From: fudley (fuddley@fastmail.fm)
Date: Fri May 28 2004 - 08:22:39 MDT
On Fri, 28 May , "Eliezer Yudkowsky" <sentience@pobox.com> said:
>The fact that needs explaining is: "Why do people believe
> they are conscious?"
I don’t know for a fact that “people” do believe they are conscious; the
only thing I know for sure is that I am conscious. As I said before,
consciousness theories that can neither be proved nor disproved are a
dime a dozen. Example:
“A size 12 shoe causes consciousness, people with other shoe sizes may be
intelligent but are no more conscious than a rock.”
As a matter of fact I have one confirming example that this proposition
is true and none that it is untrue. I can even propose an experiment that
has the potential to disprove it so that makes it a valid scientific
theory; I could cut off my feet and see if I’m still conscious. I confess
I haven’t performed this last experiment yet.
I said it before I’ll say it again, consciousness theories are a dime a
dozen.
John K Clark
> fudley wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 27 May 2004, "Marc Geddes" <marc_geddes@yahoo.co.nz> said:
> >
> >>Conclusions: Higher level forms of qualia are
> >>obtained through multiple recursion of the
> >>laws of logic.
> >
> > Consciousness (but not intelligence!) theories are a dime a dozen because
> > there are no facts they need explain.
>
> The fact that needs explaining is: "Why do people believe they are
> conscious?" When David Chalmers says "I have qualia", air vibrates, his
> lips move, a physical event bound into the universe of cause and effect.
> The problem with panpsychism is that if you can't measure the so-called
> "awareness" of elementary particles, the alleged "awareness" can't affect
> Chalmers's brainstate in any way. Cannot be the agency responsible, in
> *any* sense, for making Chalmers's lips move. Eliminate the postulate of
> panpsychism, and everything remains exactly the same, including the real
> explanation for Chalmers's lips moving.
>
> Even at age sixteen, when I thought mysterious questions had mysterious
> answers, I knew better than *that*.
>
> > Come up with an experiment that has
> > the potential to prove you wrong and I’ll be interested.
> >
> > John K Clark
>
> I once heard a wise man say:
>
> "The trouble is that consciousness theories are very easy to dream up...
> Theories that explain intelligence, on the other hand, are fiendishly
> difficult to come by and so are profoundly useful. I don't know for sure
> that intelligence always produces consciousness, but I do know that if
> you
> assume it does you'll never be disappointed."
> -- John K Clark
>
> It was good advice.
>
> --
> Eliezer S. Yudkowsky http://intelligence.org/
> Research Fellow, Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
-- http://www.fastmail.fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:47 MDT