On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> But according to your theory all that junk DNA should be eliminated. It > has no behavioral effect and so "evolution can't see it" as someone is fond > of writing. > But the unit that Evolution works on is not the species or even the individual it is the gene; and animal bodies are just the robots that genes use to get duplicated. Some genes make for good bodies and so get duplicated that way, but some genes are parasitic and do nothing for the body they occupy, they take advantage of other genes good works. Parasitic genes are far less stable than genes that actually make things. The real struggle for existence is between genes not animals. John K Clark > > > > And are you suggesting that this consciousness mechanism at work in > biological brains operates on zero energy and no tissue needs to be made > for it and thus > the consciousness mechanism has zero biological cost? > > > No, not in biological brains on this planet. I'm suggesting that brains > which developed differently, such as being designed by AI engineers, might > not need the same mechanism to be intelligent. > > What I think most likely is that *our* consciousness is implemented by > some mechanism that is creating a summary narrative of what is experienced > and this provides an advantage because it can be reviewed (remembered) to > provide experiential learning. Creation of the narrative both compresses > the data and tags it for recall. And it does incur some biological cost. > > > > But maybe it [consciousness] was "tacked" on to integrate information >> processing from different independent modules, e.g. vision, language, >> touch,... which in different developmental path, say AI, might have been >> organized in a hierarchy or unified from the start. The latter might even >> be more efficient, but evolution can't go back and start over, it can only >> take small steps of improvement. > > > Maybe I'm wrong but to me that all seems pretty contrived and intended > to show that humans are superior, but it doesn't work because if true > humans are doomed to be intellectually inferior to computers because their > brain is organized in a fundamentally inferior way. And it gives credence > to what I said before, it's not important if humans believe computers are > conscious, the important thing is if computers think humans are conscious. > > > Yes, I agree with that. I never intended to show humans are superior. > They are already inferior by many measures. > > 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. > -- 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.
