I agree that solving the folding of protein problem is a huge accomplishment. To get consciousness you need to apply DeepMind on itself, and wait. That will give a sort of "universal baby", and it will get the G* theology/psychology as long as it remains arithmetically sound. Consciousness is really just the knowledge (true belief) that there is some reality, followed by the Löbian understanding that this reality is not definable "by me", unless introducing some strong hypothesis, like (digital) Mechanism. I read that the most powerful version of Alphago, the playing go program (neural net) is the version which learned by playing only with itself. It beats completely the version learning from a lot a great player examples. That was predicted by Mechanism, except that Mechanism did not put a limit if time for the learning phase. We are really close to make that universal baby, and we might get a terrible child, also. It will be like with kids: a problem of education.
On Monday, July 26, 2021 at 11:33:27 AM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Jul 25, 2021 at 7:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > >> In the final analysis the only way to test a theory is by making >>> objective observations about the way things behave, but consciousness is a >>> subjective phenomenon and that's what causes the problem. The theory that >>> other humans besides me are conscious is perfectly consistent with all >>> observable evidence, but so is the theory that I am the only conscious >>> being in the universe, >> >> >> *> But that's inconsistent with the theory that consciousness is >>> instantiated by physical processes in the brain.* >> >> > No it is not. Your brain operates differently than my brain, if it did not > then we would be the same person. Only one chunk of matter in the > observable universe operates in a johnkclarkien way, and the theory that > the johnkclarkien way is the only way consciousness can be produced is > perfectly consistent with all observational evidence available to me. And > even I am not conscious all the time, not when I'm sleeping or under > anesthetic and I almost certainly won't be conscious when I'm dead either. > > > And that theory is supported by many observations and experiments on >> brains and the reports by subjects. >> > > Many? When it comes to consciousness I have one and only one data point to > work with, and there are an infinite number of ways to draw a line through > a single point. > > >> and so is the theory that EVERYTHING is equally conscious, even grains >>> of sand, even atoms, even quarks and electrons. The trouble is ANY conscious >>> ness theory will fit the observable facts just fine, and that's why ALL >>> consciousness theories are utterly useless, except for the theory that >>> solipsism is untrue, that one has a use. >> >> >> *> But that's the way all theories are. We provisionally believe the >> ones that are consistent with the facts* >> > > All theories of consciousness fit the facts, the same can certainly *NOT* > be said of theories of intelligence, that's why consciousness is easy but > intelligence is hard. > > >> > *And the theory of minds, that other people (and animals) are >> conscious and have an internal narrative, is extremely useful and in fact >> any human lineage that did not hold that theory has already been eliminated >> by evolution. * >> > > I agree, but if consciousness is not the way data feels when it is being > processed (which I have a hunch is true even though I will never be able to > prove it) then a non-conscious being could still calculate how its own > actions are likely to affect the environment in the future, and part of > that environment would be other non-conscious beings, who also calculate > what affect their actions will have on the environment in the future. When > 3 grains of sand interact in a Newtonian gravitational way, one grain of > sand changes the position of the other two grains, and the other two grains > change the position of the first grain, however that is not evidence that > the 3 grains of sand are conscious. Of course it is not evidence that the 3 > grains of sand are not conscious either. > > *> Did you ever read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the >> Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"?* >> > > No I haven't read it, I have heard a little bit about it and my first > impression (which I admit may be unfair because as I've said I have not > read the entire book so maybe parts of it are good) is that it just > proposes yet another theory of consciousness that is no better and no worse > than every other rival theory of consciousness. > > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > 89n > > -- 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/750be077-066b-456c-9f07-ad6d07dd1d34n%40googlegroups.com.
