Re: How Robots Will Steal Your Job

[R. Steve Walz]

Paramecia are machines. They are no more aware than a
lightswitch.

[grin] Not an ideal example. Around here, the lightswitches
are "aware" of (warm) bodies in the room....

-------------------
Only in the loose, erroneous lay usage of the word "aware".

And that's NOT the one under discussion, however a blithering
idiot might persist in pretending it is.

It was a JOKE, son. A JOKE, I say!

 

[Roedy Green]

Then it should be obvious that if Roedy Green is the only conscious
being on earth, there *are* no "others" to regard him as obtuse.

It is obvious to YOU that I am not, but not "obvious" to me.

However, try to imagine an experiment that would conclusively prove to
that YOU are not the only conscious being in the universe. I actually
spent a day in 1974 seriously pondering this. It appeared to be so.
I concluded that I could not tell one way or the other, and it was far
more comfortable to presume I was not alone, so I would return to that
presumption.

We hold deep-seated opinions on consciousness, but they are based on
AIR. That is why we defend them with such vigorous rounds of ad
hominem. We have nothing else.

You might try with an argument against solipsism like this:

I appear to be like every other being. Why should I be any different
in consciousness since I appear nearly identical in all respects like
others? I am clearly wiser and free of false opinions, but what has
that to do with consciousness?

You might then conclude that other humans are conscious too.

Just how "identical" you consider yourself to a chimp (98% same
genes), a firefly, or an amoeba or a rock determines where you assign
consciousness. How wide you cast your net is a matter of ego and
religious upbringing, namely how special do you think you are.

We desperately need something to measure consciousness that correlates
with subjective measures of human consciousness. Then we would have
something a little more concrete to go on.

 

[Roedy Green]

WINGED MIGRATION?

yes.

 

[OmegaZero2003]

It is obvious to YOU that I am not, but not "obvious" to me.

However, try to imagine an experiment that would conclusively prove to
that YOU are not the only conscious being in the universe. I actually
spent a day in 1974 seriously pondering this. It appeared to be so.
I concluded that I could not tell one way or the other, and it was far
more comfortable to presume I was not alone, so I would return to that
presumption.

We hold deep-seated opinions on consciousness, but they are based on
AIR. That is why we defend them with such vigorous rounds of ad
hominem. We have nothing else.

You might try with an argument against solipsism like this:

I appear to be like every other being. Why should I be any different
in consciousness since I appear nearly identical in all respects like
others? I am clearly wiser and free of false opinions, but what has
that to do with consciousness?

You might then conclude that other humans are conscious too.

Just how "identical" you consider yourself to a chimp (98% same
genes), a firefly, or an amoeba or a rock determines where you assign
consciousness. How wide you cast your net is a matter of ego and
religious upbringing, namely how special do you think you are.

Much of this argument melts away when one realizes that consciousness is not
a binary condition, but states_of along a spectrum. Degree of, or
completeness_of, or sopphistication_of consciousness would be a more
appropriate way of measuring and comparing.

 

[Roedy Green]

That's because you only succeeded in placing a witness "inside"
something which actually has NO such witness, NO such "inside".

I can see that it could be either way, but I don't see what evidence
you have that birds should be unconscious. They appear do all the
things that conscious humans do except write on the Internet (which
many supposedly conscious humans don't do either).

 

[Robert C Monsen]

One of the reasons humans act SO differently from other animals
is PRECISELY that we have strong objection to settling for what
other NON-conscious animals do by reflex, without inner obervation
with any kind of awareness, such as would bore us to tears.

For example, *I* believe that homo sapiens has such huge genitals
because we literally "went on strike to get them" against Nature,
by our penchant for suicidal action when we don't get our way and
have an easy time of it. Those with larger genitals and greater
genital pleasure simply didn't give up and die as much.

Well, speak for yourself.

Turns out we have testicles that are about midway in size between chimps and
gorillas, and it seems to be inversely correlated to female fidelity. Human
male DNA battles for procreation by making us mildly agressive, and having
moderately large sperm counts in case that doesn't work. Human female DNA
settles for monogamy, with the occasional fling if something better comes
up. Chimps, with large testicles, don't even try for monogamy, whereas
Gorillas, with tiny testicles, are almost never unfaithful.

As far as other 'sexually selected' characteristics go, they are always
selected by females. Thats probably where we got our big brains (and
consiousness); it was sexual selection, based on competition, as in anything
else.

Nobody gets to go on strike against nature. We ARE nature. We do what comes
naturally, which occasionally turns out to be acting intelligently.

Regards,
Bob Monsen

 

[Roedy Green]

One of the reasons humans act SO differently from other animals

Men in cities do. But individual humans and humans in primitive
societies are not that different from other primate societies.

When did humans become conscious in your view -- when they started
using technology?

how could something as interesting as consciousness spring so fully
formed so late in evolutionary history, without corresponding changes
in anatomy?

If we humans are different in terms of consciousness from other
animals, there should be some anatomical difference. Removing or
damaging the organ of consciousness should reduce subjective
experience, but still allow everything else to function on automatic.
I am not aware of such an organ.

The weirdest thing about consciousness is the way it seems to be a
seamless whole - the way it integrates sound, sight, touch. As though
it were a field generated by the brain.

 

[Alan Balmer]

However, try to imagine an experiment that would conclusively prove to
that YOU are not the only conscious being in the universe. I actually
spent a day in 1974 seriously pondering this. It appeared to be so.
I concluded that I could not tell one way or the other, and it was far
more comfortable to presume I was not alone, so I would return to that
presumption.

Yup. Smarter people than me (and maybe even you have spent more
than one day pondering that question.

 

[OmegaZero2003]

I can see that it could be either way, but I don't see what evidence
you have that birds should be unconscious. They appear do all the
things that conscious humans do except write on the Internet (which
many supposedly conscious humans don't do either).

Birds are conscious; again - it is a spectrum not a binary.

Consciousness is awarness_of

 

[Roedy Green]

Much of this argument melts away when one realizes that consciousness is not
a binary condition, but states_of along a spectrum. Degree of, or
completeness_of, or sopphistication_of consciousness would be a more
appropriate way of measuring and comparing.

There are actually two kinds of consciousness, consciousness of
something and consciousness without an object.

Consider what would it be like to be deaf and blind. Clearly your
consciousness OF things is degraded. However, you could still have an
acute sense of beingness, of presence, that would exceed someone
hypnotised in front of a TV set.

Perhaps consciousness without an object is really just consciousness
of internal thought processes, though many people would say otherwise.
Many people attest there is a blissful state of consciousness without
thoughts. You deliberately stem the random flow of sporadic thoughts.

Then there is cosmic consciousness which I write about a bit on my
website in various essays such as http://mindprod.com/ccism.html. I
think this is much more common than people let on. They don't want to
talk about it to avoid being labelled crazy. Further it may only
happen a few times in a lifetime. Finally it is so hard to say
anything sensible about it because it is so different from ordinary
consciousness.

It leads me to speculate there many be many other sorts of
consciousness very different from our ordinary waking consciousness.

"It is that our normal waking consciousness, rational consciousness as
we call it, is but one special type of consciousness, whilst all about
it, parted from it by the filmiest of screens, there lie potential
forms of consciousness entirely different. We may go through life
without suspecting their existence; but apply the requisite stimulus,
and at a touch they are there in all completeness, definite types of
mentality which probably somewhere have their field of application and
adaptation. No account of the universe in its totality can be final
which leaves these other forms of consciousness quite disregarded. How
to regard them is the question for they are so discontinuous with
ordinary consciousness. Yet they may determine attitudes though they
cannot furnish formulas, and open a region through which they fail to
give a map. At any rate, they forbid a premature closing of our
accounts with reality."
~William James

 

[Roedy Green]

Those with larger genitals and greater
genital pleasure simply didn't give up and die as much.

Peacocks have giant tails. They did not go on strike to get them.
Females preferred them. They were a sign of general fitness.
Peacocks with dedraggled tails did not get laid.

In human society large penes like tall stature confer status. LBJ,
who was well hung, would find excuses to display his penis,
say sitting on a toilet, to subordinates in a power display. They are
obviously much bigger than needed since animals the size of camels can
function with tiny ones, and many animals get away without any at all.

If large penises are the measure of consciousness, check out the
whales and elephants. Elephants can do remarkable things with them.
They are controllable like trunks.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

It is obvious to YOU that I am not, but not "obvious" to me.

However, try to imagine an experiment that would conclusively prove to
that YOU are not the only conscious being in the universe. I actually
spent a day in 1974 seriously pondering this. It appeared to be so.
I concluded that I could not tell one way or the other, and it was far
more comfortable to presume I was not alone, so I would return to that
presumption.

We hold deep-seated opinions on consciousness, but they are based on
AIR. That is why we defend them with such vigorous rounds of ad
hominem. We have nothing else.

You might try with an argument against solipsism like this:

I appear to be like every other being. Why should I be any different
in consciousness since I appear nearly identical in all respects like
others? I am clearly wiser and free of false opinions, but what has
that to do with consciousness?

You might then conclude that other humans are conscious too.

---------------------
No, that's just a preference, not a real conclusion.

Instead back to the question, solipsism: You can't tell whether it is
actually YOU, who are "conscious", or another mind that is conscious
of you! No, I'm not being facetious, the whole notion of solipsism
presumes ownership of one's own thoughts, when we have NO control of
"our" thoughts, and when our "ownership" or "selfness" both are
merely unnecessary CONCEPTS which themselves are no more than ideas
IN the mind, and not the mind itself, in fact, all the notions that
involve "self" are ideas IN the mind anyway, and NOT that "mind"!!!

In fact it can be said that NO possession of "one's self" is even
possible, because it is totally ineffectual, it changes nothing! For
all we know we are controlled by another or others, we would have NO
way to tell AT ALL! Descartes might as well have said, "Something
thinks "ME" therefore "I" am!!" Or even better: "The idea of me
existing exists, therefore "I" am!" Possession is merely a stupid
western notion. Whether others are unconscious epiphenomena is a bit
irrelevant, if we have no better claim to consciousness.

What it finally comes down to is that you are a collection of related
ideas, no mind to put them in is even needed, they stand on their own,
which may be obvious to students of Buddhism, who are familiar with
the Buddhist concept of "Mu-Shin" or of "no mind" being required for
ideas to arise "within", because there is NO "within" anyway. Ideas
are the story that is reality. Trying to put an imaginary box around
an idea and claim it is "yours", when the notion of "yours" is one of
those same ideas ANYWAY, is ridiculously circular!!!!!

Life is ideas, not yours, not mine, we ARE those ideas, nothing more.

We desperately need something to measure consciousness that correlates
with subjective measures of human consciousness. Then we would have
something a little more concrete to go on.
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.

------------------------
There are such things, if you stop equivocating about them.

They are more obvious than that which pleases and comforts you.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

There are actually two kinds of consciousness, consciousness of
something and consciousness without an object.

---------------------------------
Consciousness is its OWN "object" that makes it consciousness.

Consider what would it be like to be deaf and blind. Clearly your
consciousness OF things is degraded. However, you could still have an
acute sense of beingness, of presence, that would exceed someone
hypnotised in front of a TV set.

----------------------------------
Loss of senses is not unconscoousness.

Perhaps consciousness without an object is really just consciousness
of internal thought processes, though many people would say otherwise.

-------------------------------
All ideas are "internal", and so is the whole world you experience.
There is no "internal", that is merely you claiming your you-ness
as yours, an idea thinking it exists.

Many people attest there is a blissful state of consciousness without
thoughts. You deliberately stem the random flow of sporadic thoughts.

----------------------------------------
Sort of. Not quite. Ideas about ideas...

Then there is cosmic consciousness which I write about a bit on my
website in various essays such as http://mindprod.com/ccism.html. I
think this is much more common than people let on. They don't want to
talk about it to avoid being labelled crazy. Further it may only
happen a few times in a lifetime. Finally it is so hard to say
anything sensible about it because it is so different from ordinary
consciousness.

---------------------------------
And yet it isn't. It's always there, behind ideas of possession.

It leads me to speculate there many be many other sorts of
consciousness very different from our ordinary waking consciousness. []
~William James

 

[R. Steve Walz]

I can see that it could be either way, but I don't see what evidence
you have that birds should be unconscious.

------------
They don't write letters to the editor.

They appear do all the
things that conscious humans do

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Birds are conscious; again - it is a spectrum not a binary.

Consciousness is awarness_of

-------------------------------
No, consciousness is memory of self-existence.
"Last year I did this, and we had a great time".

They don't.
-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Well, speak for yourself.

Turns out we have testicles that are about midway in size between chimps and
gorillas, and it seems to be inversely correlated to female fidelity.

-----------------------
More like halfway between chimps and Bonobos.

And neither gorilla or chimp females are faithful or monogamous.
Neither are orangs, surprisingly, from DNA study.

Human
male DNA battles for procreation

-------------------------
It hasn't any idea what it is doing. It is not conscious.
This in Science is called the "Pathetic Fallacy".

by making us mildly agressive, and having
moderately large sperm counts in case that doesn't work.

------------------------
Numerous strategies are interesting in "sperm warring", but these
are unrelated to our desires. We want what we want, and choose what
we're told will prove we're valuable to the group, and that can be
a pile of totally stupid shit in humans, since we have escaped a
lot of instinctual programming in our need to adapt quickly the
last few million years. Same place we got Awareness!

Human female DNA
settles for monogamy, with the occasional fling if something better comes
up.

---------------------
Actually humans are miserable that way, but are the first animal to
have gained the ability to make themselves miserable for countless
generations on end before figuring out there are better ways to live.

The natural human sex act, as it is for all apes, is the gang bang.
It satisfies the females in the only way it is possible to completely
do so, and the males all like it too, because they all get sated.
One male can't remain erect long enough to do this for females, who
can **** almost all day.

Chimps, with large testicles, don't even try for monogamy, whereas
Gorillas, with tiny testicles, are almost never unfaithful.

----------------------------
This has been disproven. Females have no been found to have virtually
all the semen DNA from all males in the troop, the silverback merely
doles it out to consolidate political power, as female chimps dole it
out to males toenlist their political support of their offspring in
their groups. Even Orangutans are now known to **** every male on the
periphery of their territory, which had not been known before.

As far as other 'sexually selected' characteristics go, they are always
selected by females.

-------------
Big dicks float both boats. Males apes have as much say as females.
You're being a western culture bigot. The current notion is that women
are the gatekeepers for sex, but only because they are taught to be
shamed by it and limit it in this religiously superstitious society.

In other human societies it can be the males who decide and the females
who are gagging for it.

Thats probably where we got our big brains (and
consiousness); it was sexual selection, based on competition, as in anything
else.

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Men in cities do. But individual humans and humans in primitive
societies are not that different from other primate societies.

--------------------
True. But there is still a big difference. We CAN do differently,
and we involve many times more subtleties with our Awareness.

When did humans become conscious in your view -- when they started
using technology?

----------------------
Homo sapiens' genetics.

how could something as interesting as consciousness spring so fully
formed so late in evolutionary history, without corresponding changes
in anatomy?

------------------------
Punctuated equilibrium. The huge change was brain size and stucture,
which, I will bet, can be found to be much different from Neanderthal.

If we humans are different in terms of consciousness from other
animals, there should be some anatomical difference. Removing or
damaging the organ of consciousness should reduce subjective
experience, but still allow everything else to function on automatic.
I am not aware of such an organ.

------------------------------------
It's a meta-property, not a single organ-involving capability.
You remove a bunch of frontal lobe and you'll see it.

The weirdest thing about consciousness is the way it seems to be a
seamless whole - the way it integrates sound, sight, touch. As though
it were a field generated by the brain.
Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.

--------------------------
The brain is a notion, not an organ. The world is composed of ideas,
not atoms. Atoms are just one idea. Everything you see is an idea,
not an object.

-Steve

 

[R. Steve Walz]

Peacocks have giant tails. They did not go on strike to get them.

--------------------------
Precisely. We did, they didn't, we got what pleased us, they got
something they've had to drag around likean idiot. Which do YOU
want, a big dick and immediate sexual arousal, or a big tail?

Females preferred them. They were a sign of general fitness.
Peacocks with dedraggled tails did not get laid.

-----------------------------
And that's okay, because they're unconscious and can't be insulted
or unhappy.

In human society large penes like tall stature confer status. LBJ,
who was well hung, would find excuses to display his penis,
say sitting on a toilet, to subordinates in a power display. They are
obviously much bigger than needed since animals the size of camels can
function with tiny ones, and many animals get away without any at all.

 

[Roedy Green]

Spiders merely transfer a sperm packet once in their life, and don't
feel pleasure.

I take it you never read Irving Layton's poem about spiders.

I seriously doubt that. Some insects go through elaborate rituals and
really take their time compared with say deer.

To voluntarily be eaten as you screw takes something pretty special to
override the usual programming.

 

[Roedy Green]

Spiders merely transfer a sperm packet once in their life, and don't
feel pleasure.

It would be helpful if when you made an assertion like this either:

1. you explained why you think that.

2. you pointed to some article where someone else explained why they
think that.