X-Message-Number: 7941
From: 
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 1997 17:55:03 -0500 (EST)
Subject: consciousness etc.

Although for most readers we are probably way past the point of diminishing
returns in discussing consciousness etc., still some relative newcomers might
like to see further comments and clarifications. 

John Clark's recent comments:

1. Some of his quantum interpretations differ from those that my reading
attributes to the top-flight people. In particular, an electron e.g. IS
smeared; the particle not only seems hazy, it IS hazy; the uncertainty is
intrinsic, not the result of problems in measurement. An electron may be
detected or not, but its location and energy are not precisely defined. 

2. Thanks again to Doug Skrecky for his potentially very important work with
fruit flies.

3. Peter Merel's references on Cramer's "transactional" interpretation of
quantum mechanics is appreciated.

Peter asks the difference between "raw sensory data"and"qualia." O.K.: A raw
sensory datum is an electrochemical signal sent e.g. from the retina of the
eye to the visual cortex; the secondary datum (oversimplifying a bit) would
be the signal from the visual cortex to some other part of the brain (perhaps
a more primitive part) containing the "self circuit" or the
anatomical/physiological feature that constitutes the seat of feeling (and
hence the ground of being); ensuing modifications to the self circuit, or
modulations of the self circuit, constitute the quale.

Probably Peter and others will as usual ask, why introduce this unnecessary
complication, the self circuit? Why can't the processed sensory data
themselves constitute the qualia? The answer is that we have every reason to
recognize a profound, qualitative distinction between the subjective
condition and other phenomena of nature, demanding a special physical system.

Certainly there are many who think consciousness will "just grow," like Topsy
(or like Hal in the movie), if the computer becomes complicated enough. Some
have even attempted to offer some detail--e.g. Daniel Dennett in his book of
a few years back, ludicrously entitled CONSCIOUSNESS EXPLAINED. 

Following this train of thought, a few even ascribe primitive "consciousness"
to a thermostat, which "feels" or "thinks" that "It's too hot in here" or
"It's too cold in here." Well, I was not being rigorous when I said we know
for sure that a present-day computer has no vestige of consciousness; we
don't know it beyond a shadow of doubt, but we do know it beyond any
reasonable doubt.

I don't think computers will "just grow" into consciousness any more than you
can make a bicycle out of manure just by piling it high enough.

4. John Clark again: I said I am entitled to attribute consciousness to other
people, because they are much like myself biologically; and I am entitled to
doubt the consciousness of (say) a silicon artifact, because it is not like
me biologically. John responded in effect that, since a woman is different
from me, my reasoning  should make me doubt her consciousness. Surely you
want to retract that one, John! Not only women, but also lower animals,
certainly down to all the mammals, are very much like myself biologically,
and I have no doubt they have feelings. At some point down the evolutionary
ladder doubt sets in, and somewhere in there we should find the most
primitive self circuits....None of this precludes the POSSIBILITY of feeling
in silicon, or in plasmas, or even in the quantum fluctuations of empty
space; but until we understand feeling (subjectivity) in mammals we should
not make assumptions.

John reiterates his mantra, that his information is himself etc, and this is
still just an assertion and not a logical conclusion from prior and stronger
premises.

5. Pizer, Perry and thought experiments again: It is simply a fact that NONE
of the usual intuitive survival criteria, nor any combination, can be shown
to be EITHER necessary or sufficient--not continuity of matter, not identity
of matter, not continuity of pattern, not identity of pattern. It is not
possible, and in my opinion not psychologically necessary, to form a firm
opinion before we have the necessary knowledge of biology and physics. So,
once more, we just use common sense, freeze our assets, and hope for the
best, while continuing to investigate.

Robert Ettinger
Cryonics Institute
Immortalist Society

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7941