Hi Richard Ruquist I may have given that impression, sorry, but a monad can only make what's "inside" do what it can do.
Human and animal monads can both feel, so they can be conscious. But a rock is at best unconscious as it cannot feel or think.\ There's no way to tell what faculties a computer has. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen ----- Receiving the following content ----- From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 11:06:17 Subject: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment Roger, If human consciousness comes from attached monads, as I think you have claimed, then why could not these monads attach to sufficiently complex computers as well. Richard On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi John Clark > > Unless computers can deal with inextended objects such as > mind and experience, they cannot be conscious. > > Consciousness is direct experience, computers can only deal in descriptions > of experience. > > Everything that a computer does is, to my knowledge, at least > in principle publicly available, since it uses publicly available symbols or > code. > > Consciousness is direct experience, which cannot be put down in code > any more than life can be put down in code. It is personal and not publicly > available. > > Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net > 10/7/2012 > "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen > > > ----- Receiving the following content ----- > From: John Clark > Receiver: everything-list > Time: 2012-10-06, 13:56:30 > Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment > > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > ?>>I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves > sensibly with just a few transistors.? ? > > >> Only because he lives in a universe in which the possibility of teleology is >> fully supported from the start. > > > We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this universe > allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they do it but > we know for a fact that it can be done. So how on Earth does that indicate > that a conscious computer is not possible? Because it doesn't fart?? > > ? >> you have erroneously assumed that intelligence is possible without sense >> experience. > > No, I am assuming the exact OPPOSITE! In fact I'm not even assuming, I know > for a fact that intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a > Evolutionary advantage, and I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITH > consciousness confers no additional Evolutionary advantage (and if you > disagree with that point then you must believe that the Turing Test works for > consciousness too and not just intelligence). And in spite of all this I know > for a fact that Evolution DID produce consciousness at least once, therefore > the only conclusion is that consciousness is a byproduct of intellagence. > > > >> Adenine and Thymine don't have purpose in seeking to bind with each other? > > > I don't even know what a question like that means, who's purpose do you > expect Adenine and Thymine to serve? > > > >> How do you know? > > > I know because I have intelligence and Adenine and Thymine do not know > because they have none, they only have cause and effect. > > > >> How is it different from our purpose in staying in close proximity to places >> to eat and sleep? > > > And to think that some people berated me for anthropomorphizing future > supercomputers and here you are ? anthropomorphizing simple chemicals. > > > >>> Why is everything aware, why isn't everything not aware? > > > Because then we wouldn't be aware of having this conversation. > > > And we are aware of having this conversation because everything is aware, > except of course for computers. > ? > >>> Robots are something? > >> No, they aren't something. > > That is just a little too silly to argue. > > ? > >> Everything is awareness > > Are you certain, I thought everything is klogknee, or maybe its everything is > 42. > > > >> evolution requires that something be alive to begin with. > > Evolution requires something that can reproduce itself, there is no > universally agreed on definition of "life" so if you want to say that viruses > and RNA strings and crystals and clay patterns and Von Neumann Machines are > alive I won't argue with you and will agree that Evolution requires that > something be alive to get started. > > ? John K Clark > > > > > > ? > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
