On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 7:52 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
> On 2/3/2015 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote: > >> On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable >> effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain >> why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. >> >> >> I'm not arguing that it has no observable effects. JKC says it's >> necessary for intelligence. >> > > Perhaps it is impossible to avoid for human-level intelligence (and > probably lower levels of intelligence as well) I don't know but it is at > least plausible. > > >> I'm arguing that might have been necessary for for the evolution of >> intelligence starting from say fish. But that doesn't entail that is >> necessary for any intelligent system. >> >> >> If we build computers that discuss and question their own consciousness >> and qualia I'd consider that proof enough that they are. >> >> >> But is that the standard of intelligence? JKC argues >> intelligence=>consciousness. What if they discuss and question their own >> consciousness, but say stupid things about it? >> >> > Then the "intelligence bar" for consciousness is low or perhaps > unrelated to intelligence. I think you can have consciousness without > intelligence, but it is more dubious whether you could have human-level > intelligence without consciousness. > > >> The bigger question, is what machines might be conscious yet unable to >> talk about, reflect upon, or signal to us that they are in fact conscious? >> This requires a theory of consciousness. >> >> >> Exactly. That is my concern. Suppose we build an autonomous Mars Rover >> to do research. We give it learning ability, so it must reflect on its >> experience and act intelligently. Have we made a conscious being? >> Contrary to Bruno, I think there are kinds and degrees of consciousness - >> just as there are kinds and degrees of intelligence. >> > > Well the question "is something conscious?" is binary, like "is > something alive?". However there is a great spectrum of possible living > entities, and a massive gulf that separates the simplest life forms from > the most complex life forms. I think the same is true of consciousness. The > mars rover might be conscious, but its consciousness might be as simple as > a bacterium's biology is compared to a human's. > > > That seems inconsistent with being "binary", like "being alive". First, > being alive isn't "binary". Are viruses alive? Prions? Cigarettes? > Any of those things are either alive or they aren't (according to some theory of liveness). > Secondly, why shouldn't there be degrees of consciousness all the way from > "My thermostat is aware of the temperature." to "Bruno's aware of the > unprovable truths of arithmetic." > Living things can take many forms, and vary vastly in complexity, and I think the same is true of consciousness: it may take many forms and vary significantly in complexity. Is a bacterium comparable to a blue whale? No, but they're still alive. A bacterium isn't less alive than a blue whale just because its less intricate or smaller. > Why should we count them as "binary"? Maybe there are beings whose > brains implement hypercomputation; wouldn't you expect them to have > qualitatively different consciousness, e.g. being aware of all consequences > of any finite axiom set. > > They do have different consciousnesses. But that doesn't make lesser consciousness "unconsciouss" or "not consciouss". Jason -- 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.
