[ExI] Quantum consciousness, quantum mysticism, and transhumanist engineering
johnkclark at gmail.com
Fri Mar 10 22:43:04 UTC 2017
On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
> A critical part of consciousness intelligence is the ability to be
> simultaneously aware of lots of diverse qualitative experiences.
Computers have had multiprocessors for years.
> Not only is the way we consciously do it,
> I hate to keep harping on this but it's important, what's with this "we"
business? The hypothesis that John K Clark is the only conscious being in
the universe is 100% consistent with every scrap of evidence I have at my
> by being aware of all of it at once, much more efficient, it’s easy to see
> why evolution used this much more efficiently intelligent system
Then it would be easier to make a intelligent conscious
computer than a intelligent non-conscious computer. So if you see a
computer or anything else (such as one of your fellow human beings)
behaving intelligently your default assumption should be that person or
thing is conscious.
> a minimal example of this kind of efficiently powerfully intelligent
> qualitative conscious functionally is something that is doing a redness
> function, something that is doing a greenness function, and something that
> is able to functionally bind these two (and lots of other stuff) so we can
> be aware of both of them at the same time.
If the ability to distinguish between red and green (consciously or
unconsciously) does not effect behavior then it is irreverent as far as
Evolution is concerned how efficiently it functions. So if Darwin was right
how did you get the ability to distinguish between red and green? And if it
does effect behavior then the Turing Test works for consciousness and not
just for intelligence.
> I predict,
> you will still be able to “eff the ineffable” by binding two brains
> together in a kind of meta conscious system
> When dealing with matters of consciousness person pronouns can mask a lot
of logical errors. Who exactly is the referent of the pronoun "you" in the
> that is bound together (similar to the way your right and left hemispheres
> are bound) that can both fully experience “Johns redness”, and “Brent’s
> redness” in the same kind of bound together way so you can qualitatively
> completely compare the two,
> John Clark will never know what red is like for
will never know what red is like for John Clark, and John Allsop wouldn't
ever know what red is like for either of us, all that fellow would know is
what red is like for John Allsop.
John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat