[ExI] Some new angle about AI.

[John Clark]

On Jan 6, 2010, Aware wrote:

> John Clark continues to argue on the more abstract basis that
> evolutionary processes don't produce intelligence without
> consciousness, which, in my opinion is flawed, since one can point to
> examples of evolved "intelligence"--organisms acting with appropriate
> prediction and control--yet lacking that extra evolutionary layer
> providing awareness and thus modeling of "self"

The trouble with all these discussions is that people point to things and say, look at that (computer made of beer cans, Chinese room, ameba, or whatever) and say that's intelligent but *OBVIOUSLY*  it's not conscious; but it is not obvious at all and in fact they have absolutely no way of knowing it is true. If you show me something and call it "intelligent" then I can immediately call it conscious and don't even need to express reservations on the use of the word with quotation marks as you did because we learned from the history of Evolution that consciousness is easy but intelligence is hard.     

> when pinned down John appears to go to either limit:  Mr. Jupiter Brain wouldn't be
> very smart if he didn't model himself

Yes.

> or the other (panpsychist) view that even an amoeba has consciousness, but just an eensy teensy bit.

If an amoeba is a eensy bit intelligent then it's two eensy bits conscious.

 John K Clark 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100106/13eac36f/attachment.html>