> > > On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 2:48 PM, Bruce Kellett >> So you think that Darwinian evolution produced intelligent zombies, >> and then computationalism infused consciousness? >> >> No. What I am saying is that consciousness is not a plausible target for >> gradual evolution for the following reasons: >> >> 1) There is no evolutionary advantage to it, intelligent zombies could do >> equally well. Every single behaviour that each one of us has, as seen for >> the outside, could be performed by intelligent zombies; >> > > Do you find it an advantage to be conscious in your everyday life?
>From a biological perspective, I don't know. It seems to me that my genes could survive and be propagated without consciousness. There have been some week attempts at demonstrating the evolutionary value of consciousness, but they always seem to equate consciousness with self-modelling. Tell me if you think this thing is conscious: http://thefutureofthings.com/5320-self-modeling-robot/ > Do you really think that your partner and/or children are zombies? No, my personal bet is that intelligent zombies are not possible. I use intelligent zombies as a thought experiment. I bet that consciousness necessarily supervenes on the computations that allow for human intelligence. But this is a personal belief, not a scientific position. I cannot make a scientific claim because I don't know how to design an experiment to test this hypothesis. > > > 2) There is no known mechanism of conscious generation that can be >> climbed. For example, we understand how neurons are computational units, >> how connecting neurons creates a computer, how more neurons and more >> connections create a more powerful computer and so on. Evolution can climb >> this stuff. There is no equivalent known mechanism for consciousness. >> > > This is the tired old creationist crap saying that the eye is too > complicated to be explained by evolution; the bacterium's flagellum is too > complicated...; the ...... is too complicated ..... You are referring to the argument of irreducible complexity. In that case, the claim is that there is too much a priori needed complexity for an eye to function for it to be generated by iterative improvement. This claim counts as a scientific theory because it can be tested. It has been falsified by the fossil record, examples of earlier stages of eye evolution in simpler animals, demonstrations on how a single-cell eye could work, etc. This is not the argument I am making at all. All I am saying is that we don't know what consciousness is and, even worse, we have no way to measure or detect it. If consciousness somehow emerges from brain activity, then it surely originated from evolution, even if has a spandrel. But to make that claim you have to show a mechanism by which brain activity generates consciousness. I don't think anyone has been able to do that, or even propose a falsifiable hypothesis. Having absolute belief that such a mechanism must exist is the same type of mistake that the creationists make. > > At bottom, it is just an argument from ignorance. You do not happen to > know a mechanism whereby consciousness could develop from simpler forms. > But that does not in any way mean that such is not possible. I never claimed it wasn't possible. I simply claimed it is not known. > Creationist anti-intellectualism yet again.... Can't you argue without insulting me? > > > > I don't know if intelligent zombies are possible. Maybe consciousness >> necessarily supervenes on the stuff necessary for that level of >> intelligence. But who knows where consciousness stops supervening? Maybe >> stuff that is not biologically evolved is already conscious. Maybe stars >> are conscious. Who knows? How could we know? >> > > What we can know, by scientific investigation, is that all known life > forms evolved from simpler forms by processes generally described under the > heading of Darwinian evolution. Consciousness is a feature of many living > creatures. If you want to argue that consciousness is something outside the > normal evolutionary process, then you have embraced an irreducibly dualist > position. > That is a fallacy. Consider: All life forms where created by evolutionary processes All life forms have mass Mass was created by evolutionary processes > > I can see that computationalism might well have difficulties accommodating > a gradual evolutionary understanding of almost anything -- after all, the > dovetailer is there in Platonia before anything physical ever appears. So > how can consciousness evolve gradually? > > This, it seems to me, is just another strike against comp -- it does not > fit with the scientific data. It is not hard to imagine evolutionary processes within computations. In fact, that's what I did for a living for some years. What is hard is to explain consciousness, comp or no comp. Pretending to have answers is not a valid argument. Telmo. > > > Bruce > > -- > 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.
