On Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:54:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote: > > On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > >> So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it > is? If its > >> exhaustion, maybe up a couple of days, why does it stop being about > motivation and > >> becomes that we can't think straight? ass > >> > >> Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to > be precise > >> amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence > when people are > >> prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more > and more easily, > >> and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) > >> i > >> Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to > specific mental > >> activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this > strongly correlated > >> with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused > on since last > >> sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. > >> ion > >> If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious in > the vast majority > >> of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? > Why aren't we > >> conscious in our other organs where sigtinificant computation takes > place, and is > >> connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why > aren't I > >> experiencing the consciousness of the code? What decides what object > and experiences > >> what consciousness, and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my > twin, why don't I > >> sometimes wake up him? > >> > >> If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness > experienced? How is > >> facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware > parts are > >> consciousness, and/or which hardwaerre parts are required by the > conscious experience > >> of software, such that the experience is able to think the next > thought? The processor? > >> RAM? > >> > >> Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and > given these > >> processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely > known, why is the > >> old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for > what an emergent > >> consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation > is intrinsically > >> consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely > in terms of, and > >> exactly > >> of that code? > > Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, > as I experience > it, has to do with language and images. It is a story I make up, based on > perceptions and > memories, about what happens in my life. I think the evolutionary reason > for this is that > in order learn from experience one must remember things; but there is too > much to remember > in any detail. So the brain creates this story which is a condensation of > the events in > order to store the information in a retrievable way. At least that's the > way I would > design a robot if I wanted to exhibit human-like behavior and I think that > would entail > that it would be conscious. > > > >> , > >> Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the > past 50 > >> years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been > done in this > >> area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize > that isn't > >> sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and > struggling to > >> survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance > tuner? Why is even a > >> chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done on the > footprint issue? > > ?? You're worked up because flashes of consciousness might be occaring in > computers? Why > would you care? Do you care about bacteria, insects, plants? First, you > need a theory of > consciousness - then you can decide whether it has ethical implications. > > Brent > Hi Brent - I don't care because I don't think it's true. But if I thought it was, or might be, I would care. But whether consciousness is 'how it feels like to be processed' or not, I still find it hard to understand why no work has been done on the 'footprint' issues, as illustrated above. Surely that's a legitimate line of enquiry? In your opinion, for example, Turing Test aside, what other ways might consciousness look different in terms of hardware signature? Assuming you buy that conventional hardware could run consciousness with the right software.
-- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
