[ExI] My theory of consciousness

[John Clark]

On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 10:13 AM Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:

*>>> The way a process feels when it is informed by information.*
>>>
>>
>> *>> That is circular. You are trying to explain consciousness but by
>> using the word "informed" you are already assuming the existence of a
>> conscious entity. **By contrast I am saying it's a brute fact that
>> consciousness is the way that data feels when it is being processed
>> intelligently, and that is NOT circular.  *
>>
>
> *> ffs, "feels" is the silly colloquial word here. *
>

*Calling it "colloquial" may be appropriate because I deliberately tried to
express the idea in the least pompous way possible, but I don't see
anything silly about it *

* > By taking your oft-repeated soundbite and substituting
> information-processing language you reacted against your own point in
> another's words. *
>

*The words are not synonyms. You can always exchange the word
"consciousness" with "feeling" but the reverse is not always possible
because one is a proper subset of the other. *


> *> At this point I will contribute: "hotdog is the way data feels when a
> dog is hot" because it is similarly meaningful*
>

*That is an incorrect analogy. A hotdog does not behave intelligently
therefore a sane person, that is to say a person that does not believe in
solipsism, would conclude that neither the words "consciousness" nor
"feeling" can be applied to a hotdog.  *

 * > We don't need to work on this anymore, JKC has solved it with the
> exact string needed.  Nothing to do now but print the bumper stickers.*


*That depends on exactly what you mean by "this".  But when it comes to new
things we have learned about consciousness over the last thousand years you
could indeed put all of that on a bumper sticker and still have room for a
"Dump Trump" message. But, as the AI revolution vividly illustrates, during
the last 5 years we have learned an astronomical amount of new things about
the nature of intelligence.  *

*> >> See section 11.4 of the paper linked from the zenodo URL for details
>>> on a series of empirical tests that could falsify the theory.*
>>>
>>
>> *>>I am unable to access **that part, perhaps I could if I kept on
>> trying but I don't think it would be worth the effort because **whatever
>> you are suggesting I am quite certain it must be incorrect. Post the
>> relevant parts here and prove me wrong. If it's really as good as you claim
>> then you will have made the largest philosophical advance in a 1000 years,
>> if not 10,000 years. *
>>
>
> *>But John, what if it IS a link to "Consciousness is the way data feels
> when it is being processed intelligently"?  I am as-certain that statement
> is not-even wrong; it's meaningless.*
>

*Meaningless? Please elaborate. And I note you have not, as I had
requested, posted the way that you claimed would enable somebody
to experimentally falsify your idea if it was wrong. *

*John K Clark  *
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20260921/dc3da8a8/attachment.htm>