On Monday, October 8, 2012 11:42:02 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> 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. >>> >> >> > Absolutely not. We know no such thing. >> > > We do unless we abandon reason and pretend that the non answers that > religion provides actually explain something, or that your Fart Philosophy > explains something when it says that consciousness exists because > consciousness exists. > > > Computers which have been programmed thus far don't have conscious >> experiences. Would you agree that is a fact? >> > > No, I most certainly do NOT agree that it is a fact that computers are not > conscious, nor is it a fact that Craig Weinberg has conscious experiences; > it is only a fact that sometimes both behave intelligently. >
Ok, which computers do you think have conscious experiences? Windows laptops? Deep Blue? Cable TV boxes? Is it a fact that you have conscious experiences? > > > I understand that the capacity to have a conscious experience is >> inversely proportionate to the capacity fro that experience to be >> controlled from the outside. >> > > So the more stimulation you get through your senses of the outside > environment the less conscious you become. Huh? > Stimulation that you get thorough your senses of the outside environment does not control you. > > >> >> I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness >>> confers a Evolutionary advantage >>> >> >> > Which fact is that? >> > > That intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary > advantage. Having difficulty with your reading comprehension? > I heard that you claim that there is such a fact, but what example or law are you basing this on? Who says this is a fact other than you? Who claims to know that intelligence without consciousness exists? > > > Which intelligent behavior do you know that you can be certain exists >> without any subjective experience associated with it? >> > > I am aware of no such behavior. The only intelligent behavior I know with > certainty that is always associated with subjective experience is my own. > But I know with certainty there are 2 possibilities: > > 1) Intelligent behavior is always associated with subjective experience, > if so then if a computer beats you at any intellectual pursuit then it has > a subjective experience, assuming of course that you yourself are > intelligent. And I'll let you pick the particular intellectual pursuit for > the contest. > > 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in > which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I > have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I > am the only conscious being in the universe. > I choose 3) The existence of intelligent behavior is contingent upon recognition and interpretation by a conscious agent. Behavior can be misinterpreted by a conscious agent as having a higher than actual quality of subjectivity when it doesn't (puppets, cartoons, interactive movies and computer programs) and can be misinterpreted as having a lower than actual quality of subjectivity (dropping bombs on foreign cities, thinking people you don't like are less than human, etc). > >> 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). >>> >> >> > Yet you think that consciousness must have evolved. > > > Yes. > > > No contradiction there? >> > > No contradiction there if consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence, a > massive contradiction if it is not; so massive that human beings could not > be conscious, and yet I am, and perhaps you are too. > No being that we know of has become conscious by means of intelligence alone. Every conscious being develops sensorimotor and emotional awareness before any cognitive intelligence arises. Babies cry before they talk. Crying intelligent, as it would be much more intelligent to communicate intelligently about what their discomfort is. > > > You think that every behavior in biology exists purely because of >> evolution >> > > Yes. > > > except consciousness, which you have no explanation for >> > > My explanation is that intelligence produces consciousness, I don't know > exactly how but if Evolution is true then there is a proof that it does. > It's begging the question. You assume the cart pushes the horse, and that you don't know how, but that if the cart gets us places then it must be proof that it is true. > > >> >> I know for a fact that Evolution DID produce consciousness at least >> once, therefore the only conclusion is that consciousness is a byproduct of >> intelligence. >> > >> > A byproduct that does what??? >> > > A byproduct that produces consciousness. Having difficulty with your > reading comprehension? > Not at all. I am asking what conceivable process has, as a byproduct, everything that has ever been experienced? > > > > who's purpose do you expect Adenine and Thymine to serve? >>> >> >> > The purpose of their attraction to each other. >> > > That's nice, but I repeat, who's purpose do you expect Adenine and Thymine > to serve? > Why do you assume that purpose has to belong to someone in particular? If I see a commercial on TV for pizza, and then eat a frozen burrito because my wife bought a dozen of them, whose purpose am I serving? Adenine and Thymine, like myself, the stockholders, employees, and owners of Papa John's Pizza, the TV ad agency, the frozen burrito company, the freezer manufacturer are complex. We serve many masters simultaneously as well as exerting mastery ourselves directly. Adenine and Thymine serve purposes of their own, their atoms, DNA, ribosomes, cells, bodies, species, biosphere, etc. > > >> > Where do you think your intelligence to know this comes from? Surely it >> is the result in large part of Adenine and Thymine's contribution to the >> intelligence of DNA. >> > > If everything (except for some reason computers!) is intelligent, if even > simple molecules are intelligent then the word has no meaning and is > equivalent to nothing is intelligent or everything is klogknee or nothing > is klogknee. > Computers aren't intelligent for the same reason Bugs Bunny is not intelligent. It isn't an autonomous phenomenon. Computers are assemblies of low level subjectivity parts which we control to serve our high level purpose of reflecting back to us a simulation of our own high level process. Because their sub-personal experiences are silicon and not highly evolved self-replicating organisms, the sub-personal experiences relate to each other mechanically in a linear way rather than a synergized escalation of quality to the personal level that we enjoy as human animals. What you are missing is that awareness has qualitative levels which are other than the sum of their parts, but not independent of the nature of their bodies. > > >>>> Robots are something >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> No, they aren't something. >>>> >>> >>> >> That is just a little too silly to argue. >>> >> >> > You think that a picture of a pipe is a pipe, so you think that a >> machine made of things is also a thing. You are incorrect. >> > > I think that a picture of a pipe is something, you don't and you are not > just incorrect you are silly. > A picture of a pipe is something, yes. It's a picture. It is *not* a pipe and has no relation to a pipe but for our human familiarity with pipes and how to infer pipe identity through 2-D optical isomorphism. > > > I don't experience anything other than awareness >> > > So you say. However you won't believe that a computer is conscious > regardless of how brilliantly it behaves or how vehemently it insists that > it is, so why should I believe you when you claim to be conscious? > You don't have to believe me...because you have FREE WILL :) ah hahahahahahhahahahha > > > space intentionally left blank for the supercomputers of the future to >> come back in time with their super conscious intelligence and join the >> conversation >> > > I don't see the point of that, no matter what they did no matter how > brilliantly or nobly they conversed you'd still insist they were not > conscious because you think that the elements in their brain are more > important tha*n*** the content of their character. I disagree. > The point is that it isn't happening and that it is sophistry to pretend that it might. There isn't a computer in the future who has figured out how to travel in time and is omniscient. > > >> 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. >>> >> >> > Fair enough. Now all you have to do is see that something can't >> reproduce 'itself' unless there is some kind of awareness > > > That is a impossible task because I have no way of knowing if anything is > aware or not except for the case of myself, I can only detect intelligent > behavior. > How does intelligent behavior occur? > > > which discerns the difference between that and 'not-itself'. >> > > Oil in water can detect self from not-self, but if you start to insist > that a oil drop is conscious but supercomputers are not then we're entering > the silly zone again. > Oil has sense. Supercomputers are made of petrochemicals and minerals which have sense. We select those substances very carefully and refine them to exquisite purity to utilize the particular level of acquiescence to outside control that we desire. I can make a picture of Mickey Mouse by herding mice on a table. Does that mean Mickey Mouse's image is as smart as a the real mice? Craig > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/1QRwhvTx3T4J. 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.
