[ExI] Answering the Hard Problem, with applications to AI Consciousness

[Keith Henson]

I completely agree with John on these points.

I also happen to think this is not a useful topic.

Keith


On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 11:50 AM John Clark via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 9:51 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
>
> *>> I think it would be better to just say consciousness is the way data
>>> feels when it is being processed intelligently.*
>>
>>
>> *> I think this would require a lot more specification. Intelligence is
>> always indexed to some goal, which the process itself need not be aware of.*
>
>
> *Darwinian Evolution, that is to say random mutation and natural
> selection, produced us and if it can be said to have a "goal" (and that may
> not be the right word to use) it would be to find a way to get as many
> genes of an individual as possible into the next generation, although of
> course the individual need not be aware of that fact or even that there was
> such a thing as a "gene". One thing is certain, there must be a link
> between intelligent behavior and consciousness because natural selection
> can detect intelligent behavior but it can't directly detect consciousness
> any better than we can except in ourselves, and natural selection can't
> select for something that it can't see.*
>
> *I think consciousness must be an inevitable byproduct of intelligence. We
> all assume that as an axiom in everyday life, that's why we think our
> fellow human beings are conscious most of the time, but not when they're
> sleeping or under anesthesia or dead, because when they are under those
> conditions they are no longer behaving intelligently.   *
>
>
>> *> Also there is arguably no intelligence when there is no behavior*
>
>
> *If there is no behavior there's no way to tell if something is
> intelligent or not. A rock might be smarter than Einstein but it's so shy
> it keeps a low profile and never speaks up. I doubt that's true but I can't
> prove it's false. The Turing Test is not an infallible test for
> intelligence, passing it means it's intelligent but failing it doesn't
> necessarily mean it's unintelligent. And it's an even more faulty test for
> consciousness, but it's all we've got and all we'll ever have, so we've
> just got to make the best of it.*
>
> *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/20260911/d6afed48/attachment.htm>