Am Di, 27. Apr 2021, um 04:07, schrieb 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List: > It certainly seems likely that any brain or AI that can perceive sensory > events and form an inner narrative and memory of that is conscious in a sense > even if they are unable to act. This is commonly the situation during a > dream. One is aware of dreamt events but doesn't actually move in response > to them. > > And I think JKC is wrong when he says "few if any believe other people are > conscious all the time, only during those times that corresponds to the times > they behave intelligently." I generally assume people are conscious if their > eyes are open and they respond to stimuli, even if they are doing something > dumb. > > But I agree with his general point that consciousness is easy and > intelligence is hard.
JFK insists on this point a lot, but I really do not understand how it matters. Maybe so, maybe if idealism or panspychism are correct, consciousness is the easiest thing there is, from an engineering perspective. But what does the tehcnical challenge have to do with searching for truth and understanding reality? Reminds me of something I heard a meditation teacher say once. He said that for eastern people he has to say that "meditation is very hard, it takes a lifetime to master!". Generalizing a lot, eastern culture values the idea of mastering something that is very hard, it is thus a worthy goal. For westerns he says: "meditation is the easiest thing in the world". And thus it satisfies the (generalizing a lot) westerner taste for a magic pill that immediately solves all problems. I think you are falling for similar traps. > I think human consciousness, having an inner narrative, This equivalence that you are smuggling in here is doing a lot of work... and it is the tricky part. "Inner narrative" in the sense of having a private simulation of external reality fits what you say below, but why are the lights on? I have no doubt that evolution can create the simulation, but what makes us live it in the first person? Telmo > is just an evolutionary trick the brain developed for learning and accessing > learned information to inform decisions. > > Julian Jaynes wrote a book about how this may have come about, "The Origin of > Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind". I don't know that he > got it exactly right, but I think he was on to the right idea. > > Brent > > > On 4/26/2021 4:07 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: >> So do you have nothing to say about coma patients who've later woken up and >> said they were conscious? Or people under general anaesthetic who later >> report being gruesomely aware of the surgery they were getting? Should we >> ignore those reports? Or admit that consciousness is worth considering >> independently from its effects on outward behavior? >> >> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 11:16 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 10:45 AM Terren Suydam <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> > It's impossible to refute solipsism >>> >>> True, but it's equally impossible to refute the idea that everything >>> including rocks is conscious. And if both a theory and its exact opposite >>> can neither be proven nor disproven then neither speculation is of any >>> value in trying to figure out how the world works. >>> >>>> *> It's true that the only thing we know for sure is our own >>>> consciousness,* >>> And I know that even I am not conscious all the time, and there is no >>> reason for me to believe other people can do better. >>> >>>> *> but there's nothing about what I said that makes it impossible for >>>> there to be a reality outside of ourselves populated by other people. It >>>> just requires belief.* >>> >>> And few if any believe other people are conscious all the time, only during >>> those times that corresponds to the times they behave intelligently. >>> >>> John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis >>> <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> >>> -- >>> 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 view this discussion on the web visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3NKKuSpfc0%3DemkA75U4rvEmS%2B_bBWtM%3D_Xhc5XnWOr0g%40mail.gmail.com >>> >>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3NKKuSpfc0%3DemkA75U4rvEmS%2B_bBWtM%3D_Xhc5XnWOr0g%40mail.gmail.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 [email protected]. >> To view this discussion on the web visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA9BY%2BBVTmBqaMNtDwqCUC%3DcZ7H%2BCx_ihmr_Dy5prjn7WQ%40mail.gmail.com >> >> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA9BY%2BBVTmBqaMNtDwqCUC%3DcZ7H%2BCx_ihmr_Dy5prjn7WQ%40mail.gmail.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 [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72cf6136-17df-2be5-bdba-5dadf036e08e%40verizon.net > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/72cf6136-17df-2be5-bdba-5dadf036e08e%40verizon.net?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 [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/dc8dc430-56c7-497c-9169-84883e7fb5cc%40www.fastmail.com.
