On 1/23/2024 7:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
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.
It's far from apparent to me. Why do you think it exists? Brent -- 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/091d53d5-0f4b-4931-8373-45d0bbc9e73c%40gmail.com.
