On Sun, Dec 28, 2014 at 2:33 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> I've been over this many times on this list, a rock may be conscious >> > > > But there's no reason to entertain a rock is conscious to begin with. >
If the rock behaved intelligently then I would think it's conscious, but it doesn't so I don't. But you don't think my reasoning is valid so I want to know why you believe a rock is not conscious. >In all cases, natural selection sits with the universal principle.....the > laws of symmetry, the conservation laws....all of which are variations on > the concept Energy. The universal principles are always about energy. > Natural selection.....is just like 'conservation laws', 'symmetry laws', > What the hell?? > > The more efficient energetic structure, out endures the lesser. > The organism that gets more of its gens into the next generation out-competes the competition, "energetic structure" is just unnecessary bafflegab. > > So all this hocus pocus about consciousness being special and somehow > immune from natural selection. > If consciousness effects behavior then it is NOT immune from natural selection and the Turing test can detect both intelligence and consciousness. If consciousness has nothing to do with behavior then the evidence that a rock is conscious is just as good as the evidence that one of your fellow human beings is. I think a rock is not conscious. my fellow human beings are, and intelagent behavior is a marker of consciousness. > > Consciousness is the product of millions of small or large efficiency > differences, > Differences in the efficiency OF DOING SOMETHING. Behavior. > We draw on common human understandings for the knowledge being under > anesthesia or whatever knocks out consciousness. > What's with this "we" business? What makes you think that anybody except you understands anything? > > in the technological civilization, despite blatently following a > completely different sequence than biological evolution.......and has > access to energy sources and material bioloy never has. > So in effect you're saying that whatever biology came up with (including consciousness) technology can come up with it too, and do it better. I agree. > >> So if nature came up with feeling first and high level intelligence >> only much much later I don't see why the opposite would be true for our >> computers. It's a hell of a lot easier to make something that feels but >> doesn't think than something that thinks but doesn't feel. >> > > > Yeah? > Yeah. > > Historical biology was driven by NATURAL SELECTION. > And random mutation and natural selection is a ridiculously slow and inefficient process, it is also incredibly cruel, but until it got around to inventing brains (after about 3 billion years of screwing around) that was the only way complex thing could get made. However now we have brains and brains begat technology and it will very soon far outstrip anything in biology. > > Conscious intelligent technological being choose their own preferred > sequent. > So there was a reason that being X went left rather than right, preference Y caused him to go in that direction. And cog X in the cuckoo clock turned left rather that right because cog Y caused it to go in that direction. > There are values of a truism nature to what you say here. The Turing test > may SEE insights popping up about intelligence and consciousness. Why not. > But the point isl the test does not DEPEND on any useful measurements of > such quantities taking place. More critically the test does not DEPEND on > non-vague definitions of intelligence or consciousness. There is NO > DEPENDENCE on progress being made defining and understanding this pair of > nebulous vague conceptions. > Can't comment, I don't know what any of that means. Niels Bohr said "I refuse to speak more clearly than I think", perhaps you feel the same way. >> I repeat my question, if you don't use the same thing that the Turing > Test uses, behavior, how in the world do you tell the difference between > a genius and a moron? > You don't understand the turing test. Fine I don't understand the Turing Test, but I repeat my question for a third time, if it isn't behavior how do you tell the difference between a genius and a moron? 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.
