> On 28 May 2019, at 09:56, Philip Thrift <cloudver...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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.
Which one? The invocation of the existence of physical universe to explain why we see a physical universe simply does no more work when we assume the mechanist explanation of the cognition. If your criteria os instrumentalist, then science works very well, but abandon the fundamental explanation to the charlatan. Better to come back to science, and to stop separating science and religion. Science is properly included in religion. A religion which fear science is a religion based on lies. Only liars fear the possible truth and the search for it. I guess you mean “theology” in the sense of those who decide to subtract it from reason and science, and yes, that idea does not work, for obvious reason. Bruno > > Brent > > > I was thinking yesterday about what any theory/model of consciousness would > be good for. > > http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness > <http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Models_of_consciousness> > https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Robert_Prentner > <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—should 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/ > <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 > <mailto: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 > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/21c0c753-27b8-475b-94e0-0535f196fd5a%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- 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/CDEB3502-5C63-4F6B-8627-486653DEF061%40ulb.ac.be.
