia represent what they are associated with faithfully to some extent, or they are epiphenomenal and arbitrary, acquiring significance purely through circumstantial association. They are mutually exclusive possibilities. > > >> >> 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 don't reject it, I just want to know the difference between saying "shit > happens" and saying "it happened because of emergence". Yes, complicated > systems behave in ways that are, well, complicated; but tell me something I > didn't know. > > >> > One possibility, of course, is that consciousness is the fundamental >> stuff. >> > > Yes, I think that is by far the most likely possibility! But if that is > indeed true then its meaningless to ask, as so many on this list do, what > consciousness is made of because "fundamental stuff" is the point where > your chain of "what is that made of?" questions come to a end. That's what > fundamental means. So if its really fundamental then after saying that > consciousness is the way data feels like when it is being processed there > is nothing more to say. > If consciousness were the way data feels when it is being processed, then it would be data which is the fundamental stuff. For consciousness to be fundamental, we would say that data is the the way that consciousness treats itself when it does not feel, or when it feels very little. Craig > > 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 [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.
