The authors are professionals. You hold that your knowledge base is is greater than the authors? EM surely could be the root of how humans get conscious, and that could easily be the quantum field effect, no, not quantum computing, but QFT. Like carbon/water QFET's. Do quantum effects play a role in consciousness? – Physics World We still both for animals and machines need a working analysis. The How questions. You're not curious about how animals and machinery (if you are correct?) attained consciousness?
-----Original Message----- From: John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> To: spudboy...@aol.com Cc: everything-list@googlegroups.com <everything-list@googlegroups.com> Sent: Fri, Mar 17, 2023 1:34 pm Subject: Re: 4 Tests Reveal Bing (GPT 4) ≈ 114 IQ (last test is nuts) On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 6:37 PM <spudboy...@aol.com> wrote: > I took me under 10 min to locate a worthy article submitted for JC's > criticisms. I'll bet it took you less than 10 seconds, you popped two or three buzzwords into Google and then you picked the first one that came up and sent it to the list without reading a word of it. You didn't miss much, it didn't increase my understanding of consciousness one bit, but you claim the article's insights brought us "much closer to understanding human consciousness" , well that part must've been written in invisible ink because I sure didn't see it. > Here tis [drum roll] > What Neuroscientists Think, and Don't Think, About Consciousness - PubMed > (nih.gov) Unlike you I did read the article, or at least I read the abstract, and based on that I flat out refuse to waste my time by reading the entire worthless thing, it is after all the purpose of abstracts. > The approach the majority of neuroscientists take to the question of how > consciousness is generated, it is probably fair to say, is to ignore it Yes it is fair to say that a majority of neuroscientists ignore consciousness and they do so because it's the rational thing to do, it would be silly to divert finite mental resources from fantastically productive intelligence research, especially now when so many dramatic discoveries are being made in that area, to a moribund field like consciousness research that has not advanced one nanometer in the last thousand years and will not do any better in the next thousand. > Neuroscience has furnished evidence that neurons are fundamental to > consciousness; And how did neuroscientists figure that out? By observing that when neurons behave in a certain way organisms behave in a certain way and they guess, I repeat they guess, that when organisms behave in that certain way then their consciousness must be in a certain state. I personally think that is a good guess, it's the same guess we make when we determine that our fellow human beings are not conscious when they are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. And then the author starts babbling about > staggeringly complex system of electromagnetic field" A keen grasp of the obvious. Everything except neutrinos and Dark matter Interacts with the electromagnetic field. > The EM field literally manifests the computations, or signaling, or > information processing/activities performed Both computers and neurons produce electromagnetic fields. So what? What does that have to do with consciousness? The author never says, he just maintains that somehow electromagnetic fields produce consciousness and of course he provides no evidence to support his belief. John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis txew w -- 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/1515344780.998149.1679103545632%40mail.yahoo.com.
