On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 2:04 PM John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 12:24 PM Terren Suydam <terren.suy...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > >> I proposed a question, "How is it possible that evolution managed to >>> produce consciousness?" and I gave the only answer to that question I could >>> think of. And 3 times I've asked you if you can think of another answer. >>> And three times I received nothing back but evasion. I now asked the same >>> question for a fourth time, given that evolution can't select for what it >>> can't see and natural selection can see intelligent behavior but it can't >>> see consciousness, can you give me an explanation different from my own o >>> n how evolution managed to produce a conscious being such as yourself? >>> >> >> *>No, I can't*. >> > > So I can explain something that you cannot. So which of our ideas are > superior? > All you've succeeded in doing is showing your preference for a particular theory of consciousness. It doesn't go very far, but you're pretty clear that you're not interested in anything beyond that. But for those of us who are interested in, say, an account of the difference between dreaming and lucid dreaming, it's inadequate. > > >> * > If you're saying evolution didn't select for consciousness, it >> selected for intelligence, I agree with that. But so what?* >> > > So what?!! If evolution selects for intelligence and you can't have > intelligence without data processing and consciousness is the way data > feels when it is being processed then it's no great mystery as to how > evolution managed to produce consciousness by way of natural selection. > For what you, John Clark, require out of a theory of consciousness, you've got one that works for you. Thumbs up. For me and others who enjoy the mystery of it, it's not enough. You're entitled to think going further is a waste of time. But after you've said that a hundred times, maybe we all get the point and if you don't have anything new to contribute, it's time to gracefully bow out. > > >>> OK, fine, let's say intelligence implies consciousness, >>>> >>> >>> >> If you grant me that then what are we arguing about? >>> >> >> *> Over whether there are facts about consciousness, without having to >> link it to intelligence.* >> > > If there is no link between consciousness and intelligence then there is > absolutely positively no way Darwinian Evolution could have produced > consciousness. But I don't think Darwin was wrong, I think you are. > I'm neither claiming that evolution produced consciousness or that Darwin was wrong. > > >> >> Do we really agree on all those terms? How can we know words that >>> refer to qualia mean the same thing to both of us? There is no objective >>> test for it, if there was then qualia wouldn't be subjective, it would be >>> objective. >>> >> >> *> We don't need infinite precision to uncover useful facts. * >> > > I'm not talking about infinite precision, when it comes to qualia there > is no assurance that we even approximately agree on meanings. > If that were true, language would be useless. > > > If someone says "that hurts", or "that looks red", we know what they >> mean. >> > > Do you? When they say "that looks red" the red qualia they refer to may > be your green qualia, and your green qualia could be their red qualia, but > both of you still use the English word "red" to describe the qualia color > of blood and the English word "green" to describe the qualia color of a > leaf. > I don't care about that. What matters is that you know you are seeing red and I know I am seeing red. There's just no point in comparing private experiences, which is something I know we agree on. But that's not all there is to a theory of consciousness. > > >> * > We take it as an assumption, and we make it explicit, that when >> someone says "I see red" they are having the same kind of, or similar >> enough,* >> > > That is one hell of an assumption! If you're willing to do that why not be > done with it and just take it as an assumption that your consciousness > theory, whatever it may be, is correct? > Is it? It's what we assume in every conversation we have. Terren > John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis > <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> > > . > > > >> -- > 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 view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0fFgjWVsPTKG0SmeKb0PVuAyah9hyTDGpG2M8O-_AKYA%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0fFgjWVsPTKG0SmeKb0PVuAyah9hyTDGpG2M8O-_AKYA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAMy3ZA-CFR0F4%3Dh2eKcAvmoNmwaP25n6KvgykAA-S%3DLvkYvtDA%40mail.gmail.com.
