<div><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">On Fri., 10 Mar. 2017 at 12:56 pm, John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail_msg"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail_msg" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_msg">On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 Stathis Papaioannou <<a href="mailto:stathisp@gmail.com" class="gmail_msg" target="_blank">stathisp@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail_msg" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">> The point I was making is that the implausible idea that evolution chanced upon the only way to produce consciousness<br class="gmail_msg"></blockquote><br class="gmail_msg"></div><div class="gmail_msg"><font size="4" class="gmail_msg">Even<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>if Evolution just got lucky and came up with a consciousness gene by<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>accident it wouldn't have been able to keep it for long<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>if consciousness is not a byproduct of intelligence;<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>it would be lost by genetic drift. All genes experience mutation but if the gene is vital and the mutation renders it inoperative then<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>that nonfunctional gene<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>will not be passed<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>on<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>into the next generation<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">; </div>but the <div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>consciousness gene has no effect o<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">n</div> behavior<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>so there would be no way for natural selection to even notice it was missing<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> much less select against it</div>. So in just a few generations humans would be a race of zombies<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>with a mutated consciousness gene that no longer worked<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">.</div> And yet I know for a fact that I am conscious.</font><br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><font size="4" class="gmail_msg">There are only 3 ways out of this contradiction:</font><br class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"><font size="4" class="gmail_msg">1) Darwin was dead wrong.<br class="gmail_msg">2) I am unique, I am the last conscious being in the universe<br class="gmail_msg">3)<div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Consciousness is the unavoidable byproduct of intelligence because consciousness is just the way data feel when it is being processed.</font><div class="gmail_msg"><font size="4" class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></font></div><div class="gmail_msg"><font size="4" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">I don't think Darwin was wrong so it's got to be #2 or 3.</div></font></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">I think it's 3, but the other possibility is that consciousness is tied to organic chemistry, and if evolution had electric circuits to play with, for example, then the world would have been filled with zombie robots instead of conscious animals. On the face of it this is implausible but not absurd; but if true it leads to absurdity, as below.</div></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail_msg" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><font size="4" class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div></font></div></div><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail_msg" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">> leads to the even more implausible idea that consciousness is independent of brain function.</blockquote><br class="gmail_msg"></div></div><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><font size="4" class="gmail_msg">A change in the physical chemistry <div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">of my brain </div>leads to a change <div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">in my</div> consciousness, and <div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">my</div> conscious experience, such as a itch, leads to a change in a physical object, such as <div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">my</div> hand scratching <div class="gmail_default gmail_msg" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">my</div> nose. I just don't understand what more evidence the skeptics of a physics-consciousness link need. </font></div></div></blockquote><div class="gmail_msg"><br class="gmail_msg"></div></div></div></div><div><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_quote gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg">The proponents of the idea that consciousness is tied to organic chemistry would say that swapping biological parts for non-biological functionally equivalent parts would lead to zombies, or at least differently conscious beings. At first glance, that seems to be correct. But with a little further thought it becomes evident that this would mean either that consciousness and behaviour are decoupled, or that it would be possible to have an arbitrarily large change in your consciousness and not notice. these bizarre situations can be avoided if consciousness is, as you say, a necessary side-effect of intelligent behaviour, regardless of how it is generated.</div><blockquote class="gmail_quote gmail_msg" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="gmail_msg"><div class="gmail_msg"><font size="4" class="gmail_msg"></font></div></div>
</blockquote></div></div></div><div dir="ltr">-- <br></div><div data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Stathis Papaioannou</div>