I apologize for this unreadable drivel
On Friday, December 12, 2014 4:45:39 AM UTC, [email protected] wrote: > hi John, zibbsey here, we left things that I'd get back to you. if ok with > you I've some points / questions > > On Saturday, November 29, 2014 5:57:38 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 28, 2014 at 6:01 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I was talking about your root idea that Evolution cannot detect >>> consciousness >>> >> >> It can't and neither can we. >> >> > (because we can't, I think you said) >>> >> >> The reason isn't because of us, it's just that neither we nor Evolution >> nor anything else can detect consciousness other than our own, we can only >> detect actions. >> > > You are trying to perform a generalization, of two very different > conceptions above, adding a third below in the form of Turing test. > > Generalizations of that kind are extremely hard to accomplish. > > The *Human Context*: Humans are yet to make dramatic progress defining > consciousness, locating it in the brain, and so on. Humans are restricted > Actions > in what they have the potential to detect . Humans have abstract theory, > for example. A large component of what abstract theory > detects, are INVARIANT features. Which aren't Actions. > > The *Natural Selection* Context.. NS is an Abstract.. Not due to some > preference, but fundamentally What was attracting selection, at what > MAGNITUDE WITH WHAT LONG TERM IMPACT, whether it reaches unity in the > population, or indeed whether organism gets eaten and the selection event > simply did not happen. > > All of this does not begin to manifest into trait characteristics until > generations,, millennia even, after the first signs of that through > manifestation is attracting natural selection first appear. > > NS is fundamentally Abstract. That's the Invariance that m akes possible > everything else to be exchangeable. What you want to do with the concept - > your goal - drives natural selection from one structure to the next very > different structure. > > e.g. if it's about fundamentals the structure might be 'replicators'; > > -if its about what trait was attracting selection at what magnitude, and > how far trait went...whether it became unity in the population, then NS for > that context is defined by two temporal points; cannot be tied to just one > alone. This is because the characteristics being queried do not begin to > manifest for generations , millennia even, after the first signs of that > trait attracting selection first appear. AND ONLY manifest at all if there > is sufficiently unbroken selection from that first appearance right through > to that manifestation. AND ONLY if that interval of selection exhibits > exponential effects. I could go on: Only if the source of the exponential > effects correspond to the laws of population genetics. > > The point is John NS is an Abstract. A term such as "NS detects...." must > be restricted to the Brittle Metaphor the phrase gets coined to furnish. > > Put differently, "Evolution detect...." is a slight variation of say > "Evolution prefers..." or "Evolution creates...." or "kills..." > > They are strictly metaphors John. There no real overlay - at al - that is > non-trivial with the ways "Humans detect...." has a range of contexts. We > "detect" in literal, if abstract ways tied in closely with our temporal and > macroscopic - constrained reality. Humans detect things via physical. Very > often Actions as you say (not only Actions). > > Evolution has essentially zero non-trivial evolutionary dependence on > Actions. For natural selection to 'detect' an 'action' the action would > have to become INVARIANT an abstract space that was also Time INVARIANT, in > that instance caused by there being no "t" term in the equation. Instead it > becomes about generations. The Action consistently manifests given the same > conditions to some resolution. The same conditions giving rise to the same > Action consistently re-manifests in successive generations. > > In reality, it would go to deeper resolutions, like only the sub-region of > the Action, that the most instances of recurrence fully overlay through all > Actions, will being to approach the closest context in which evolution > 'detects' ....'Actions'. > > *The Turing Test Context* > > The Turin Test is something wholly different again. The reason you are > logically flawed here, is that Alan Turing specified - explicitly - an > indirect detention of consciousness via everything another consciousness is > able to throw at a notional black box, without I/O exhibiting traits of > full intelligence. > > The formulation of the Turing Test makes no statement at all about the > relationship of intelligence to consciousness. T > > There is no commitment implied or stated to a fundamental hard linkage of > intelligence and consciousness. > > > This is because Turing Tests for Consciousness given a blackbox I/O > hallmarking intelligence.. NOT BY measuring the Intelligence. If that was > the case the measure becomes highly standardizable. Which equates to being > suited for AUTOMATION in which condition the there is no requirement for > the consciousness entity stipulated in the Test. So it vanishes, which > causes the test to vanish. > > Alan Turing clearly, observably, does not go in this direction. What he > tests for is the presence of CONSCIOUSNESS THROUGH AN INTERFACE > NECESSARILY EXHIBITING INTELIGENCE > > That intelligence is defined such that consciousness cannot be ruled out > on technical grounds. Nor rule IN on technical grounds. > > Turning argues instead that a conscious life form - a species - has must > embody the potential to come up with a formula that maximizes the > Consciousness-Loading and minimizes the INTELLIGENCE by leveraging > increasingly simple yet punitive terms, by techiques including things like > reflecton ad introspection, see enrichment of the consciousness element. > > > For example, you do appreciate I hope ad understand that Turing at all > times defines intelligence in terms of some whole. thing, the same way that > human intelligence is a whole thing. Turn NEVideER diverges from the > holistic standard to the components . He doesn't. And you do, and then go > much further. Through lo Purpose specific intelligence such as DEEP BLUE > (and still you carry on on, apparently all the way to generic computation > which involved Chess. > > Turning did not suggest that, in fact indicated the e opposite. Turing's > Test would have the consciouis being evaluate Deep Blue All ways and any, > save Chess. > > > > What I showed in was that natural selection will detect any kind of >>> difference between the same traits in two individuals, >>> >> >> Only if those different traits produce different actions. If a >> intelligent but non-conscious animal behaves differently than a intelligent >> and conscious animal then Evolution can detect that and so can the Turing >> Test >> > > No john. because the Turing Test specifies a specific route to detection. > You'd need a different test for detecting the difference in that animals > behaviour. > > >> And Evolution will favor whichever behavior is smarter, and if I'm >> correct and you can't have intelligence without consciousness then that >> would make Evolution's choice easy. >> > > It's obviously not my gift to say.But based on the fragilities and > misconceptions and errors reasoning I should think it's reasonable to > assume you are not necessary even wrong :o) Just kidding > >> >> > > > >> >> Give me a argument that Evolution can see consciousness and I'll either >> give you a counterargument or concede and thank you for correcting my >> error, but so far all I've heard is that consciousness makes a animal >> behave differently, something I already knew MUST be true or Evolution >> would have never produced it. And if it effects behavior then the Turing >> Test must work for consciousness too because lack of consciousness implies >> lack of intelligence and that implies lack of intelligent actions. >> >> 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.
