On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 3:10 PM Terren Suydam <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>> I proposed a question, "How is it possible that evolution managed to >>>> produce consciousness?" and I gave the only answer to that question I could >>>> think of. And 3 times I've asked you if you can think of another answer. >>>> And three times I received nothing back but evasion. I now asked the same >>>> question for a fourth time, given that evolution can't select for what it >>>> can't see and natural selection can see intelligent behavior but it can't >>>> see consciousness, can you give me an explanation different from my own o >>>> n how evolution managed to produce a conscious being such as yourself? >>>> >>> >>> *>>>No, I can't*. >>> >> >> >>So I can explain something that you cannot. So which of our ideas are >> superior? >> > > *> All you've succeeded in doing is showing your preference for a > particular theory * > Correct. If idea X can explain something better than idea Y then I prefer idea X. >> If there is no link between consciousness and intelligence then there is >> absolutely positively no way Darwinian Evolution could have produced >> consciousness. But I don't think Darwin was wrong, I think you are. >> > > *> I'm neither claiming that evolution produced consciousness or that > Darwin was wrong.* > You're going to have to clarify that remark, it can't possibly be as nuts as it seems to be. >> I'm not talking about infinite precision, when it comes to qualia there >> is no assurance that we even approximately agree on meanings. >> > > > *> If that were true, language would be useless.* > Nonsense. If somebody says "pick up that red object" we both know what is expected of us even though we may have very very different mental conceptions of the qualia "red" because we both agree that the dictionary says red is the color formed in the mind when light of a wavelength of 700 nanometers enters the eye, and that object is reflecting light that is doing precisely that to both of us. > >> When they say "that looks red" the red qualia they refer to may be >> your green qualia, and your green qualia could be their red qualia, but >> both of you still use the English word "red" to describe the qualia color >> of blood and the English word "green" to describe the qualia color of a >> leaf. >> > > *> I don't care about that. What matters is that you know you are seeing > red and I know I am seeing red.* > In other words you care more about behavior than consciousness because the use of the word "red" is consistent with both of us, as is our behavior, regardless of what our subjective impression of "red" is. So I guess you're starting to agree with me. 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/CAJPayv3xPtMS0Lwn6p37tZHdAQuPkYOmZWG1qmWVbj7mcoPpbA%40mail.gmail.com.
