On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:43 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > Let's say there are two individuals, one seems to be normal in that there > is no history of injuries to the head. While the other individual fell off > a tricycle and ended up hospitalized with a head injury. Now let's jump > into the shoes of objective reality. >
OK but remember you said "objective reality", Evolution can't detect subjective reality any better than we can. Just like us Evolution can see actions but it can't see intentions. And the more intelligent a animal's actions are the more likely it is that its genes get passed into the next generation. > we happen to know the efficiency of the conscious experience and its > delivery has been negatively impacted. > And the only way you or Evolution could have "happened to know" that is if you observed a impairment in intelligent actions and made a deduction from that using a theory, the theory being that intelligence implies consciousness. A century ago, long before the invention of the computer, this theory would have been completely uncontroversial, and even today everybody, even the most anti-AI people on this list, use this theory every single hour of their waking lives; the only time they don't use it is when they're talking philosophy on the internet because they just don't like the idea of a sentient AI. So now all of a sudden the intelligence/consciousness link is controversial. I say we should look at the facts of the universe the way they are not the way we wish they were. > Let's say this exhibits more strongly in certain activities > If that is possible (and although I can't prove it I believe that it is) then the Turing Test works not only for intelligence but for consciousness too. > > Natural selection will favour the individual that does not have the > efficiency shortfall in consciousness and its delivery. > Natural selection doesn't give a damn about consciousness, how could it if it can't even see it? And yet I know with 100% certainty that Evolution did somehow manage to produce consciousness at least once and probably trillions of times. How can that be? The only explanation is that consciousness is a spandrel, the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence. > > John you need a strong answer to this. > If your argument is valid then you are not conscious, if your argument is not valid then you are conscious. Now ask yourself if you are conscious or not and then ask yourself who won the argument. Strong enough? John K Clark -- 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.
