On Sunday, December 21, 2014 2:20:01 AM UTC, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Dec 20, 2014 at 3:07 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> > wrote: > > > Part of how you sum up your core insight: that consciousness has no >> detectable objective reality >> > > No, I'm saying that consciousness DOES have a detectable objective reality > if and only if it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels > like when it is processed intelligently. And I'm saying that human beings > can detect intelligent behavior and so can the process that produced them, > Evolution. > > >> > evolution cannot detect consciousness. >> > > If I accept that Darwin was correct and if I also accept that John K Clark > is conscious then I am forced by logic to conclude that consciousness is > indeed the way data feels like when it is processed intelligently. > > As a corollary I MUST also conclude that to whatever degree the Turing > Test is successful at detecting intelligence then it must be equally > successful at detecting consciousness. > > John K Clark >
With the other parts all cut away, it isn't obvious what you have there amounts to a case. Do you have such thing in US English common law as the ruling common enough here of "No case to answer" - grounds for dismissal. -- 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.
