Bruno, It occurred to me that if consciousness is entirely classical- no quantum effects- then perhaps consciousness on occurs in one world. Or in general if most natural processes are classical, then we are mostly in one world, maybe with a little fuzziness. Richard
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 11:37 AM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
