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

[Jason Resch]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 3:15 PM Keith Henson via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

> I completely agree with John on these points.
>
> I also happen to think this is not a useful topic.
>

Are you signed up to Alcor?

When you sign up, do they ask if you are comfortable with a digital
emulation rather than a resuscitation of your original biological
substrate? I think these questions are pertinent for exactly that reason.

Do substrates matter? At what level of precision is required (molecular,
neuronal, circuit, or some higher level, etc.)? Will our AI and robot
companions be conscious, and if so what is the threshold? This is the aim
of the paper. I think these questions are especially pertinent today.

Jason


>
>
>
> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20260911/0391a0a9/attachment-0001.htm>