<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000">Hard enough to define consciousness. How about knowledge? Where does it start? The body knows thousands of things to do - digesting food, responding to pain, reflexes like kneejerks, various emotions - all of these built in. Then you have CRs, like staying away from a hot stove on which you have burned yourself.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000">Then reinforcement type knowledge - what to do to gain positive reinforcers and avoid punishments. Verbal knowledge. Motor knowledge. Etc.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000">All animals, down to the amoeba, possess reflexes. A bit up from that are conditioned reflexes.</div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000"><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:comic sans ms,sans-serif;font-size:large;color:#000000">So - just how are you using the term 'knowledge' in your discussion of consciousness? If knowledge equal consciousness then by some definitions the amoeba is conscious bill w</div></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 9:28 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="ltr"><div>Thank you John for your thoughts. I few notes below:</div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sat, Aug 26, 2023 at 7:17 AM John Clark <<a href="mailto:johnkclark@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">johnkclark@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif">On Fri, Aug 25, 2023 at 1:47 PM Jason Resch <<a href="mailto:jasonresch@gmail.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">jasonresch@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</span><br></div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="auto"><div><br></div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>At a high level, states of consciousness are states of knowledge,</i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">That is certainly true, but what about the reverse, does <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">a </span>high state of knowledge imply consciousness? I'll never be able to prove it but I believe it does but of course for this idea to be practical there must be some way <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">of demonstrating</span><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>that the thing in question<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>does indeed have a high state of knowledge, and the test for that is the Turing <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">T</span>est<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">, and the fact that my fellow human beings have passed the Turing test is the only reason I believe that I am NOT the only conscious being in the universe. </span></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Yes, I believe there's an identity between states of knowledge and states of consciousness. That is almost implicit in the definition of consciousness:</div><div>con- means "with"</div><div>-scious- means "knowledge"<br></div><div>-ness means "the state of being"</div><div>con-scious-ness -> the state of being with knowledge.</div><div><br></div><div>Then, the question becomes: what is a state of knowledge? How do we implement or instantiate a knowledge state, physically or otherwise?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">My intuition is that it requires a process of differentiation, such that some truth becomes entangled with the system's existence.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>A conditional is a means by which a system can enter/reach a state of knowledge (i.e. a state of consciousness) if and only if some fact is true.</i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">Then "conditional" is not a useful philosophical term because you could be conscious of and know a lot about Greek mythology. but none of it is true except for the fact that Greek mythology is about Greek mythology.<br></font></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes. Here, the truth doesn't have to be some objective truth, it can be truth of what causes ones mind to reach a particular state. E.g., here it would be the truth of what particular sensory data came into the scholar's eyes as he read a book of Greek mythology.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><font size="4"></font><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span> <i>Consciousness is revealed as an immaterial, ephemeral relation, not any particular physical thing we can point at or hold.</i></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4">I mostly agree with that but that doesn't imply there's anything mystical going on, information is also immaterial and you can't point to <b>ANY PARTICULAR</b> physical thing</font></div><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><font size="4"></font></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I agree.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><font size="4"> (although you can always point to <b>SOME </b>physical thing) and I believe it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way information feels when it is being processed intelligently.</font></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I like this analogy, but I think it is incomplete. Can information (by itself) feel? Can information (by itself) have meaning?</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I see value in making a distinction between information and "the system to be informed." I think the pair are necessary for there to be meaning, or consciousness.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><font size="4"> However there is nothing ephemeral about information, as far as we can tell the laws of physics are unitary, <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">that is </span>information can't be destroyed and the probability of all possible outcomes must add up to 100%. For a while Stephen Hawking thought that Black Holes destroyed information but he later changed his mind, Kip Thorne still thinks it may do so but he is in the minority.</font></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">I agree information can't be destroyed. But note that what I called ephemeral was the conditional relation, which (at least usually) seems to occur and last during a short time.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><font size="4"> <br></font><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>All we need to do is link some action to a state of knowledge.</i></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><font size="4">At the most fundamental level that pretty much defines what a computer programmer does<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> to make a living. </span> </font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Yes.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><i> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>It shows the close relationship between consciousness and information, where information is defined as "a difference that makes a difference",</i></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><font size="4">And the smallest difference that still makes a difference is the difference between <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">one and zero, or </span>on and off<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">.</span> </font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">The bit is the simplest unit of information, but interestingly, there can also be fractional bits. For example, if there's a 75% chance of some event, like two coin tossings not both being heads, and I tell you that two coin tossings were not both heads, then I have only communicated -log2(0.75) ~= 0.415 bits of information to you.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">><i> </i></span><i>It shows a close relationship between consciousness and computationalism,</i></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><font size="4"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">I s</span>trongly agree with that<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">, it makes no difference if the thing doing that computation is carbon-based and wet and squishy, or silicon-based and dry and hard. </span> </font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Absolutely 👍</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"> <span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span> It is also supportive of functionalism and it's multiple realizability, as there are many possibile physical arrangements that lead to conditionals.</blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif" dir="auto"><font size="4">YES!</font></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>It's clear there neural networks firings is all about conditionals and combining them in whether or not a neuron will fire and which other neurons have fired binds up many conditional relations into one larger one.<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>It seems no intelligent (reactive, deliberative, contemplative, reflective, etc.) process can be made that does not contain at least some conditionals. As without them, there can be no responsiveness. This explains the biological necessity to evolve conditionals and apply them in the guidance of behavior. In other words, consciousness (states of knowledge) would be strictly necessary for intelligence to evolve.</i></div></div></blockquote><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><font size="4">I agree with all of that.<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span></font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Happy to hear that. Thanks for all your feedback.</div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto">Jason </div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto"><div dir="auto"><font size="4" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>John K Clark See what's on my new list at </font><font size="6" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><a href="https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">Extropolis</a></font><br></div><div dir="auto"><div style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><font size="1" color="#ffffff">xex</font></div><br></div><div dir="auto"><font size="4"> </font></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"> </div></div></div>
<p></p>
-- <br>
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.<br>
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to <a href="mailto:everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">everything-list+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br>
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href="https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0q60k%3DqoWMbNsAOVxG_qotkyV8TJhN8-vNLoMg7Pu48A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer" rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank">https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0q60k%3DqoWMbNsAOVxG_qotkyV8TJhN8-vNLoMg7Pu48A%40mail.gmail.com</a>.<br>
</blockquote></div></div></div>
_______________________________________________<br>
extropy-chat mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org" target="_blank">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat</a><br>
</blockquote></div>