On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 6:57:35 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 2:51 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com
> <javascript:>> wrote:
>
>
>> *> But what is information processing?*
>>
>
> It is the process of extracting information from data, and information is
> the resolution of uncertainty. And my unproven assumption (which will never
> be proven but is the only thing that prevents me from becoming a solipsist)
> is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed.
>
> *> a robot - which is matter - that is doing very advanced, high-level
>> information processing - could be a winner on Jeopardy, and talk to you in
>> a conversation, could be a zombie.*
>
>
> If you somehow knew for a fact a brilliant being was a zombie then you
> could immediately make one conclusion about it, the being could NOT be the
> product of Darwinian Evolution because Natural Selection can see
> intelligence but it can't see consciousness in others any better than we
> can, and it can't select for something it can't see. But of course there is
> no way you could ever know a brilliant being was a zombie or know he was
> not a zombie either unless a important assumption is made, intelligent
> behavior implies consciousness.
>
> *> Are you a zombie?*
>
>
> No. But isn't that what you'd expect a philosophical zombie to say?
>
> > *Now I would just way that the jury is out about qualia ⇨ information.*
>>
>
> The jury is NOT out over the fact that if your consciousness changes the
> informational processing of your brain changes and if the informational
> processing of your brain changes your consciousness changes. Regarding all
> other matters involving consciousness the jury is still out and will remain
> out until the end of time, and that's why complex consciousness theories
> are such a complete waste of time.
>
>
>> *> If the above paper is right, then it's sort of settled, right?*
>>
>
> The question of consciousness is as settled as it's ever going to be,
> that's why the field of consciousness research has not moved an inch or
> even a nanometer in a century. But Artificial *INTELLIGENCE* research is
> alive and well.
>
>
>> > *I still think the phenomenologists are right, that quaia is a
>> different type of entity than information,*
>>
>
> Obviously they're different things but they're intimately related.
>
> John K Clark
>
I'm not going to
T*he Science of Consciousness 2019*
https://www.tsc2019-interlaken.ch/
next month (so Interlaken will be without me), but there is a whole bunch
of people who think the subject of consciousness is a serious scientific
endeavor.
As you know I worked in an AI lab in the '80s and '90s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Instruments#Artificial_intelligence
and I have several AI patents from that time. (One of the people I worked
with there I saw just last week is now working for an AI company making
software for cars (e.g. self-driving) with computer vision.
AI via information processing (conventional computing) will of course get
very good. But my sense is that experience processing becomes a matter of
interest when the "compiled object code" is produced via biocompilers (or
compilers to bio-like materials).
@philipthrift
--
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 view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/f4170dae-18fd-453a-b9da-b338f87967bf%40googlegroups.com.
