Stathis Papaioannou
On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 13:23, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 1/23/2024 2:51 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > Stathis Papaioannou > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 at 09:34, Brent Meeker <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> >> On 1/23/2024 2:12 PM, John Clark wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 4:37 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On 1/23/2024 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Jan 23, 2024 at 3:38 PM Brent Meeker <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>> * > Who wrote this? you, JC?* >>>> >>> >>> No, Scott Alexander did, he's a pretty smart guy but I think he got some >>> things wrong. I did write this in the comments section: >>> >>> "You say "If we’re lucky, consciousness is a basic feature of >>> information processing and anything smart enough to outcompete us will be >>> at least as conscious as we are" and I agree with you about that because >>> there is evidence that it is true. I know for a fact that random mutation >>> and natural selection managed to produce consciousness at least once (me) >>> and probably many billions of times, but Evolution can't directly detect >>> consciousness any better than I can, except in myself, and it can't select >>> for something it can't see, but evolution can detect intelligent behavior. >>> I could not function if I really believed that solipsism was true, >>> therefore I must take it as an axiom, as a brute fact, that consciousness >>> is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently. >>> >>> >>> * >You've written this before, but I slightly disagree with it. I think >>> Evolution can detect consciousness as directly or indirectly as >>> intelligence. * >>> >> >> I agree, Evolution can detect intelligence so it can only detect >> consciousness if it is an inevitable byproduct of intelligent >> data-processing. >> >> You're missing my point that there are at least two different meanings of >> "conscious" and only one necessarily accompanies intelligence (and isn't >> exactly a "byproduct") It's just awareness or perception. It doesn't >> include reflection and self-awareness, but in can include a lot of >> intelligence, including learning. >> >> The second meaning, which is the kind we prize as uniquely human, is >> self-awareness. I think it's what you refer to as a "byproduct", but my >> point is that it's another level of intelligence and hence is subject >> evolution just like any other aspect of intelligence. This second meaning >> is planning, and planning depends on having a self-model. If I do this and >> that happens how will I feel and what will I do then. >> > > There is yet another level, phenomenal consciousness, which has no > behavioural manifestations whatsoever, allowing for the theoretical > possibility of philosophical zombies. Some claim that phenomenal > consciousness reduces to one of the other kinds, and therefore that zombies > are impossible. > > That's the kind that couldn't evolve and so I agree with JC that it's > unlikely to exist. > Apparently it does exist, but it appears that it is epiphenomenal. > -- 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/CAH%3D2ypXy7_5yWKq7A_OTndP42eptfoBRmhvv-E48ewSFbY%2BvNw%40mail.gmail.com.
