[ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering

William Flynn Wallace foozler83 at gmail.com
Sat Apr 1 20:16:38 UTC 2017


John wrote:


​No.​ Definitions are for losers, examples are for winners.
---------

I can only go by the way I learned it:  if you want to be scientific you
have to define your terms.  The term I learned is 'operational definition'
- you define your terms, ego, atom, anything you want to study by the
scientific method, by the way you measure it - the operations you perform.
I have chided people in my field for using the word 'instinct' without
defining it, leaving it vague and nebulous and unrestricted, undelimited.

If you cannot do that, you cannot claim to have produced a scientific fact
with your experiments.  Countless psychologists have failed this test,
along with millions of others in many fields, many not claiming to be
scientific.

I only object to your use of a circular definition.  I think we basically
agree in that you argue that an 'example' is what justifies the use of the
word 'science'.  As long as that example meets the test of being
operational, objective, reliable, accepted by others as scientific, or at
least as scientific as one can be at the stage of knowledge in that area as
on can be, then we agree.

People outside of science are puzzled by such definitions as 'intelligence
is what intelligence tests measure'.  But this is perfectly operational and
useful.

bill w

On Sat, Apr 1, 2017 at 12:01 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 31, 2017 at 3:49 PM, William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>> ​>> ​
>>> I think it is a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when
>>> it is being processed.​
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> ​> ​
>> define 'feel'.
>>
>
> ​No.​ Definitions are for losers, examples are for winners.
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> If you are conscious you can feel it; you can feel it if you're
>> conscious.  Round and round.
>>
>
>> Yes, but that's not just true of the words feeling and conscious, it's
> true for any definition. All definitions in the dictionary are made of
> words, and those words are also in the dictionary and
> ​ ​
> are also made of words which are also in the dictionary.... and round
> ​and round
>  we go. The only thing that can get us off that infinite loop and the only
> reason language is
> ​ ​
> not meaningless is
> ​ ​
> because of
> ​ ​
> examples, a connection between the ASCII sequence "feel" and something
> outside of the dictionary in the physical world. For example: When you put
> your hand on a red hot stove you "feel" something.
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> Data processing can be verified objectively for man and machine.
>>
>
>> Yes and that means Evolution can verify it too, but Evolution can NOT
> verify consciousness and yet I know for a fact Evolution produced
> consciousness at least once on this small planet,
> ​ ​
> and I might not be the only conscious being in the world, perhaps many
> billions of other people are conscious too. How can that be? The only
> explanation I can come up with is consciousness is an unavoidable byproduct
> of data processing.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20170401/867f33ed/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list