I suspect you meant "any decision is often better than making *none *at all" :-)
"No decision is the wrong decision" as I sometimes like to tell my children. Even more so when it comes to things like climate change. On 25 September 2014 19:18, Russell Standish <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 07:05:43PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: > > On 9/24/2014 6:53 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > > > >On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 5:52 PM, Telmo Menezes > > ><[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >>> John argues that consciousness has real world > consequences in terms of > > > being evolutionary selected > > > > > > > > > >> Either that or consciousness is the side effect of something > else that has > > > real world consequences; if Darwin was right it can't be any > other way. > > > > > > > > > > You keep saying this. You also like to say things like > "consciousness is how > > > information feels when it's being processed". I like that idea. It > shows that you > > > can indeed consider alternatives to the binary choice above. In > this case evolution > > > created a very complex scenario for conscious to feel when being > processed. But it > > > did not create consciousness, > > > > > > > > >Evolution is only interested in intelligent behavior because only > > >that and not consciousness helps get genes into the next > > >generation. So how did consciousness manage to produce at least > > >one being (me) that's conscious? There are only 2 possibilities: > > > > > >1) Perhaps consciousness aids in producing intelligent behavior. > > >If this is true then it would be easier to make a intelligent > > >computer that was conscious than to make a Intelligent computer > > >that was not conscious. It would also mean that the Turing Test is > > >not only a test for intelligence but was also a good (although not > > >infallible) test for consciousness too. > > > > > >2) The only way to produce intelligent behavior is to process > > >information, and perhaps it's just a brute fact that consciousness > > >is how information feels when it's being processed. > > > > > >In my opinion #2 is more likely than #1 but if Darwin was right > > >then one of the two must be true, But either way consciousness > > >must be a biological spandrel, and if you ever run across a smart > > >computer you can conclude that it's probably conscious too. > > > > I think #1 is more likely, so long as we identify consciousness with > > what we experience, e.g. imaging, inner narrative, language (does > > anybody here think they could formulate and understand Lob's theorem > > without language?). #2 is is probably true in the sense that some > > kind of consciousness goes with intelligent information processing. > > But I think there are probably a wide range of different ways to do > > intelligent information processing and they may give rise to > > different kinds of consciousness (e.g. the hive mind of the Borg) > > that would be hard for us to recognize in interacting with them. > > > > Of course these are probably all equivalent under Bruno's idea that > > consciousness is just being a universal computer and so babies and > > trees and genome's are conscious too. But I think that's so broad a > > concept of consciousness as to be obfuscatory. > > > > Brent > > > > My suspicion is also no. #1. Consciousness very likely is a strategy > for being able to bring together disparate, and perhaps contradictory > unconscious thought processes to make a decision for action - any > decision is often better than making one at all. This is essentially > Stephen Mithen's account of how the human mind formed (cathedrals of > the mind and all that). It also accords with Toffoli's integrated > information idea. > > The trouble I have, is that there are obvious ways of achieving the > same ends that don't involves consciousness - eg voting (think of the > three computers controlling the space shuttle). What makes conscious > so much better than these other methods, or is it just an effective > accident? > > -- > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) > Principal, High Performance Coders > Visiting Professor of Mathematics [email protected] > University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au > > Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret > (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -- > 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/d/optout. > -- 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/d/optout.
