On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:55:18 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to >>> this later with the rest, cheer. >>> >>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> > sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> No problem. >>>>> >>>>> > The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, >>>>>> always show up together, never one on its own. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for >>>>> certain is conscious is you. >>>>> >>>> >>>> The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it >>>> is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. >>>> >>>> We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this >>>> conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think >>>> the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the >>>> planet. >>>> >>>> But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that >>>> you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you >>>> may not be... >>>> >>>> >>>>> And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say >>>>> above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain >>>>> conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, >>>> which would require listing important characteristics of the >>>> consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves >>>> and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll >>>> >>> >> So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you >> say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I >> would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after >> ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have >> to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and >> intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while >> intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness >> may. >> >> And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising >> with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would >> have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for >> consciousness. >> >> But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked >> individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, >> actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive >> forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be >> indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be >> a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, >> say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect >> involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the >> answer to. >> >> Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in >> humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and >> do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also >> fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in >> general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a >> complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to >> be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. >> >> We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably >> suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely >> no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming >> that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that >> isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that >> turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are >> hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that >> we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on >> the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. >> >> There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be >> objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the >> table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and >> beliefs as much as we can, at home. >> >> In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply >> because there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and >> intelligence in humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack >> on the head bleeding, conscious entity has some level of the, as yet >> undiscovered entity we currently know as 'intelligence;' >> >> > So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and >>>>>> consciousness are mutually independent? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I don't think that. And if Darwin was right (and he was) then one can >>>>> be conscious without being very intelligent but you CAN NOT be very >>>>> intelligent without being conscious. Evolution can see intelligence but >>>>> it >>>>> can't directly see consciousness any better than we can, so if >>>>> consciousness were not a byproduct of intelligence and just be the way >>>>> information feels when it is being processed then there would not be any >>>>> con.scious beings on planet Earth, and yet I know for a fact there is at >>>>> least one. >>>>> >>>> >> I regard this as your core insight, because it has a lot of hallmarks >> that I would associate with thinking about something a lot (good structure, >> lean, mean). >> >> I've mentioned before you've made a mistake in your reasoning. However, >> those two times, I wasn't clear yet exactly how the mistake takes place - >> because it can actually much harder to spot when there is elegance and good >> structure and effort gone into. Because clearly, if it wasn't a case of the >> mistake was being buried as the argument got stronger, the person thinking >> about it would have spotted the problem in the course of doing all that >> improving. >> >> So it's a particular kind of mistake. And I do understand exactly what >> happened now, or think so. And the reason I would like you to know about >> it, is because I also think this is the sort of thing that makes someone >> very sure they must be right, and can in turn explain why, for example, you >> might not feel willing to let go of the whole shebang despite whatever >> arguments. Deutsch does this in my view, for similarish reasons. Almost >> everyone does. One exception here could be Standish..which would make him a >> rarity in my view. Can't be sure obviously. >> >> So do you want to hear it? There's a long version and short version. I >> recommend you hear the short version, which trusts you to do some work. On >> the promise, this is not poorly motivated. Or about patronizing >> beliefs. If anything I worship you dude...you such successful all round >> accomplished totally loaded guy! But seriously, the reason I want you to >> hear it, is because it's the sort of thing we can't see ourselves anymore, >> we totally have to trust in others to notice and help us out. >> >> I say all that, because at least the last two times I tried you didn't >> respond at all. So I had to improve my understanding which can take time, >> because I'm busy and you are probably about as high priority in my life as >> I am in yours! >> >> So the short version John, is look at your use of metaphor. Above you use >> the word "See", but you've used other words. But it's always for the same >> purpose. >> >> Note that you keep that metaphor in place for the duration of the >> argument start to finish. >> >> Note that the metaphor is initially unproblematic because at the start it >> is what it is probably intended to be....an illustrative device to make >> your argument more easy and intuitive to follow for your audience. >> >> Note that by the conclusion the metaphor is now a hard argument in >> Darwinian concepts. >> >> Note that, if you were making the same argument in a more high value >> scenario than a discussion list, you would almost certain wrap another >> argument around a metaphor based argument, in which you make the case >> entirely without that metaphor. >> >> Note there's a common misconception that the metaphor part is for >> illustrative purposes only, and the wrap-around argument is therefore for >> nailing the argument purposes. It's a misconception, because we forget that >> we use metaphor for our own initial thinking. The reason being because it >> simplifies reasoning during the early stages when we ourselves are not >> fully clear what we're doing. >> >> Therefore, a metaphor argument not only simplifies for others but for us. >> And what that means is that, there's a play-off taking place, with risks >> attached. Because a metaphor can also make the *language* seem like a >> problem is solved when it isn't. >> >> So noting all the above, now I ask you to do something you asked me to do >> earlier (about an appalling paragraph). Just look at what your argument >> reduces to, which is the proposition: >> >> Your Proposition: Darwinian Natural Selection is a direct analogue of the >> human difficulty to detect, distinguish, understand, human consciousness. >> >> This isn't true John. Because unlike the human-consciousness situation, >> for which words like "detect" and "see" go a lot further as metaphors to >> the actual problem. Darwinian Natural Selection is an abstract concept for >> which words like that, only go so far without requiring radical >> specialization on the usual meanings of those words. >> >> Natural Selection is abstract that cannot even be placed in a particular >> temporal setting. It's retrospective...from a certain future perspective >> looking back at some earlier point, in terms of some small change. It >> necessarily has to be like this because it's about a small change. And the >> argument is then about..gene frequencies changing, or whatever. Building in >> the other components of evolution involving replication, the environment >> and so on. >> >> And there's a reason for that. And it happens to be very close to the >> same reason why your argument is flawed...and wrong. Natrual Selection is >> an abstract because it doesn't tie to any specific "detection" medium, >> because that necessitates that we be able to think of it. Instead it >> decouples the medium from the outcome. Any small difference, regardless of >> the medium or whether it is known or ever realized, that over a long time >> has an impact on survivability, is regarded as significant and potentially >> enormously significant over longer and longer periods. >> >> That is NOT an analogue for our problem detecting consciousness, which IS >> tied to MEANS. And our means, are very limited so far. Not so Darwinian >> principles. >> > > p.s. couple of things I wanted to mention at this point but forgot > > Firstly, I believe from other conversations that you do understand > Darwinian principles easily well enough to have spotted this matter. The > reason I am mentioning this, is because another quality that I believe I > was able to identify is that you are not rationalizing at the core > argument. I think I know this, because I'm very interested in rationalizing > as something in itself. You make the core argument much to simple for > someone rationalizing, or that would be unusual. Simply because someone > rationalizing, on one level or another, understands there is a hidden flaw. > And it's one of those things that knowing something is there, makes it a > lot harder to visualize how it might be overlooked. > > So when we're doing that, we might feel a little more compelled to "pile > it on"...your core insight exhibits - I think - evidence in which the > priority was making things simpler to get. Which is *like* the priority > with rationalizing, yet so very unlike, that it would be pretty rare we'd > be comfortable leaving things that simple, because to our eyes - on some > level - we'd know the flaw was there, and on that level it be like this big > flashing light. > > Because although rationalizing is very different than lying...on some > level it isn't. It's just that there are more levels, which lying doesn't > have. > > Anyway, the reason I mention this, is because after posting, I noticed you > said a lot of amusing-and-true things, about interestingness and how key > that is. > > And I wanted you to understand why I have focused on this somewhat, and > share with me the interestingness of this, "certain kind" of flaw >
p.p.s. I left out 'lying' as a possibility because I felt it would be absolutely obvious that it hadn't been a consideration for a long time. However, due to some...as mentioned to someone else...temporary and local self-esteem issues, and the matter of what feels like a one-to-many rear guard action on another thread, which incidently seems now to gone where such things often do end up in one-to-many situations...ostrasizing, I shall have to cave in and mention "I obviously don't think you were lying". Because for one thing, that would not be very interesting. And isn't something people usually want 'help' with either. And....despite possible appearances (due to anonymity for example) I'm not a wastrel with time to kill. I would only bother for someone so long as properties like 'integrity-rich-truth-seeking' were much in evidence AND there was large evidence the matter was significantly at the root of a large knock-on positioning AND only for so long as those properties didn't become ruled out during the process. -- 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/d/optout.
