On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:52 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2/3/2015 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable >> effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain >> why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. >> >> >> I'm not arguing that it has no observable effects. JKC says it's >> necessary for intelligence. >> > > Perhaps it is impossible to avoid for human-level intelligence (and > probably lower levels of intelligence as well) I don't know but it is at > least plausible. > > >> I'm arguing that might have been necessary for for the evolution of >> intelligence starting from say fish. But that doesn't entail that is >> necessary for any intelligent system. >> >> >> If we build computers that discuss and question their own consciousness >> and qualia I'd consider that proof enough that they are. >> >> >> But is that the standard of intelligence? JKC argues >> intelligence=>consciousness. What if they discuss and question their own >> consciousness, but say stupid things about it? >> >> > Then the "intelligence bar" for consciousness is low or perhaps > unrelated to intelligence. I think you can have consciousness without > intelligence, but it is more dubious whether you could have human-level > intelligence without consciousness. > > >> The bigger question, is what machines might be conscious yet unable to >> talk about, reflect upon, or signal to us that they are in fact conscious? >> This requires a theory of consciousness. >> >> >> Exactly. That is my concern. Suppose we build an autonomous Mars Rover >> to do research. We give it learning ability, so it must reflect on its >> experience and act intelligently. Have we made a conscious being? >> Contrary to Bruno, I think there are kinds and degrees of consciousness - >> just as there are kinds and degrees of intelligence. >> > > Well the question "is something conscious?" is binary, like "is > something alive?". However there is a great spectrum of possible living > entities, and a massive gulf that separates the simplest life forms from > the most complex life forms. I think the same is true of consciousness. The > mars rover might be conscious, but its consciousness might be as simple as > a bacterium's biology is compared to a human's. > > > That seems inconsistent with being "binary", like "being alive". First, > being alive isn't "binary". Are viruses alive? Prions? Cigarettes? > Any of those things are either alive or they aren't (according to some theory of liveness). > Secondly, why shouldn't there be degrees of consciousness all the way from > "My thermostat is aware of the temperature." to "Bruno's aware of the > unprovable truths of arithmetic." > Living things can take many forms, and vary vastly in complexity, and I think the same is true of consciousness: it may take many forms and vary significantly in complexity. Is a bacterium comparable to a blue whale? No, but they're still alive. A bacterium isn't less alive than a blue whale just because its less intricate or smaller. > Why should we count them as "binary"? Maybe there are beings whose > brains implement hypercomputation; wouldn't you expect them to have > qualitatively different consciousness, e.g. being aware of all consequences > of any finite axiom set. > > They do have different consciousnesses. But that doesn't make lesser consciousness "unconsciouss" or "not consciouss". Jason -- 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.
