On Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:31:03 PM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:54:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> > >> > On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, [email protected] 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. > > > You have to be conscious already to have perceptions, memories, and make > up stories. Why would unconscious processes become conscious just to tell a > story to itself that it already knows? > > Craig > Hear hear Craig. IMHO not only a legitimate question, but also the right sort of asking-of-questions. That assumes there's a major reason for things first, before the more trivial. As an aside, could it be a sort of misunderstanding of 'Occam' that people look first for the more trivial explanation? Doing that, would imply Occam says things are 'simple to happen'...but Occam only says the 'all else being equal, the simpler explanation is better'. Totally different, and one definitely does not imply the other.
-- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
