X-Message-Number: 5474
Date: Mon, 25 Dec 1995 19:31:29 -0800
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: SCI.CRYONICS Ease Of Use

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In #5470 Robert Ettinger   On  Sun, 24 Dec 1995 Wrote: 


                >bad engineering is easier than good engineering

In absolute terms yes, but not if you take into consideration what the  
engineering in trying to accomplish, that is, the problem you want to solve.  
Building a jet engine is harder than building a radial piston prop engine,  
BUT if the goal is to break the sound barrier then it's MUCH easier to just
go ahead and make the jet, even though it's difficult, than to try to do it  
with a prop, in fact, to this day nobody has broken the sound barrier with  
even the best prop, much less a radial one. 

If you want to have an intelligent machine the easiest way (I think the only  
way) is to just go ahead and develop consciousness. If not, why don't we see  
any evidence that nature has EVER achieved intelligence with a large, 
inefficient, poorly engineered brain? 
                       

                >first attempts are seldom the best. 

I agree, now it's our turn and that's one reason why we'll build a better  
brain than nature did.
                 


                >There are countless systems in nature that appear to lack
                                >consciousness 

By "appear to lack consciousness" I assume you mean do not ACT intelligently, 
at least I can't imagine what else it could mean. It's true that just  
because these systems fail The Turing Test, and fail it big time, doesn't   
PROVE they are not conscious, but I think it's a pretty good working  
assumption. 



              >there is basically only ONE system that has it [consciousness]
              
              >for sure, viz. the mammalian brain or perhaps the vertebrate
                            >brain, or in the broadest case the organic nervous system.

Lots of things act intelligently, but only system in the universe has been  
proven without the slightest doubt to be conscious. That system is me.  
Other people may have a slightly different interpretation.


                >The USEFULNESS or efficiency of an elegant system is not 
                >the same thing as the ease of making one

True, but it the same as the ease of USING a system. For intelligence to come 
about it's necessary for evolution to USE a system of some sort, and the  
more efficient and elegant it is, the easier it is to use. It's not easy to  
make consciousness, but if evolution wants intelligence it's just going to  
have to bite the bullet and do it.
                


                >consciousness may involve quantum processes in the brain
                                >that are "non-computable" 

The trouble I have with this admittedly appealing idea, it that I don't  
understand why we can't solve at least one of the many well known  
non-computable problems in our head. The fact is, we're even worse at  
solving them than computers are. Also, with all the complicated chemical and 
physical process going on in the brain I don't see how electrons can  
maintain quantum coherence, and there is no evidence that they do.


                                          John K Clark        

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCzAgUBMN9jr303wfSpid95AQEafgTw42rumBUW1/Xogf3CNrYdUnyzGyvWbj/v
5bQlSvtpgV/T9EA9h0Od1//TqCOqWmqNSYdHMn/BquC4E9i1xKbB7FKKphQkQibs
J4u6UbpPflPvN0k+GgDw+6+dUaHwrHLZFtGu6JQORKQq46JBtXMo8cw4yWsvmvSH
SoGu9eSRXHsNubXYgRr82Tm8l0NM13Hw6e5jwVFKUoG6hB+Z8K8=
=pOv6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=5474