<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"><span style="font-family:Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;background-color:transparent">On Mon, Sep 21, 2026 at 9:07 AM Jason Resch via extropy-chat <<a href="mailto:extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org</a>> wrote:</span></div></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><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><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"><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"></div><div dir="auto"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">></span><span class="gmail_default"> </span>Computational functionalism treats cognition as implemented information processing,</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>Yes.</b></font></div><div><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"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>but leaves open why experience exists,</i></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>Yes.</b></font></div><div><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"><font size="4"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span><i><font face="georgia, serif">and how it affects behavior.</font></i></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>No.</b></font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><font size="4" face="georgia, serif"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>No that CTM leaves it open, or No that consciousness doesn't affect behavior?</i></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div class="gmail_default" style=""><font size="4" style="" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b style="">Computational functionalism can explain behavior while ignoring consciousness entirely. If that was not true then Darwinian Evolution would never have been able to produce a conscious being, and yet I know for a fact that it managed to do so at least once, and probably many billions of times. </b></font><b style="background-color:transparent"><font size="4" style="" face="tahoma, sans-serif">Computational functionalism is certainly not claiming that consciousness doesn't exist, it's just saying it's not needed to explain behavior. </font></b></div><div class="gmail_default" style=""><b style="background-color:transparent;font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large"><br></b></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"><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"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i><font face="georgia, serif"> <span class="gmail_default">>>> </span><span style="font-size:large;background-color:transparent">Consciousness is the inside of a difference that guides a process from within.</span><span style="background-color:transparent"> </span></font></i></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>> </span>Consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently.<span class="gmail_default"> </span> </b></font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><font size="4"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>T<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"></span>he way a process feels when it is informed by information.</i></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>That is circular. You are trying to explain consciousness but by using the word "informed" you are already assuming the existence of <span class="gmail_default" style="">a conscious entity</span>. </b></font><b style="background-color:transparent;font-family:tahoma,sans-serif;font-size:large">By contrast<span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif"> </span>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.  </b></div><div class="gmail_quote gmail_quote_container"><div><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"><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"><div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><i><font face="georgia, serif" size="4"><span style="background-color:transparent"><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>>> </span>We provide an empirical research program with explicit falsification criteria.</span><span style="background-color:transparent"> </span></font></i></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">>> </span>Tell me more about that!<span class="gmail_default"> </span></b></font></div></div></div></blockquote></div></div><div dir="auto"><br></div><div dir="auto"><font size="4"><i><span class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-serif">> </span>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></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b>I am unable to <span class="gmail_default" style="">access </span></b><b style="background-color:transparent">that<span class="gmail_default" style=""> part</span><span class="gmail_default" style="">, perhaps I could if I kept on trying but I don't think it would be worth the effort because </span></b><b style="background-color:transparent"><span class="gmail_default" style="">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. </span></b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b style="background-color:transparent"><span class="gmail_default" style=""><br></span></b></font></div><div><font size="4" face="tahoma, sans-serif"><b style="background-color:transparent"><span class="gmail_default" style="">John K Clark </span><span class="gmail_default" style=""> </span> </b></font></div><div><br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><br>
</blockquote></div></div>