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

[William Flynn Wallace]

John wrote:

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
disposal.


---------

Just what would you accept as evidence contrary to your being the only
conscious entity?  Is consciousness a variable only in you?

Just a reminder:  every input to our brain is unconscious before it is
conscious (presumably not the same for an AI), and we can behave in certain
ways, and can even be biased towards the input before that stimulus enters
consciousness.  Also, certain stimuli may be blocked for various reasons,
such as the person is highly attending to something else, or the input is
psychologically dangerous, and yet those stimuli may be retained in the
unconscious, to perhaps affect our behavior later.  (these things are the
things that hypnotic regression studies are trying to get at - which I
think are very highly suspicious and should be presumed invalid without
more evidence of an objective nature)

Another idea:  perhaps our consciousness is partly epiphenomenal -
sometimes it is in the cause and effect sequence, and sometimes it is just
along for the ride and not driving the vehicle at all, just observing.

Consciousness is the experience of and is totally dependent on stimulus
inputs from our environment or the brain itself.  No inputs, no
consciousness, like Stage 3 sleep.  Why make it so complicated?

No one willing to tackle my post on dreams?

bill w

On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 4:43 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 10, 2017 at 2:59 PM, Brent Allsop <brent.allsop at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> 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
> disposal.
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> 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 above?​
>
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> 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 ​
> Brent Allsop
> ​, and ​
>  ​
> Brent Allsop
> ​ 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170312/99d4cd78/attachment.html>