On Tue, Jul 9, 2024, 10:50 AM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 9, 2024 at 8:31 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> My dictionary says the definition of "*prerequisite*" is "*a thing >>> that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or >>> exist*". And >>> it says the definition of "*cause*" is "*a person or thing that gives >>> rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition*". So cause and >>> prerequisite are synonyms. >>> >> >> *> There's a subtle distinction. Muscles and bones are prerequisites for >> limbs, but muscles and bones do not cause limbs.* >> > > There are many things that caused limbs to come into existence, one of > them was the existence of muscles, another was the existence of bones, > and yet another was the help limbs gave to organisms in getting genes into > the next generation. > > *> Lemons are a prerequisite for lemonade, but do not cause lemonade.* >> > > You can't make lemonade without lemons, and lemons can't make lemonade > without you. > And this highlights the distinction between a prerequisite and a cause. > >> *> I define intelligence by something capable of intelligent action.* >> > > Intelligent action is what drove evolution to amplify intelligence, but if > Stephen Hawking's voice generator had broken down for one hour I would > still say I have reason to believe that he remained intelligent during > that hour. > Sure, but that is just a delayed action. Would he still be intelligent if he never was able to speak again (even with the help of a machine)? He wouldn't be according to evolution. > > *> Intelligent action requires non random choice:* >> > > If it's non-random then by definition it is deterministic. > We aren't debating free will here. Not sure why you mention this. > > *Having information about the environment (i.e. perceptions) is >> consciousness.* >> > > But you can't have perceptions without intelligence, sight and sound > would just be meaningless gibberish. > How do you define intelligence? > > *You cannot have perceptions without there being some process or thing >> to perceive them.* >> > > Yes, and that thing is intelligence. > > *> Therefore perceptions (i.e. consciousness) is a requirement and >> precondition of being able to perform intelligent actions.* >> > > The only perceptions we have firsthand experience with are our own, so > investigating perceptions is not very useful in Philosophy or in trying to > figure out how the world works, but intelligence is another matter > entirely. > It is if we want to answer the question of why consciousness evolved. That's why in the last few years there has been enormous progress in > figuring out how intelligence works, but nobody has found anything new to > say about consciousness in centuries. > You don't think functionalism is progress? Jason > John K Clark > >> >> -- > 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/CAJPayv0kBCxYZaN474fj0S5i5RBUGYZ_dHiU2a3b2mesTpyR2w%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0kBCxYZaN474fj0S5i5RBUGYZ_dHiU2a3b2mesTpyR2w%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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/CA%2BBCJUjTVvE-yogEMwXWGJkHk78nW-CdzAvfWg8X%2BQvnO0RVkQ%40mail.gmail.com.
