You can no more assume those other parts of your brain are unconscious than you can assume other beings lack consciousness. You might even have solved it consciously but are amnesiac about it.
Jason On Monday, February 2, 2015, LizR <[email protected]> wrote: > All forms of consciousness involve a great amount of intelligence relative to, say, the state of being a rock - e.g. an owl recognising a fieldmouse from a mile away involves a lot of clever processing that might tax an advanced computer programme, although I'm sure we can do something similar nowadays - but that doesn't mean the two are identical, as certain previous posts have implied. For example the dance of bees requries a form of intelligence (encoded genetically) but I'm not sure bees are conscious (even as a "hive mind"). Parts of uor brains are intelligent but not conscious, as I realise every time I solve a problem during my sleep. And so on. > On 3 February 2015 at 09:50, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> On 2/2/2015 9:44 AM, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sun, Feb 1, 2015 at 11:21 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> >> EVERYBODY know how to test for consciousness, intelligence behavior is the test, and and without exception every person on this list has used that test at least once every single day of their lives. >>> >>> > No that's not how they test for consciousness; it's how they test for whether a human being is conscious. >> >> Yes, and as I said in a previous post "The entire thing is completely uncontroversial UNTIL you try to apply it to a computer, and then all of a sudden people insist on changing the rules of the game because they don't like who's winning". But never mind it doesn't really matter, it isn't important if humans think computers are conscious, the important thing is if computers think humans are conscious. >> >>> >>> > If they are dealing with something that looks like a toaster but plays an good game of chess or bridge or jeopardy they don't assume intelligence=consciousness. >> >> And as I said in many many previous posts, if that assumption is wrong then Darwin was wrong too. Do you believe Darwin was wrong? I don't. >> >> I believe you're wrong to assume intelligence=>consciousness. That may be an accident of how carbon-based life developed intelligence. And it may also be that there are different forms of consciousness. Much of our thought is subconscious. Does that imply that it must be? Or that the conscious narrative we experience is necessary? You don't have to believe Darwin was wrong to recognize that not every biological feature had to be the way we find it. >> >> Brent >> >> -- >> 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.
