On Tuesday, May 28, 2019 at 1:00:30 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/27/2019 11:06 AM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, May 27, 2019 at 8:38:58 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 3:57 AM Philip Thrift <cloud...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> *> It is odd that the phenomenon of consciousness would be a "hard" >>> problem, as if other "problems" of nature would be "easy". We don't know >>> what dark matter and dark energy are.* >>> >> >> The question "What is Dark Matter?" is the second most important question >> in physics beaten only by "What is Dark Energy?". We don't know the answer >> to either one but as least the question is clear so in that sense they are >> easy. But nobody even knows what the "hard" question of consciousness is >> much less have a answer, by that I mean nobody even knows the general form >> an answer would take that would allow people like Bruno to say it has been >> solved. >> >> For example, if I discovered a new stable particle that was so numerous >> that its mass added up to 5 times the mass of all normal baryonic matter >> in the universe then the Dark Matter question would be answered; and if it >> can be proven that Einstein's Cosmological Constant exists and exerts a >> negative pressure then the Dark Energy question will be answered. But what >> would allow you to say the hard question of consciousness has been >> answered? I have no idea because the question has not been stated clearly. >> >> John K Clark >> > > > My main point is we don't know what *gravity* is either. Witness all the > physicists today - some say it is "emergent" (not fundamental) and a dozen > other options for *what gravity is*. > > We observe both the existence of consciousness (in ourselves) and > phenomenal gravity (in everything, recording how things move) but there is > still a hard problem of gravity. There is no accepted final theory of > gravity. And no "problem" of science (including gravity) will ever be > "solved". That idea is a form of theology. Science just comes up with > theories that might be useful in some way. > > > On the other hand, the solutions science finds work better than the > solutions provided by every other disciplines...like theology. > > Brent >
I was thinking yesterday about what any theory/model of consciousness would be good for. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Prentner etc. There is a scientific subject called Psychology, and professional Ph.D. clinical psychologists that treat people. Maybe a theory of consciousness can be useful there. Or in sociology, political science. There is of course the engineering prospect of making conscious robots. But Daniel Dennett apparently says now that effort should be stopped. ... So what we are creating are not—s*hould not be*—conscious, humanoid agents but an entirely new sort of entity, rather like oracles, with no conscience, no fear of death, no distracting loves and hates, no personality (but all sorts of foibles and quirks that would no doubt be identified as the “personality” of the system): boxes of truths (if we’re lucky) almost certainly contaminated with a scattering of falsehoods. It will be hard enough learning to live with them without distracting ourselves with fantasies about the Singularity in which these AIs will enslave us, literally. The human use of human beings will soon be changed—once again—forever, but we can take the tiller and steer between some of the hazards if we take responsibility for our trajectory. https://www.wired.com/story/will-ai-achieve-consciousness-wrong-question/ @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/21c0c753-27b8-475b-94e0-0535f196fd5a%40googlegroups.com.
