On Thursday, October 11, 2018 at 5:06:08 AM UTC-5, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 11:01:53 PM UTC-5, Pierz wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 9:41:39 PM UTC+11, Philip Thrift wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, October 10, 2018 at 12:41:04 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 10/9/2018 9:18 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tuesday, October 9, 2018 at 6:45:55 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10/9/2018 11:01 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> If you reject intelligent behavior as a tool for detecting >>>>>> consciousness then how did you determine that? And how can you figure >>>>>> out >>>>>> anything else about any consciousness except for your own? I don't >>>>>> think >>>>>> there is any way, I think the only alternative is solipsism. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> That is a good question. I still think that we will have lots of >>>>> intelligent robots running around - really smart, can win on Jeopardy!, >>>>> can >>>>> drive cars, can "fake" emotions ... - but we will not consider them >>>>> conscious. We can (hopefully) turn them off and destroy them whenever we >>>>> want. We do have something like a consciousness test in the case of >>>>> medical >>>>> decisions at end-of-life. So I think a consciousness test will be >>>>> different >>>>> than an intelligence test. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Sure. Garden slugs are conscious at the level of perception, that's >>>>> how they find food and mates. But they're not very intelligent. >>>>> >>>>> Brent >>>>> >>>> >>>> Do slugs perceive, or do they just react? Does a slug say to itself, "I >>>> like the taste of that"? >>>> >>>> >>>> Is consciousness just the use of language? Dogs and chimps don't have >>>> language either. Why aren't perception and awareness forms of >>>> consciousness? >>>> >>>> Brent >>>> >>> >>> >>> Some say humans didn't become fully conscious until they had (recursive) >>> language. >>> >>> Yair Neumana, Ophir Nave: Why the brain needs language in order to be >>> self-conscious >>> <https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0732118X09000312> >>> >>> You need to distinguish between raw qualia - the presence of experience >> or a "what it's like to be" - and self-consciousness, or awareness of >> being a self. The latter is a kind of meta-quale, an awareness of the fact >> of having qualia which must surely come much further up the neural >> complexity hierarchy than just pure experience itself. I always find it >> hard to understand why these completely different things get confused. I'm >> pretty sure a fly experiences suffering of some kind when I spray it with >> insecticide. I'm also pretty sure it has no consciousness of being a self. >> >>> >>> Consciousness = Linguisticity+Experientiality (both), it would >>> seem. >>> >>> - >>> https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/08/09/the-matter-of-consciousness/ >>> >>> > > That's right. I take "experience" to mean basically what Galen Strawson > says about it. > > > https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html > > : > > > Every day, it seems, some verifiably intelligent person tells us that we > don’t know what consciousness is. The nature of consciousness, they say, is > an awesome mystery. It’s the ultimate hard problem. The current Wikipedia > entry is typical: Consciousness “is the most mysterious aspect of our > lives”; philosophers “have struggled to comprehend the nature of > consciousness.” > > I find this odd because we know exactly what consciousness is — where by > “consciousness” I mean what most people mean in this debate: experience of > any kind whatever. It’s the most familiar thing there is, whether it’s > experience of emotion, pain, understanding what someone is saying, seeing, > hearing, touching, tasting or feeling. It is in fact the only thing in the > universe whose ultimate intrinsic nature we can claim to know. It is > utterly unmysterious. > > ... > ----- > > > There are lower-level ["sensory"] and higher-level [self-aware, > "understanding"] experiential modalities. These are what have to be > included to have a complete "language of matter" - one that is more than > just information processing. > > Back to biological evolution, it is actually a guide in one way to making > conscious objects: They can only be made from particular molecules. The > sight kind of chemical "soup" was needed to make life. > > [edit] The right kind of chemical "soup" was needed to make life.
- pt > -- 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
