On Tue, Oct 16, 2018 at 6:13 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>Nothing happened to them because neurons and hormones also have structure >> as do all complex objects, about the only things that don't (as far as we >> know) are electrons, positrons, photons, neutrinos and possibly quarks >> and Black Holes. > > > * >OK, and the change of those structures is what makes one deceased. * > Correct, so a very small change in structure can cause a HUGE change in behavior, like the difference in behavior between the living and the dead. But how do you know the deceased are not conscious? Because they don't behave intelligently. And so structural similarity is a very poor indicator of consciousness, unless of course you believe cadavers are conscious. * >The genetic code used by a yeast cell is also identical to the one you > use. And you and a fermenting vat of beer rely on the same laws of organic > chemistry* > Yes. > .> Hence your intelligence is the same. > No. > *You are arguing that there is no difference in the degree of similarity between humans and between a human and an octopus.* NO. I am arguing there is more similarity between you and a live octopus than you and a dead human because regardless of structural similarity one certainly has the ability to behave intelligently and one certainly does not, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude that one is conscious and one is not. >> As a practical matter it will make no difference if you think a super >> intelligent computer is conscious but it will make a huge difference if the >> intelligent computer thinks you are conscious because nothing can feel >> empathy for something they don't think is conscious and in the future it >> will be the computer who is in the position of power not the human. > > > > * >Did anyone ask for your opinion on this point...which you interject as > a diversion from time to time?* > If you are able to logically refute what said above please do so, you'd be doing me a great service by pointing out an error that I overlooked; but lets get one thing crystal clear, I don't need your permission before I can express myself on this list. > >>Yes, because everybody knows they don't act intelligently all the time, >> not when they're sleeping or under anesthesia, and those times correspond >> to the times they know they are not conscious. > > > *I see, it's when they know they are not conscious they know they don't > act intelligently. That seems to be a lot of knowing for one who is > unconscious.* > This is getting silly, I know I was not conscious last night at 3 am and I know I didn't do anything intelligent last night at 3 am. >>I don't see your point. Evolution also started from scratch, simple amino >> acids and nucleotides. > > > * >It started from scratch to produce life...intelligence was just one > small effect. Engineers already have life.* > So engineers will have an easier time making a conscious mind than Evolution did and do it a lot faster. >>I don't think you intended it but you seem to be arguing that human >> engineers would find it even easier to build a conscious mind than >> evolution did, but I don't understand that argument either because >> engineers had to start with the pre-conscious physics of silicon atoms. > > > >Well, they build airplanes in less that fifty years of trying...and they > used non-flying atoms. How long did evolution take? > A bit more than 50 years, about 3 billion. So we can conclude that intelligent design is much much faster than random mutation and natural selection, and thus human engineers will have an easier time making a conscious mind than Evolution did and do it a lot faster. > >>I admit it's not proof, we'll never have that, but its enormously >> powerful evidence. > > > * >What? Now you think my similarity to other humans is enormously > powerful evidence that they are conscious in the way I know I am? * > No. I think the fact that Evolution can see intelligence but not consciousness and thus cannot select for it but nevertheless managed to produce at least one conscious being (me) and probably many more is enormously powerful evidence that consciousness is a inevitable byproduct of intelligence. And I find it difficult to believe you simply misinterpreted what I said, I think you are being disingenuous. > *> I'm glad to see you reverse your position that it's as fallacious as > assuming my similarity to a dead person means were both intelligent.* This is getting sillier and sillier. Your structural similarity to a dead person shows that structural similarity is *NOT* a good indicator of intelligent behavior nor of consciousness. For your benefit I'm going to repeat that, it's *NOT* a good indicator. >>And whatever people say when they're philosophizing, in everyday life >> whatever its shortcomings may be intelligent behavior is the *ONLY* tool >> they have for distinguishing between conscious matter and non-conscious >> matter. > > > >Back to bullshit. > If its bullshit then you have found a way other than intelligent behavior that you use in everyday life to determine when your fellow human beings are conscious and when they are not. This is big news let's hear all about it, I'm all ears! 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
