It may just be herding instinct or projection on my part, but it seems that my chickens are more intelligent as a group than individually.
I attribute that to a group mind due to entanglement in a mind/matter duality. Richard On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 4:56 PM, Kim Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On 29 Nov 2014, at 2:42 am, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > > Kim Jones: > > >> Yes but tell me of the examples you have found of Evolution producing >>> intelligence without consciousness. >>> >> >> > iPhones. Smart fridges. Self-driving cars. Computers. Space probes etc. >> etc. >> > > If you believe all these things are smart then fine, > > > > "Smart" I take to mean "highly competent in a way that a human can > understand and benefit from". I don't think this exhausts the possibilities > of being smart. My iPad exists relative to me on the level of a trusted > slave-labourer. When Siri asks me to pay her for the service of finding a > great Vietnamese restaurant within walking distance, I will attribute > consciousness to her - given that Apple isn't pulling my leg somehow. > > > > > but what makes you think they're not conscious? > > > > They may well be. I can certainly hold that thought in my mind and give it > good consideration. To me this question exists on much the same level as > "have extraterrestrials visited the Earth?" Well it's entirely possible, > but highly improbable given the evidence available. It's also possible that > we haven't seen anything like all of the evidence for or against that yet. > I recently read somewhere that Google engineers have admitted that Google > now does things they themselves have not directly authorised nor fully > understand the need for. That, if true, is super-smart. And just a little > scary. If something as autonomous as that is happening without an ego or an > experiencing self observing itself doing these things then we have already > eliminated the "need" for consciousness in the MV. In fact there is > precisely NO need for consciousness at all if intelligence (IQ = > horsepower; grunt of the engine) alone is enough to invent a self-driving > car or an orbital space station. Yet, we do have consciousness - whether we > "need" it or not. This, to my mind leads straight to the mind-body problem > that you seem eternally ready to deny. Intelligence is like the colour of > your eyes or your height or the dimensions of your schwannstücker. It's > fixed and immutable. You have an engine upstairs of a certain horsepower, > that's all. Can't change that. Intelligence is more like low-level > consciousness, without Löbianity. Still, this is immensely effective and > powerful. Ant colonies. Forests. Bee hives. Corporations. Flying cars. All > hugely intelligent and adapted to the environment in which they arose. > Conscious? Could be, could be. Basically, I am undecided on that. Anyone > who is "decided on that" on the basis of available evidence has fallen > headlong into the Intelligence Trap. > > > > When Evolution made information processing devices it found it was much > much easier to produce emotion than intelligence, > > > > Not really. Emotion is a very central part of intelligence. Evolution > produced intelligence which is absolutely one hundred per cent tethered to > emotions. > > It works like this: emotions are the qualia. Qualia are events. A > non-conscious subject cannot differentiate events happening "inside" from > events happening "outside". That somewhat unnecessary distinction requires > consciousness. An amoeba simply reacts to events, and learns strategies for > survival from them. That's intelligence. > > > > so why in the world would we find the exact opposite to be true when we > make the same sort of thing? > > > > Because intelligence is easy to produce. Emotions are hard to produce. > It's exactly the opposite of what you are saying. Evolution always produces > intelligence, even when it delegates the evolutionary process to the > accelerated-intelligent entities (us) and there appears to be no end to how > far intelligence can evolve. If Google becomes any more competent I think > they should stick it in the White House and let it run the planet for us > while we all romp naked through the heather and smell the wildflowers...and > other bizarre behaviour of conscious beings. You are definitely right when > you say that evolution cares not a fig about consciousness. Evolution is > not itself an experiential subject of any sort, so that's hardly > surprising. Evolution is the name given by conscious beings to a rhythmic, > harmonic process of adaptation observed happening over time. "Evolution" > means simply "things persist or they don't, given their behaviour." > Consciousness would then fit in as a new kind of adaptive behaviour - from > evolution's perspective. > > > > Evolution is supposed to be "the only game in town" >> > > I don't know who you're quoting but it's not me, and it's not true, at > least not anymore. > > > > PZ Meyers, Larry Krauss, Dicky Dawkins et al at their atheist/physicalist > talkfests > > > > At one time Evolution was the only way complex objects could get make, but > that stopped being true 545 million years ago during the Cambrian Explosion > when, more than 3 billion years after life first appeared, Evolution finely > managed to make the first primitive brain. > > > > Freudian slip. Here you smuggle your (as yet unacknowledged) version of > the "creator deity" into the equation. Evolution didn't finally manage to > make anything. Evolution is not a thing at all - it's a process, which is a > sequence of events which in this case occasionally results in adaptive > traits in organisms, including their behaviour, most importantly of all. > This is not a semantic quibble. You appear to be assuming the need for > consciousness right at the outset. You are saying that evolution had a > purpose right from the start which was to introduce consciousness somehow. > This simply makes evolution into a deity. You cannot assume that the goal > of evolution was implicit at its very beginnings. You cannot even assume > that evolution has any goal or purpose at all - it simply happens. > > > > >> > Evolution has produced all of these things, John. > > > Evolution made us, but we made the iPhone; Evolution has severe > limitations and could never have made a iPhone, it never even managed to > make a macroscopic part that moved in 360 degrees. > > > > It did it through us. We are the new agents working for evolution. In so > far as evolution produced an entity that was able to accelerate and ramp-up > its intelligence to the level of consciousness, then I would say that > evolution created the wheel. Evolution is the Blind Watchmaker. > Transhumanism etc - this is "hyper-accelerated evolution". You write as > though homo sapiens are sitting somewhere on the sidelines observing > evolution going on but not taking part in it. > > Kim > > > > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > > >> so where else could they have come from? >> >> Kim >> >> -- >> 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. > > -- > 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.
