<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">On Sat, May 27, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Stuart LaForge </span><span dir="ltr" style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><<a href="mailto:avant@sollegro.com" target="_blank">avant@sollegro.com</a>></span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> wrote:</span><br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"> <br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" 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"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>it<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>started back in the Darwin days. As people realized that animals could be<br>
smart too,</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default"><font face="arial, helvetica, sans-serif"></font><font size="4">And after reading Darwin the obvious question to ask is "Evolution can't directly detect consciousness any better than I can and yet I know for a fact it managed to produce it at least once, how did it do that?". The only answer is that consciousness is a unavoidable byproduct of intelligent behavior. I think "consciousness is the way data feels like when it is being processed" is a brute fact so it is pointless to ask how or why.</font></div></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" 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"> <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>they started raising the bar from intelligence to consciousness<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>without really defining either<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><font size="4">But they had something far far better than definitions, examples. We all have billions of examples of intelligence and one example of consciousness. </font></div><font size="4"> </font></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" 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">
</blockquote><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" 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"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" 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"><span class="gmail-"><font size="4">
> The Turing Test has nothing to do with Turing Machines, the test is<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>agnostic as to how the subject manages to produce the observed behavior,<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>it's irrelevant.</font></span></blockquote><span class="gmail-">
<br>
</span><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">> </div>Yes. That is why I call it the generalized Turing test (GTT) to<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>distinguish it from the historical Turing test</blockquote><div><br></div><div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div><font size="4">I don't understand, are you saying the<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>historical Turing test<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>will work for consciousness as well as intelligence, or are you proposing some new test that could distinguish between a<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>intelligent conscious being and a intelligent<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>non-conscious being? If so then Evolution must have used that test too, but then it must be based on behavior because <div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline">behavior is</div> what improves survival chances not consciousness, but if it's based on behavior then it's just the standard vanilla<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>Turing Test. </font></div><div><span style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"><br></div></span></div><font size="4">Consciousness theories are a dime a dozen because unlike intelligence theories there is no way to prove or disprove any of them, so I have no doubt one of those theories could be used to make a consciousness test fine tuned<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>to make sure humans passed<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>it<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>but<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div><div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline">computers </div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"></div>didn't (such as consciousness theory#93,642: conscious beings must be squishy)<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>but there would be no reason to think<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>the theory was<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>correct<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>or that<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif;display:inline"> </div>the test actually worked.<br><br>John K Clark<br></font></div><div class="gmail_quote"><br> <div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" 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"><div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>