On 2/2/2015 8:26 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 2, 2015 at 3:50 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> I believe you're wrong to assume intelligence=>consciousness. That may
be an accident
If consciousness was just a lucky accident Evolution would ensure that it didn't exist
for long.
Only if it cost something to maintain consciousness and only if there were a biologically
cheaper way to achieve intelligence by eliding consciousness that could be reached by a
series of mutations each of which was either advantageous or neutral.
The same sort of thing you've maintained in other contexts.
Conscious does not effect behavior (that's why the Turing Test doesn't work) so it
doesn't enhance survival, so from Evolution's point of view it would be as useless as
eyes are for cave animals, and it would disappear in a dozen generations or so due to
genetic drift just as the eyes of cave animals did.
> of how carbon-based life developed intelligence.
So carbon atoms are conscious but silicon atoms are not. Well... I can't prove that's
wrong but I really think it is.
If you think atoms are conscious you're more mystic than Bruno.
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.
