[ExI] Where is Consciousness located?
brent.allsop at comcast.net
Mon Dec 24 23:24:25 UTC 2007
John K Clark wrote:
> Gee Lee you're no fun, how am I supposed to argue with you when I agree
> with every word you said? Next time please have the courtesy to say at
> least one stupid thing.
> John K Clark
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
I apologize for getting my wiring crossed and thinking you believed one
way, when in actuality, you believe something quite different. Thank
you for helping to clear this up.
The reason I am having such problems, is what you believe isn't familiar
to me, so it just isn't sinking in. It is hard to remember what you
So is what you and Lee agree on, that intelligence is impossible without
consciousness? Is what you believe anything like any of the theories
already in the Canonizer?
It would sure help everyone, if you guys could come up with a concise
statement describing just what it is the two of you believe, and why.
And even if I still have a hard time understanding and remembering it,
I'll at least all have an easy reference to go back to without having to
try to dig through and miss interpret the log files.
Also, you don't yet completely understand everything about our theory.
That is great that you are keeping logs of conversations as far back as
2005. And that you could dig up the following:
> Check arorund Nov 2005, for one example of a bunch of us having
> this same conversation.
Oh yes, that's where you said "Phenomenal properties are most definitely
causal" but now you say "I also very much disagree with the idea that
consciousness is only a process". Brent it's OK to change your mind but the
trouble is you're going backward.
But you are talking that out of context, and not understanding the whole
story, all of which is concisely defined here:
precisely so you don't have to dig through logs, take statements out of
context, and such:
Within this theory, phenomenal properties are an additional to behavior
properties of something cause and effect science has already told us
(behaviorally) about. So the theory is, that something has both causal
properties and phenomenal properties. We can objectively detect or
"see" them through their cause and effect behavior, such an abstracted
cause and effect observation process is just unable to know the real
phenomenal property of the original matter, even though the abstracted
knowledge resulting from such a cause and effect detection process is
behaving like it.
But, all this is already stated in the canonizer statement above. It is
frustrating to have to regurgitate it here.
More information about the extropy-chat