Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 13 Mar 2015, at 18:14, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 , Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: True, and most people have never even heard of the Turing Test, but every human being who has ever lived has implicitly assumed that if something behaves intelligently then it is conscious, Perhaps every human, perhaps most. Who knows? Who knows? I know. Some silly philosophers may have fun playing the part of a solipsist when they want to sound provocative and interesting, but I don't think for one second they or anyone else this side of a looney bin actually believes they're the only conscious being in the universe. The dream argument can lead to solipsisme, but not necessarily. You can change it into a multi-user video game argument, showing that sharable materiality can be emulated, and indeed is emulated by the tiny sigma_1 complete part of arithmetic. You can assume a physical reality, but you don't need to assume that is needs to be assumed, as this is what is under discussion. The ontological existence of a physical universe, or the existence of Primary Matter is a strong assumption in metaphysics/theology. Some of us are just skeptical about this. Computationalism (re-explain the appearance of matter by the why things should look like when seen below the substitution level. Intuitively and formally this gives something quite close to the quantum description, without collapse, and this would invite us to be doubly cautious about the existence of a *primitive* physical ontology. I was always confused by the idea that rocks are not conscious. And I don't believe that for one second either, I think you're just trying to sound provocative and interesting. Darwin's Theory of Evolution is about everything life can do, if you're alive and you're conscious then Evolution is responsible for both. Humans apply pressure on the floor when standing up, so Evolution is responsible for mass and gravity? No, but Evolution is responsible for the fact that humans can stand up, or that humans can do anything at all for that matter There are more hidden assumptions here that you are not addressing. List them then. I'm all ears. The assumptions that consciousness is something organisms do, That is not an assumption that is a matter of direct experience and thus needs no proof; I am a organism and I am conscious. that conscious is a byproduct of something If Darwin was correct then the above must be true. And I think Darwin was correct. that consciousness is generated somehow, When I'm asleep or under anesthesia I'm not conscious but when I wake up I am, so at that point a generator must turn on that somehow produces consciousness. that conscious either has an evolutionary advantage or emerges from things that have evolutionary advantages. As I've said over and over and over, if Darwin was right the above MUST be true. Darwin might be right on the algorithm, but wrong on its fundamental implementation. In fact Darwin used computationalism implicitly (without knowing Church's Thesis). Computationalism forces us to extend His idea of evolution up to the generation of the physical laws, which is given by the way the numbers dreams can glue to provide a measure one for the number's relative consciousness flux. Bruno And you said there are *more* hidden assumptions here that you are not addressing so I was expecting something new, but you just rehashed the same old tired objections I've been hearing on this list for years. 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 13 Mar 2015, at 18:06, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/13/2015 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:25 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/12/2015 1:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Not me. I'm the opposite, I was always confused by the idea that rocks are not conscious. If you ever have an operation, I suggest you check to see that your anesthesiologist is not confused. There's maybe a difference between being a conscious entity and being conscious of something. Telmo. So you think you could be conscious without being conscious *of* something? I'm not sure, as per my response to Bruno. But this is not what I meant to suggest here. My argument is simply that anaesthetics appear to allow one to not be conscious of the external environment. We can only speculate if one remains conscious of some internal environment. I say appear to allow, because in fact there is only two thing we know for sure about this: 1) one is not capable of controlling one's muscles 2) one is not capable of forming memories We assume and hope that: 3) one is not capable of perceiving the environment, namely the pain from the surgery But unfortunately we cannot be sure about 3). Some horror movie scenarios can be true. We can assume that there is a correspondence between consciousness and intelligent action, but we re already on shaky grounds because of dreaming, as you mention. With dreaming 1) holds but not 2). In the dreams, we do send the information to act on the muscles, but they are inhibited, and instead we act on our body representation, that is our virtual dreamy body. If states exist where both 1) and 2) holds, we have no means to know about them for sure. OK. This leads me to my doubt about rocks beings conscious, that I had since I was a little kid. I think that's wrong and that's why I think consciousness requires physics - dreams not withstanding. Or physics requires consciousness. OK. Bruno Telmo. 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 13 Mar 2015, at 19:00, meekerdb wrote: On 3/13/2015 10:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: or under anesthesia I'm not conscious You can't prove that. That's an assumption. That's logic chopping. There's a big gap between proven and assumed. In fact all of science works in that gap. It's called knowledge and it is provided by evidence, not logic and not assumption. But it is not knowledge in the science on knowledge, except if we assume our theory correct. In epistemology, those are called belief. The main difference is that for knowledge we accpt []p - p; and for belief we refuse []p - p. To say I belief is more modest than to say I know. That mundane sense is reflected by by the fact that we say Luke believed that (a + b)^2 = a^2 + b^2, but now he know better, and we don't say: Luke knew that (a + b)^2 = a^2 + b^2, but now he believes better, 3p-rational beliefs are played by Gödel's beweisbar in arithmetic, []p. Knowledge cannot be defined, but its logic can still be shown to obey S4Grz(1). The machine's knower does not know who (s)he is. Bruno 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 14 Mar 2015, at 20:59, John Mikes wrote: LizR: Consciousness, in my vocabulary sounds like: Response to Relations, not a mental awarness in thinking/living creatures. Response to relation looks like Behaviorism, that is pure 3p. Consciousness usually denote the first person awareness. Your views may be correct, if you accept conclusions drawn in the name of the present science upon the incomplete circumstances we already know of. Including Ccness as some mental awareness in living minds. Your 'evolutionary advantages' are triggered - maybe including - effects from so far even unreceived domains. Similarly I would think twice to call an extinction 'devolutionary'. My statement stays: I don't know. Nobody knows. The question is always, what do you believe? A tyranosaure - even with terrific 'enthusiasm' - could not resist to starving. I accept your denigratory opinion rather than being part of a contemporary science - cheating/lying (theorizing?) based upon denied ignorance. Your humble agnostix Denied ignorance is very bad, but what about the accepted ignorance? Then we can do all the theories we want, without ever taking ourselves too much seriously. If we use ignorance to forbid the theorizing then we will certainly learn nothing. Bruno On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 March 2015 at 10:39, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know. JM PS did I promise to solve the problems? Telling one's opinion is a free right, even w/o being obliged to redress things. I fought against reductionists and faithfuls, now I simply speak my mind. J. That's OK, of course. My problem is that I couldn't understand what you were trying to say, so you didn't actually even manage to tell your opinion. It just looked like random sniping with no actual meaning. (Maybe it was?) Anyway, my original point still stands. Consciousness may confer some evolutionary advantage. (e.g. a sense of self may mean an organism responds to threats and so on with greater enthusiasm that it would if operating on reflex). Any sensible objections / refutations welcome. -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:26 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Humans apply pressure on the floor when standing up, so Evolution is responsible for mass and gravity? No, but Evolution is responsible for the fact that humans can stand up, or that humans can do anything at all for that matter So evolution is responsible for the fact that organisms apply pressure on surfaces? Yes, but you could have figured that out by yourself. Organisms apply pressure on surfaces, even if they are dead. This is just a property of chunks of solid matter. Evolution did not create this behaviour, it just has to account for it to do other things. The same can be true of consciousness, without falsifying darwinian evolution. The assumptions that consciousness is something organisms do, That is not an assumption that is a matter of direct experience and thus needs no proof; I am a organism and I am conscious. But do you generate it? I think you're getting silly. Is it something you do? I think you're getting very silly. that conscious is a byproduct of something If Darwin was correct then the above must be true. And I think Darwin was correct. That doesn't follow unless you can show that consciousness is something organisms generate. I think you're getting very very silly. You're avoiding the question. That's because I don't know what the question is. The question is simple: why can't organisms generated by evolutionary processes possess properties that are not the result of evolutionary pressure? Because your argument hinges on assuming that this is not possible. that consciousness is generated somehow, When I'm asleep This is trivially false. We are conscious while dreaming. We don't always dream when sleeping in fact we usually don't, we only dream during REM sleep and that only happens for about one hour per night. or under anesthesia I'm not conscious You can't prove that. True, but I've got something far far better than a proof to convince me that it's true, direct experience. You don't know. The only thing you know is that you are not able to form memories under anaesthesia. The simplest explanation is that this is because you are not, indeed, conscious. But it's not the only explanation. Telmo. 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. -- 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.
Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 9:19 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: Are you proposing we laugh our way through the greatest extinction event since the dinosaurs bought it some sixty million years ago…. As we degrade and destroy this planet’s biosphere and the ecological systems that have evolved within it, in a mere flash of time called the oil age. These are serious issues. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NL8HP1WzbDk *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Terren Suydam *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2015 12:47 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car Oh c'mon, that was hilarious. Lighten up willya. On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 3:35 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote: You really do hate environmentalists don’t you John. *From:* everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto: everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Friday, March 13, 2015 11:35 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* The world's most environmentally friendly car www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXEddCLW3SM -- 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. -- 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. -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 13 Mar 2015, at 17:57, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 4:42 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 13 Mar 2015, at 08:19, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:25 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/12/2015 1:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Not me. I'm the opposite, I was always confused by the idea that rocks are not conscious. If you ever have an operation, I suggest you check to see that your anesthesiologist is not confused. There's maybe a difference between being a conscious entity and being conscious of something. Does not consciousness entails the consciousness of at least one thing? Even before speculating about an entity (the future little ego) consciousness seems reflexive to me, before verbalizing. It is the fixed point of the doubt. If we try to doubt everything, we find the indubitable but non justifiable knowledge of one thing. My intuitive impression (from some attempts at meditating, for example) is that consciousness can exist in a completely self- referential state. But I am not certain of this at all. I think this is inline with what you say above, and with cogito ergo sum. That might be. Thomas Slezak, and myself, like to interpret Descartes in arithmetic, so that a doubt of p, is defined by ~p, and thus ~[]p, and the fixed point is the famous Gödel sentence g, which is such that PA proves (rationally believes) g ~[]g, which should be then, as far as PA trust herself and her correctness, true and non believable/justifiable. But to get the knowledge itself, which results from that, you need the knower variant= [1]p = []p p. That one has [1]p - p, and just can't doubt everything: he is the one living the fixed point of the doubt. I think that meditation tries to diminish the dominance of the []p, and meditation favor the p, in the []p p part of the knower. It leads to the problem that consciousness becomes a feature of the arithmetical truth, only restricted by the little ego, owner of the body and representations. We might need that God (Truth) is a knower itself, and thus a sort of person, because only God would be conscious. I think. You might say it is not a consciousness *of* something. I might have missed a nuance. I will clarify what I meant in a reply to Brent, to keep the discussion linear. Oops, sorry for bringing some non linearity, but that's because the black hole in my basement is active again ... The nice thing is that I just need to read your post to Brent to get the clarification, and see if it matches the universal machine's explanation. Bruno Bruno Telmo. Bruno Telmo. 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- l...@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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 13 Mar 2015, at 19:21, meekerdb wrote: On 3/13/2015 10:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/13/2015 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:25 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/12/2015 1:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Not me. I'm the opposite, I was always confused by the idea that rocks are not conscious. If you ever have an operation, I suggest you check to see that your anesthesiologist is not confused. There's maybe a difference between being a conscious entity and being conscious of something. Telmo. So you think you could be conscious without being conscious *of* something? I'm not sure, as per my response to Bruno. But this is not what I meant to suggest here. My argument is simply that anaesthetics appear to allow one to not be conscious of the external environment. We can only speculate if one remains conscious of some internal environment. That's just mystification. We don't only speculate. We can monitor brain waves, hormone levels, blood pressure, reflexes. I say appear to allow, because in fact there is only two thing we know for sure about this: 1) one is not capable of controlling one's muscles 2) one is not capable of forming memories There seems to be a lack of consistency on this list as to what or who one or you refers to. I disagree. On this list some of us are more precise on this than anywhere else. In the math part, all you are defined mathematically, and all the relations between the yous are too. In the UDA, you need nothing more than what you need to say yes or no to a doctor. It is bad philosophy to introduce non relevant complications. The diary distinction between the 1-you and the 3-ypu are tyipical 3p simple notion, so that kids can verify the proposition. On the one hand it's asserted that one is just a sequence of observer moments or a bundle of such sequences. And there is always a next moment which is determined just by which of the many observer moments is most consistent with the indicial one. No, the one brought by a computation in arithmetic. The problem is that there is an infinity of computations which brings the state, but the measure is on the computations, not the states. It is not a proble in arithmetic, because the sigma_1 true sentences verify p -[]p, so the computations are themselves described by sigma_1 true arithmetical sentences. No one dies because there is, in everythingism, always *some* next moment. But in that model there's no reason there should not be gaps, i.e. places where the next moment, even the most consistent next moment, has discontinuities - i.e. you weren't just unconscious, you didn't exist (relative to other more continuous sequences). If this is an attempt to refute computationalism, you need to compute the relative measure of that state, and this by choosing some substitution level. We assume and hope that: 3) one is not capable of perceiving the environment, namely the pain from the surgery Suppose there were such observer moments in which pain was experienced. If you formed no memories, in what sense was it YOUR pain? This seems to invoke a magic spirit that links the observermoments - exactly the thing that was supposed to be explained away. But unfortunately we cannot be sure about 3). Some horror movie scenarios can be true. We can assume that there is a correspondence between consciousness and intelligent action, but we re already on shaky grounds because of dreaming, as you mention. With dreaming 1) holds but not 2). If states exist where both 1) and 2) holds, we have no means to know about them for sure. That we don't know something for sure, doesn't entail that we don't know it. Yes. That's the base of the idea of Theaetetus; knowledge is just when our rational beliefs are true. This leads me to my doubt about rocks beings conscious, that I had since I was a little kid. I think that's wrong and that's why I think consciousness requires physics - dreams not withstanding. Or physics requires consciousness. That's what Dennett calls a deepity. I've been unconscious several times in my life. Are you proposing that the physical world was affected by this? Did the world cease to exist? Or are you just referring to physics = the theory of how matter and energy work, and theories are the inventions of conscious beings? It is more that physics, as a metaphysics, explains consciousness and matter-appearance away. He does not address the question. When honest and lucid, it admits to eliminate the person. For computationalism, the person is the main existent, with the numbers which incarnate them relatively in dreams. Then the question of the unicity or unifiability of our collective dreams remain an hard open question. There is
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/13/2015 10:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: or under anesthesia I'm not conscious You can't prove that. That's an assumption. That's logic chopping. There's a big gap between proven and assumed. In fact all of science works in that gap. It's called knowledge and it is provided by evidence, not logic and not assumption. I agree, prove was a horrible choice of words. What I meant to say is that you can't test for consciousness. You can test for things that you assume to be sufficient and necessary conditions for consciousness, but you can't test this assumption itself. Carl Sagan talks about the dragon in the garage. I feel that consciousness is unlike any other phenomena, because it is the dragon in the garage that we *know* is there. Telmo. 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.
Slimy digits?
Can amoeba computers be far behind? http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/Anuncios/Entries/2015/7/20_ECAL_2015__Slime_Mould_Computers.html 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 3/15/2015 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Organisms apply pressure on surfaces, even if they are dead. This is just a property of chunks of solid matter. Evolution did not create this behaviour I disagree. Evolution didn't select for that behavior but it did cause it, without Evolution no cadaver would exist and so there would be no pressure at that spot. The question is simple: why can't organisms generated by evolutionary processes possess properties that are not the result of evolutionary pressure? All the properties that an animal has are the result of evolutionary pressure although sometimes it's indirect, the property may not confer a reproductive advantage and it might even be invisible to Evolution but Evolution could still produce it if it's the product of some other property that does have an evolutionary advantage. Not every aspect of a building is the result of a decision by an architect, some features are just the byproduct of other decisions; if he wants to put a arch in a rectangular enclosure he's going to get a spandrel whether he wants it or not. It's the same with evolutionary spandrels, if intelligence confers an Evolutionary advantage it will be selected for and its byproduct, consciousness, will come along for the ride even if it has no Evolutionary advantage whatsoever. But as your example shows, the spandrel may necessarily accompany some architectural decision, e.g. to have a dome, but not others. It's not necessary to a building. Similarly, consciousness may be an necessary spandrel of brain architecture, but NOT of intelligence in general. Brent Because your argument hinges on assuming that this is not possible. On the contrary, my argument hinges on the fact that this IS possible 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 mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com mailto: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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
Bruno wrote: *Response to relation looks like Behaviorism, that is pure 3p. * *Consciousness usually denote the first person awareness. * Where does your line#1 imply your line#2? That darn Behaviorism (I don't argue with your usage of words) may be a 'liveless' 3p behavior as well. It may depend on YOUR (MY?) definition of Ccness that may, or may not include thinking/living creatures exclusively. Just think of 'pressure' related changes available also for lifeless(?) items. *Br: Denied ignorance is very bad, but what about the accepted ignorance? Then we can do all the theories we want, without ever taking ourselves too much seriously. * Would you please draw a line here between science and religion? Br: *If we use ignorance to forbid the theorizing then we will certainly learn nothing.* Or: we would learn a different type (logic?) leading to different theorizing and build a different (scientific???) worldview. Agnosticism in my view does not restrict, rather free up the ways of gathering information. JM On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Mar 2015, at 20:59, John Mikes wrote: LizR: Consciousness, in my vocabulary sounds like: Response to Relations, not a mental awarness in thinking/living creatures. Response to relation looks like Behaviorism, that is pure 3p. Consciousness usually denote the first person awareness. Your views may be correct, if you accept conclusions drawn in the name of the present science upon the incomplete circumstances we already know of. Including Ccness as some mental awareness in living minds. Your 'evolutionary advantages' are triggered - maybe including - effects from so far even unreceived domains. Similarly I would think twice to call an extinction 'devolutionary'. My statement stays: I don't know. Nobody knows. The question is always, what do you believe? A tyranosaure - even with terrific 'enthusiasm' - could not resist to starving. I accept your denigratory opinion rather than being part of a contemporary science - cheating/lying (theorizing?) based upon denied ignorance. Your humble agnostix Denied ignorance is very bad, but what about the accepted ignorance? Then we can do all the theories we want, without ever taking ourselves too much seriously. If we use ignorance to forbid the theorizing then we will certainly learn nothing. Bruno On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 5:47 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote: On 13 March 2015 at 10:39, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: I don't know. JM PS did I promise to solve the problems? Telling one's opinion is a free right, even w/o being obliged to redress things. I fought against reductionists and faithfuls, now I simply speak my mind. J. That's OK, of course. My problem is that I couldn't understand what you were trying to say, so you didn't actually even manage to tell your opinion. It just looked like random sniping with no actual meaning. (Maybe it was?) Anyway, my original point still stands. Consciousness may confer some evolutionary advantage. (e.g. a sense of self may mean an organism responds to threats and so on with greater enthusiasm that it would if operating on reflex). Any sensible objections / refutations welcome. -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Organisms apply pressure on surfaces, even if they are dead. This is just a property of chunks of solid matter. Evolution did not create this behaviour I disagree. Evolution didn't select for that behavior but it did cause it, without Evolution no cadaver would exist and so there would be no pressure at that spot. The question is simple: why can't organisms generated by evolutionary processes possess properties that are not the result of evolutionary pressure? All the properties that an animal has are the result of evolutionary pressure although sometimes it's indirect, the property may not confer a reproductive advantage and it might even be invisible to Evolution but Evolution could still produce it if it's the product of some other property that does have an evolutionary advantage. Not every aspect of a building is the result of a decision by an architect, some features are just the byproduct of other decisions; if he wants to put a arch in a rectangular enclosure he's going to get a spandrel whether he wants it or not. It's the same with evolutionary spandrels, if intelligence confers an Evolutionary advantage it will be selected for and its byproduct, consciousness, will come along for the ride even if it has no Evolutionary advantage whatsoever. Because your argument hinges on assuming that this is not possible. On the contrary, my argument hinges on the fact that this IS possible 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 3/15/2015 7:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: That's because I don't know what the question is. The question is simple: why can't organisms generated by evolutionary processes possess properties that are not the result of evolutionary pressure? Because your argument hinges on assuming that this is not possible. Maybe John doesn't have nipples. 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.
Re: The Weakness of Panpsychism?
On 3/15/2015 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We cannot define the notion of finite number This will make it very difficult to interpret the output of your computer. 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.
Re: The Weakness of Panpsychism?
Oops, just discover this unread post. Sorry. On 22 Jan 2015, at 17:14, David Nyman wrote: On 22 January 2015 at 08:22, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Because with sufficiently big infinity in both mind and matter, you can a priori singularize the experience and the body in a way such that duplication is no more possible, and there is no more FPI, and we can use the old identity thesis brain-mind. But what exactly is a sufficiently big infinity in both mind and matter? We cannot define the notion of finite number, like we cannot define a unique semantic for a sufficiently complex computational states, and so the mind distirbutes on infinities of computations, like the theorie on finite numbers, will get infinities of non standard semantics. But if we allow the induction axioms for all set of numbers, it can be shown that we can defined univocally the naturel numbers, and their standard semantics (assuming something more complex behind: set theory, and making the notion of proof non effective). So my making the brain a sufficiently complex infinite machine, using Cantor hig infinities, it is not excluded that we cann attach physically one mind to one machine and vice versa. Both must be related to that infinity. It is an an ad hoc move, but it means that we might conecive a non computationalism theory of mind which bring back some 1-1 mind-brain identity thesis. The reasoning I do with machine works also with machine+oracle, and this can be used to say that the infinities needed for non-comp and a identity thesis can be expected to be huge. Technically: above kappa (a big cardinal which has some role in set theory). Kappa is so big that the theory ZF + kappa exists can prove the consistency of ZF. By the way, the claim of Stathis's I was referring to was when he said that, even assuming mechanism, a doubter could still ask (of comp) 'why couldn't it all just be dumb arithmetic?'. It's a good question. My rejoinder is that it could indeed just be dumb arithmetic, but should that be the case, the consequence would be the loss of the entire putative epistemology. Only the bare 'arithmetical ontology' would remain. No physics, no people, no zombies, just numbers. Yes. And the intersting things: theology, philosophy, physics, nature, ... does not depend on the ontology, as long as it is Turing universal. IN fact comp can pehaps be better put in this way: There is a universal machine, (a version of Church thesis, actially) + I am no more than a universal machine myself. Physics become the study of how machine's dream can glue together, cohere and decohere, etc.. Theology is what machines can hope and fear (Truth on the machines). If Dennett understood computationalism, and keep his reductionist stance, he must eliminate consciousness, but also matter. I guess it's easy to be blind to the fact that everything else, beyond the basic ontological assumptions of comp, is essentially epistemological. Yes. As I see it, the fundamental 'intensional' assumption of the comp ontology is that nothing more than basic arithmetical relations are required to emulate computation (which itself is closely related to Turing's conceptualisation of a universal computational 'machine'). The basic 'extensional' assumption is then the UD, or more properly its infinite trace UD*. You don't need to assume the UD. It is part of the basic arithmetical relation. If you assume your brain is Turing emulable, your computations and computational states exists in arithmetical, for exactly the same reason that even, odd, and prime numbers exists. Beyond this basic ontology, ISTM, everything else that purportedly 'exists' is, provisionally, a question of epistemology. Yes, except perhaps God (Arithmetical truth). It has both aspect. That question can only be definitely settled if such putative 'knowledge' can be shown to be possessed, in actuality, by whomsoever asserts a truthful claim to it. Otherwise, it is still merely lurking as an abstract possibility in the infinite wastes of mechanistic extension. The answer can only be found with reference to truth; IOW what follows if one treats the analytic entailment of such mechanistic 'possibilities' seriously *as an actuality*. This is what makes truth-denial in this case catastrophically self- defeating; any such defeat is tantamount to a total demolition of the domain of reference of the entire putative epistemology. I think so. That is why people invent concept like Matter of God, and then use them to stop research, not to better formulating the question. It is self-defeating and it needs argument by authority, like insult or violence, to persist. Bruno David -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car
On 13 Mar 2015, at 19:34, John Clark wrote: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXEddCLW3SM I ordered it. Quick, before they make it illegal. I share on my FB page, hoping to interest my automobile owner friends ;) Bruno -- 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. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- 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.
Galen Strawson: Consciousness myth
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1523413.ece An interesting paper that reviews the history on consciousness in philosophy in order to display that Twenty years ago, however, an instant myth was born: a myth about a dramatic resurgence of interest in the topic of consciousness in philosophy, in the mid-1990s, after long neglect. It happens that philosophical zombies have been invented already in 18th century 'In 1755 Charles Bonnet observed that God “could create an automaton that would imitate perfectly all the external and internal actions of man”. In 1769, following Locke, he made a nice point against those who resisted materialism on religious grounds: “if someone ever proved that the mind is material, then far from being alarmed, we should have to admire the power that was able to give matter the capacity to think”.' Evgenii -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 3/15/2015 7:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/13/2015 10:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: or under anesthesia I'm not conscious You can't prove that. That's an assumption. That's logic chopping. There's a big gap between proven and assumed. In fact all of science works in that gap. It's called knowledge and it is provided by evidence, not logic and not assumption. I agree, prove was a horrible choice of words. What I meant to say is that you can't test for consciousness. You can test for things that you assume to be sufficient and necessary conditions for consciousness, but you can't test this assumption itself. Carl Sagan talks about the dragon in the garage. I feel that consciousness is unlike any other phenomena, because it is the dragon in the garage that we *know* is there. Is that really so different from all the other things we know? I could be a brain-in-a-vat, my impression I'm typing on a keyboard could be a hallucination, are there *really* other people, perhaps this is a dream, am I really just imagining the world and other people? For one reason or another we easily dismiss all these defeaters of knowledge, but when it comes to consciousness it's suddenly different and we get radical agnosticism - even though consciousness is by definition knowledge (of something). 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.
Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car
Well of course laughing AT people you dislike is a classic bullying technique. And then you say oh come on it was only a joke! Yet bullies never make jokes about themselves, because they are often humourless sociopaths. Dunno if this is on topic but I thought I'd mention it anyway, just in case. -- 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.
Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car
But is it as environmentally friendly as the Grass Car? On 14 March 2015 at 07:34, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bXEddCLW3SM -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote consciousness may be an necessary spandrel of brain architecture, but NOT of intelligence in general. The same drugs that make me behave stupidly also makes me feel less conscious, and that fact is incompatible with the above idea. 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.
Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car
In California now it's considered environmentally unfriendly to wash your car or to water your lawn. So TEZA 1 would be doubly unfriendly. Brent On 3/15/2015 4:35 PM, LizR wrote: But is it as environmentally friendly as the Grass Car? -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 15 March 2015 at 08:59, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote: LizR: Consciousness, in my vocabulary sounds like: Response to Relations, not a mental awarness in thinking/living creatures. Your views may be correct, if you accept conclusions drawn in the name of the present science upon the incomplete circumstances we already know of. Including Ccness as some mental awareness in living minds. Your 'evolutionary advantages' are triggered - maybe including - effects from so far even unreceived domains. Similarly I would think twice to call an extinction 'devolutionary'. My statement stays: I don't know. A tyranosaure - even with terrific 'enthusiasm' - could not resist to starving. I accept your denigratory opinion rather than being part of a contemporary science - cheating/lying (theorizing?) based upon denied ignorance. Your humble agnostix I still don't understand what you're saying. Sorry. -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 16 March 2015 at 06:49, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: Organisms apply pressure on surfaces, even if they are dead. This is just a property of chunks of solid matter. Evolution did not create this behaviour I disagree. Evolution didn't select for that behavior but it did cause it, without Evolution no cadaver would exist and so there would be no pressure at that spot. The question is simple: why can't organisms generated by evolutionary processes possess properties that are not the result of evolutionary pressure? All the properties that an animal has are the result of evolutionary pressure although sometimes it's indirect, the property may not confer a reproductive advantage and it might even be invisible to Evolution but Evolution could still produce it if it's the product of some other property that does have an evolutionary advantage. Not every aspect of a building is the result of a decision by an architect, some features are just the byproduct of other decisions; if he wants to put a arch in a rectangular enclosure he's going to get a spandrel whether he wants it or not. It's the same with evolutionary spandrels, if intelligence confers an Evolutionary advantage it will be selected for and its byproduct, consciousness, will come along for the ride even if it has no Evolutionary advantage whatsoever. So, consciousness - evolutionary advantage or spandrell? -- 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.
Re: The Weakness of Panpsychism?
Did you actually mean that Bruno or should it be infinite - I thought you defined the notion. -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 3/15/2015 7:57 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: You assume that intelligence only comes from brains. Only a fool would not assume that and I am not a fool. It is true that drugs that make brains less intelligent make them less conscious. But it might not be true of, for example Watson, because Watson's intelligence depends on accessing an huge database (the web). Although much of his knowledge originally came from the internet the Jeopardy champagne Watson did not have internet access,all it had to relay on was it's internal memory. If you cut off its access it would be much less intelligent, it would be like a scholar whose library was taken away. The correct analogue would be a scholar who's memory had been totally erased, in which case he would no longer be a scholar; and without language his incoherent grunts would no longer be judged as being very intelligent behavior by most. The scholar is not less conscious I can't prove it of course, I can't prove anything about consciousness, but nevertheless I believe that someone with no memory would be less conscious, But you've exaggerated the example to create a straw man. Watson has some local database, he doesn't access the web for everything; so my analogy is correct. Watson, like the scholar, would be less intelligent, know the answer to fewer questions, but Watson would still do the same searches and inferences - simply on a small amount of data. Similarly, a young child behaves less intelligently than an adult simply because he has fewer mental tools and less background knowledge. But there's no reason to think he's less conscious. Bruno would say he's less competent, but more intelligent, but you seem to identify competence and intelligence. Which is reasonable in the short run. 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 14 March 2015 at 05:44, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/13/2015 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:25 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/12/2015 1:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Not me. I'm the opposite, I was always confused by the idea that rocks are not conscious. If you ever have an operation, I suggest you check to see that your anesthesiologist is not confused. There's maybe a difference between being a conscious entity and being conscious of something. Telmo. So you think you could be conscious without being conscious *of* something? I think that's wrong and that's why I think consciousness requires physics - dreams not withstanding. In dreams you're conscious of something - presumably the contents of the brain's VR generator running without input. -- 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 3/15/2015 6:15 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote consciousness may be an necessary spandrel of brain architecture, but NOT of intelligence in general. The same drugs that make me behave stupidly also makes me feel less conscious, and that fact is incompatible with the above idea. No it's not. You assume that intelligence only comes from brains. It is true that drugs that make brains less intelligent make them less conscious. But it might not be true of, for example Watson, because Watson's intelligence depends on accessing an huge database (the web). If you cut off its access it would be much less intelligent, but it would be like a scholar whose library was taken away. The scholar is not less conscious - at least in the usual understanding of conscious. As you often say, and I think correctly, consciousness is easy, intelligence is hard; which implies that they are not necessarily linked. 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: You assume that intelligence only comes from brains. Only a fool would not assume that and I am not a fool. It is true that drugs that make brains less intelligent make them less conscious. But it might not be true of, for example Watson, because Watson's intelligence depends on accessing an huge database (the web). Although much of his knowledge originally came from the internet the Jeopardy champagne Watson did not have internet access,all it had to relay on was it's internal memory. If you cut off its access it would be much less intelligent, it would be like a scholar whose library was taken away. The correct analogue would be a scholar who's memory had been totally erased, in which case he would no longer be a scholar; and without language his incoherent grunts would no longer be judged as being very intelligent behavior by most. The scholar is not less conscious I can't prove it of course, I can't prove anything about consciousness, but nevertheless I believe that someone with no memory would be less conscious, far less conscious, because there would be far fewer things for him to be conscious of. 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.
Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
On 14 March 2015 at 07:21, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/13/2015 10:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:44 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/13/2015 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:25 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 3/12/2015 1:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Not me. I'm the opposite, I was always confused by the idea that rocks are not conscious. If you ever have an operation, I suggest you check to see that your anesthesiologist is not confused. There's maybe a difference between being a conscious entity and being conscious of something. Telmo. So you think you could be conscious without being conscious *of* something? I'm not sure, as per my response to Bruno. But this is not what I meant to suggest here. My argument is simply that anaesthetics appear to allow one to not be conscious of the external environment. We can only speculate if one remains conscious of some internal environment. That's just mystification. We don't only speculate. We can monitor brain waves, hormone levels, blood pressure, reflexes. Last time I was anaesthetised, I had rather vivid dreams. -- 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.
