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

[John Clark]

On Fri, Sep 11, 2026 at 3:36 PM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:

*> Are you signed up to Alcor?*
>

*Yes.*

*> When you sign up, do they ask if you are comfortable with a digital
> emulation rather than a resuscitation of your original biological
> substrate?*
>

*They didn't ask but if they had I would've said I would be perfectly
comfortable with a digital emulation rather than a resuscitation of my
original biological substrate. And at the time of my sign-up I knew it was
a longshot, but **if I was lucky enough to actually be revived then it
would almost certainly be as a digital emulation. Mr. Jupiter Brain will
not want me running around at the same level of reality as his hardware
servers. *


> *> Do substrates matter?*
>

*Not to me, but then I'm not religious. *

*  > Will our AI and robot companions be conscious,*


*I don't know and will never know for certain, but the probability that
our intelligent robot companions are conscious would be the same as the
probability that our intelligent fellow humans are conscious.  *

* > what level of precision is required*


*I can't give you a precise figure but I do know that infinite precision is
not required because I feel that I have remained the same person even after
I've taken a sip of coffee.  *

*John K Clark*





*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*
>>> _
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260912/4a11e9b7/attachment-0001.htm>