X-Message-Number: 5464
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 1995 21:45:24 -0800
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Feeling and Evolution
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
In #5458 Robert Ettinger On Thu, 21 Dec 1995 Wrote:
>it isn't true that any trait we have must be favored by
>evolution. It could have been favored in just one small
>space-time interval, and then persisted for a while
A neutral trait will not persist for long. Mutations occur in
all genes, even the one that contain the recipe for the
conscious part of the brain. Most mutations are harmful so this
change would almost certainly destroy consciousness in a animal
and it's offspring. If, as you think, this will not effect behavior,
that is, if The Turing Test doesn't work, then the animal
will still be able to compete against it's conscious competitors,
those that do not have this consciousness destroying mutation.
The animal will be able to survive just as well as a animal that
is still consciousness, evolution will not discriminate against
a lack of awareness so the mutated gene will be passes on to
future generations. It would only be a matter of time before this
genetic drift would eliminate consciousness in all animals.
I think consciousness DOES effect behavior. I think evolution
would treat a mutation that destroyed it as a devastating flaw.
If all else was equal the animal would not have the smarts to
compete with it's conscious fellow beings. Soon it would die and
the mutated gene would die with it. If evolution can "see" consciousness
then so can the Turing Test because they both deal in behavior.
>or it could be just an accident
In my hart I don't think that's the reason and I don't think we
should be too free to invoke chance to explain natural phenomenon,
as it tends to cut off further investigation.
I must admit however that sometimes chance is exactly what the
explanation is. It is after all a big universe, if the many world
interpretation of quantum mechanics is true, it's very big indeed,
so unusual things would happen someplace.
>[The subjective circuit could be] saving brain weight or/and
>power consumption or/and reaction time. John said that, in
>this case, it would be harder to build a non-conscious system
>than a conscious one. Surely this does not follow. It is
>almost always easier (quicker and simpler) to build clumsy
>and inefficient devices than elegant ones.
But these devices would not only be clumsy, they'd ACT in a
clumsy, inefficient and inelegant way, in other words they'd be
pretty stupid. If I want to calculate the first billion digits
of PI it's MUCH easier to do so with an elegant computer than a
clumsy mechanical calculator. If I want to break the sound
barrier I could do it with an efficient jet, but I'd have a hell
of a time if I only had a crude prop. Even with Nanotechnology
we will never be able to achieve intelligence by brute force and
just trying every possibility, if we want intelligence we'll
need elegance, and I think consciousness too. It's interesting
that the fossil record does not contain any ancient examples of
an intelligent (and presumably non-conscious) animal with a
large but inefficient brain.
In #5459 (Thomas Donaldson) On Thu, 21 Dec 1995 Wrote:
>As for Hawking, he CAN manipulate his wheelchair and
>understand how to get to a window without running into
>anything. And once there, he can report the color of
>something both you and he can see.
Hawking can no longer even mumble, he controls his electronic
wheelchair and communicates with the world by taping one finger
on one hand, the only part of his body he can still move.
It wouldn't be difficult, even today for a machine to duplicate
this mechanical arrangement. What would be EXTREMELY difficult
would be for a machine to generate a sequence of beautiful and
profound taps as Hawking does.
>And finally, of course, we know that Hawking is a human
>being because we see his picture and would recognize him .
What about me? You have no idea what I look like, you may have
your suspicions but you can't even prove I'm a human being.
The only thing you have to go on is the text I've written, my play
with words, but I'll bet you still think I'm conscious
>I am using Turing tests here not in the broad sense but in
>the precise one.
I don't see why only using text makes things more precise.
Text, speech, movement, what difference does it make? It's all
the same thing, it's all just behavior, just output that can be,
and often is, defined by a digital sequence of numbers that a machine,
like a Turing machine, could produce.
>In one way, such studies [ of consciousness] suffer
>from the same problem as all other science: we can never
> KNOW ABSOLUTELY that they are correct.
In a way, but the situation is even worse. We don't yet know how
a fertilized egg cell can grow into a human being, but it's not difficult
to prove that the phenomenon exists. We don't know how our fellow human
beings generate consciousness and we can't even prove that they do.
>psychologists did studies with themselves as subjects,
>trying to analyze just how their perceptions worked, by
>doing tests on themselves. [...] How would we know that
>they were correct? Because we would see that the same things
> would happen when we did the same tests on ourselves.
Nobody will ever be able to change my brain in exactly the same
way they change yours, because out brains are different. They'd have
to first change my brain into yours, but then I wouldn't be me anymore,
I'd be you.
>You are right that we can never prove the existence of
>consciousness in anyone else; but if we simply assume it
>when conditions seem appropriate, then there are many other
>things we CAN prove on that assumption.
I couldn't agree with you more, and to me, the time conditions seem
appropriate to assume consciousness is when intelligent behavior is detected.
John K Clark
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i
iQCzAgUBMNuT0X03wfSpid95AQGfFATuPf9ge+71fZzUlMnzEHHRcNUxgv5g9nCR
Ntc2Zh6xBVt2G1V8HbNQtGYgMl1yyrjoVs5jQd0XLs57OBlg3Xu5WCA/tPBobiIk
1P7Llpa+q1/8tuYo3eOmIaX0cbNRqG626BrcJfr++OtNB28FPrRfZlXXoaMpSj2L
VTohlaNWKik4x8Ulczn9V8dKLp3DgO2DieS1fBbcgsfOXqG146E=
=EI/t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5464