it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to this later with the rest, cheer.
On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, <ghi...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. >>> >> >> No problem. >> >> > The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, >>> always show up together, never one on its own. >>> >> >> I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain >> is conscious is you. >> > > The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it > is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. > > We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation, > and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think the conscious > experience I have is very similar to every human on the planet. > > But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that you > are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you may > not be... > > >> And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say >> above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain >> conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs. >> > > Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, > which would require listing important characteristics of the > consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves > and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll > >> >> > So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and >>> consciousness are mutually independent? >>> >> >> I don't think that. And if Darwin was right (and he was) then one can be >> conscious without being very intelligent but you CAN NOT be very >> intelligent without being conscious. Evolution can see intelligence but it >> can't directly see consciousness any better than we can, so if >> consciousness were not a byproduct of intelligence and just be the way >> information feels when it is being processed then there would not be any >> conscious beings on planet Earth, and yet I know for a fact there is at >> least one. >> >> > The guy [Einstein] won a nobel for the photoelectric effect way before >>> he did the flying on rainbows thing for insights. So Einstein was a >>> nobel-genius. >>> >> >> I agree obviously, but suppose those discoveries had not been made by a >> meat computer by the name of Einstein but instead had been made by a >> silicon computer by the name of IBM. Would you then be making excuses and >> saying the machine wasn't *really* intelligent for this bullshit reason and >> that bullshit reason? >> >> > But....from memory you accept MWI don't you? >>> >> >> I think it's probably less wrong than the other interpretations of >> Quantum Mechanics. >> >> > What sort of results does that explanation produce? >>> >> >> The outcome of the 2 slit experiment. MWI also explains why so many of >> the fundamental constants of physics seem to be such as to maximize the >> possibility that life will develop. >> >> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
