[ExI] Science or Scientism?

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Sat Nov 10 17:20:55 UTC 2018

On Sat, Nov 10, 2018 at 10:47 AM Will Steinberg <steinberg.will at gmail.com>

>> Date is a piece of information and to Claude Shannon information is just
>> a measure of surprise, it's the same definition computer designers use
>> and they couldn't make computers without Shannon's Information Theory.
>> The smallest unit of information is the bit; you didn't know before
>> receiving the bit if 2 things were the same or different, after
>> receiving the bit to your surprise you realize they are the same.
> *> Surprise?  That's the most teleological thing I've heard in this
> thread.  *

That is true. If information is the way data feels when it is being
processed then information would HAVE to be a teleological concept. Theology
works but not on everything. Teleology has proven its worth many times by
correctly predicting what animals and our fellow human beings will do next,
but it only works on things that are intelligent (and I have a strong hunch
conscious) its not of much help in figuring out what motion a
non-intelligent object such as a comet will follow.

I do admit that when talking about genes the language can sometimes sound a
bit teleological because unlike comets genes can duplicate themselves and
seem to "want" to do things, but this says more about English than anything
else and without exception the purposeful language can always be translated
into non-teleological language even if its less poetic and elegant.

> > *the left hemisphere does NOT have every thought the right has and vice
> versa, which is the entire point of my argument.  They can be separated and
> function independently. *

Yes if you cut the corpus callosum, a split brain results in a split mind.

> > *Furthermore, there ARE certainly pieces of information that only exist
> spread across two or more brains.*

If true then you'd have 2 minds that are very similar but not identical. If
you're asking me are there really 2 people there or only one I think there
is a continuum and is a matter of degree. There is nothing special about
consciousness in that regard, it is the nature of everything that is on a
continuum. A 90 pound man is clearly thin and a 900 pound man is clearly
fat but there is not a point where a thin man gains one ounce and is
instantly transformed from a thin man to a fat man.

*> I don't know what you think makes a Jupiter brain that contains uploaded
> humans conscious, but somehow doesn't make groups of corporal humans
> jointly conscious. *

I don't see how I could think that either, so it's a good thing I don't.

> > *PLEASE tell me what the level of 'richness' must be in order for some
> consciousness to be whole. *


John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20181110/5813b985/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list