Richard: I enjoyed your chickenfoot reply, YET cannot subscribe for it's expansion to humans: GROUPS od humans seem to be more stupid than any level immaginable.; Well, that much for our kind. Respectfully John Mikes
On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:08 PM, Richard Ruquist <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. > -- 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.
