[ExI] Where is Consciousness located?

Brent Allsop brent.allsop at comcast.net
Sun Dec 23 00:24:21 UTC 2007


Yes, I know you think this way, we've had this conversation many times 
over the years, and I've attempted to show how these statements you make 
over and over again about what we believe to be mistaken, so evidently 
repeating them yet again will not be worth much since it didn't help the 
last time, and you don't seem to be listening.  Non the less, now, 
except for the part about evolution, there are concise statements as to 
why your statements are mistaken contained in the camp statements here:


And there are also some other pretty good thinkers in our camp, 
concisely agreeing with us that you are mistaken.

As far as the evolution part goes, you've also made this mistaken 
argument before also.  Do you keep archives?  Check arorund Nov 2005, 
for one example of a bunch of us having this same conversation.  Myself, 
and I believe others like Damien Broderick, explained why you are 
wrong.  But of course, telling people to dig such information out of 
conversation logs isn't of much use right?  And obviously people don't 
just remember such, not to mention all the new people having to suffer 
through all this yet again.

So instead of repeatedly mistakenly using evolution in this way to argue 
your belief in such conversations after we have refuted them, perhaps if 
you really still think it is not mistaken, you could canonize this 
argument?  Then I can canonize our response as to why it is mistaken, 
explain, in a little more rigorous way, that if an environment has 
natural phenomenal properties, they could be used to more effeciently 
represent information, especially of the motivational type, than simple 
abstracted behavioral representations.  All of this clearely 
demonstrating how evolution could evolve to utilize such, due to their 
benefit and efficiently for increasing intelligence, if they existed, 
yet we, with our still, but not for much longer, only causal observation 
abilities, are completely objectively blind to them,  i.e. they are 
still ineffable.

Brent Allsop

John K Clark wrote:
> Brent Allsop Wrote:
>> I also very much disagree with the idea that consciousness
>> is only a  process or only behavior
> So you have absolutely no reason to think any of your fellow human beings
> are unconscious when they sleep, or even when they die for that matter;
> their behavior changes and some rather odoriferous processes begin, but
> according to you that means nothing. In fact you have absolutely 
> positively
> no reason to think you are not the only conscious being in the universe.
> Also you can not believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution because although
> it could create intelligence that theory could never explain how a 
> conscious
> being like you came into existence.
>> or not located anywhere.
> So you belong to the camp of: Although my brain is in Paris and is 
> looking
> at a football game from Detroit and is listening    to a friend in 
> Australia
> and is thinking about The Great Wall of China, REALLY my consciousness is
> located inside a box made of bone. I would maintain this is yet another
> example of an idea so bad it's not even wrong because the word "really"
> in the above has no meaning, it's just a noise.
>> the hard problem of consciousness.
> The reason it's so hard is that the "problem" can not even be stated
> much less the answer.
> John K Clark

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list