On 11/26/2014 4:41 PM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net
<mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
> I don't think human consciousness is a spandrel
If consciousness does not effect intelligent behavior and if Darwin's Theory is correct
then there is no alternative,
That assumes human beings and human evolution - and I agree with that application. But
it does not show that intelligence could not evolve without human-like consciousness which
I take to be a inner narrative.
consciousness is a spandrel. And if consciousness does effect intelligent behavior then
the Turing Test works for both consciousness and intelligence. So either way if a fan of
Darwin and a fan of logic runs across a computer that passes the Turing Test he MUST
conclude that the machine is at least as conscious as his fellow human beings are.
> there may be different ways of being intelligent
Almost certainly. Given that intelligence is the most complex thing in the known
universe it would be very surprising indeed if it could be described by just one number,
you need 2 for even something as simple as the wind.
> I think human consciousness and intelligence are both closely linked to
language.
I think so too. I am quite certain of it.
> Language is an evolutionarily useful adaptation of social animals.
And even if those social animals were put in a non-social situation, marooned all alone
on a desert island for example, they could not think properly and efficiently without
language. And even a lone brain the size of Jupiter could not think properly unless it
had a language to communicate abstract ideas between distant parts of its vast brain.
Language is auditory. Abstract ideas can be represented in images or (per Bruno)
numerical relations. You imply that any representation is language, but I think that's
wrong. An intelligent might think in three dimensional patterns and not something
one-dimensional like language. And neither is it necessary that there be an internal
language for subroutines to work. There are encryption systems that provide for
computations to be performed on data and results returned with ever decrypting the data;
so the part of the system doing the calculation never receives any "communication" that
has meaning to it.
> But I see no reason that no-social animals cannot be intelligent (e.g.
ocotopi are
solitary by are the most intlligent non-vertebrates).
All animals have some degree of intelligence and the octopus has more than most, but
they are nowhere near smart enough to make radio telescopes, and lets face it that's
what people usually mean when they talk about "intelligent beings".
But that doesn't prove that octopi could not be both solitary and intelligent and not have
an inner narrative.
I think the thing that separates humans from other animals is that about 100,000 years
ago we developed a system that can encode even very abstract ideas into a few simple
sounds; this not only enabled collective learning but also enormously magnified the
power of individual thought.
So do you agree that having an inner narrative is the definition of consciousness,
something much more restrictive than Bruno's "awareness"?
Brent
--
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.
