On Friday, December 14, 2012 7:19:56 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Fri, Dec 14, 2012 at 11:47 PM, Craig Weinberg > <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:> > > wrote: > > >> I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. There is nothing in what >>> I feel that would provide me with any certainty that my brain is not being >>> manipulated by someone by remote control, for example. That possibility is >>> entirely consistent with my subjective feeling of freedom. >>> >> >> Of course that's possible. In fact it is a common psychotic delusion. >> Indeed, we are complex and have many competing aspects of our self with >> different agendas. The reason why it doesn't make sense however, is why >> would any process exist which creates an epiphenomenal person such as you. >> By extension, that is the problem with mechanism and functionalism as well. >> If you have a perfectly good computer which operates a robot navigating a >> physical world whose purpose is to survive and reproduce, what would be the >> advantage of generating an internal representation delusion to some made up >> 'person' program when the computer is already controlling the robot >> perfectly well. It would be like installing an chip inside of your computer >> to simulate an impressionist painter who actually paints tiny paintings for >> a made up audience of puppets to think that they are looking at. Even then, >> you still have the Explanatory Gap/homunculus problem. You still ARE NO >> CLOSER to closing the gap as now you have an interior 'model' which has no >> mechanism for perception. You have just moved the Cartesian Theater inside >> of biochemistry, but it still explains nothing about how you get from >> endogenous light to endogenous eyes which see images through biophotons >> rather than are simply informed of their quantitative significance directly >> and digitally. >> > > > You have just presented an argument for why consciousness is a necessary > side-effect of intelligent behaviour. If it were not so, then there would > have been no reason for consciousness to have evolved. >
Consciousness evolved from awareness, not intelligence. Awareness did not evolve. Evolution is a feature of experience, which is the consequence of awareness. Intelligent behavior is more or less meaningless. It's a outsider's judgment on some observed activity where he projects his own standards of sense and motive onto some context he may or may not know something about. Intelligence is prejudice really. > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- 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/-/ZZvUYt_c5s8J. 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.
