On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >
Not so. Mutations happen all the time and nearly all of them are harmful. In most animals If a mutation happens that renders it blind that will be a severe handicap and the animal will not live long enough to pass that mutated gene onto the next generation; but if it happens in a cave creature it's no handicap at all and so it will get into the next generation, the end result is that cave creatures are not only blind they don't even have eyes, and yet they survive just fine. In the same way if consciousness wasn't a byproduct of intelligence and instead was just something tacked on that didn't effect behavior (and of course renders the Turing Test ineffective) then a creature with a mutation that stopped the consciousness mechanism from working would survive just as well as one without the mutation. Pretty soon nobody would be conscious, but I know for a fact that at least one is. So either Darwin was wrong or consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence. I don't think Darwin was wrong. >> 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. > You're the one who was talking about a special connection between carbon and consciousness not me. 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.
