On 9/26/2014 4:59 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:11 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 9/26/2014 3:33 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 9:07 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 9/25/2014 10:09 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 10:05 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
>> 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
I don't know why you say "we", there is only one being you know to be
conscious without even the smallest doubt. And things happen even to
rocks, is
this what you mean by "experience"?
You should read at least to the end of the sentence before asking what
it means.
> imaging, inner narrative, language (does anybody here think they
could
formulate and understand Lob's theorem without language?).
But does use of language imply consciousness?
No, but I think it is necessary to much of my consciousness, i.e.
without it I
would have a different and diminished consciousness.
If so then Watson is conscious, after all the only way we have of
knowing if
somebody understands something is to ask them questions about it and
see if
they give satisfactory answers.
Sure, I think Watson is conscious, but not as conscious as I am. For
example I
don't think Watson could pass the usual test I get when I crash my
motorcycle:
How many fingers do you see?
So a blind person is less conscious than you?
Slightly. Unless they have heightened compensatory perceptions in other
modes.
Ok. So it's fairly accepted that blind people do compensate on other perception
channels. It could also be argued that blindness makes it easier to be aware of internal
states. People tend to close their eyes when they need to process some strong emotion,
for example.
I use headphones with noise cancelation playing some repetitive noise when I am having
trouble focusing on some writing task or algorithm.
So it all seems to boil down to being aware of certain parts of the universe versus
other parts. Why is is that perceiving photons being emitted around me makes me more
conscious than closing my eyes and thinking about some abstract algorithm, for example?
This seems to lead to an infinite regress of consciousness being a property that is
granted from interaction with some ever expanding "outside".
Because it provides an additional mode for your thoughts. Perception is certainly part of
consciousness. By your argument all modes of perception must be equivalent else we're led
to infinite regress.
Brent
--
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.
