X-Message-Number: 8065 Date: Sun, 13 Apr 1997 20:33:36 -0700 (PDT) From: John K Clark <> Subject: Am I conscious or do I just feel I am? -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- In #8049 On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 Olaf Henny <> Wrote: >the ant perceived 'threat' and strategized 'run' as defense. This is >at least on a very primitive level a creative/constructive response, >which you will not find in even to day's most sophisticated digital >computer/robot, and which in my opinion defines conciousness. You've already said that even a very primitive robot could perform the same simple behavior the ant does, it's just that the robot wouldn't be conscious because it didn't understand itself, it didn't construct itself, apparently the ant did. If behavior doesn't help in detecting consciousness why do you think the ant is conscious, why do you think I am? >It [CPR] has after all extended life as we define it at this time >and thereby delayed the departure of the soul, if there indeed is one. If I have a soul why would I want it to stay inside a blob of messy protoplasm? Let it depart and go wherever it wants to go. Parachute? I don't need no stinking parachute! In #8053 On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 Wrote: >First, "only matter, energy, and information" is incomplete and >misleading, albeit possibly true in some sense, depending on your >definitions. For example, he left out time and space You must have at least 2 objects in the Universe, without these lumps of matter, time and space would be meaningless. >And how about "organization" as a category? If you like the word "organization" better than "information" that's fine with me, one is just the measure if the other. An enormously organized object, like a crystal lattice, needs little information to describe it. A little organized object, like a human brain, needs enormous information to describe it. >he is back to dogmatism. I never claimed to have proven that information processing causes consciousness, if I'm dogmatic about anything it is that I will NEVER be able to prove it. I do claim that, when we are not talking Philosophy, every one of us without exception acts under the assumption that information processing is consciousness. To behave differently only when writing about sentience on Cryonet seems inconsistent to me. >If I were to discover, and become convinced, that I (each of my >continuers) only exist for a subjective moment--maybe less than a >second--I would be disturbed. It would seem to me that the world's greatest expert on Robert Ettinger is Robert Ettinger. If he thinks he is happy he is, if he thinks he has survived he has. In #8054 On Sat, 12 Apr 1997 Wrote: >The Third Alternative is "inexplicable", as in "I don't understand >it and it's not worthwhile trying to figure it out." That's not really a Third Alternative, at least not in the larger scheme of things, but I know what you're driving at and basically I agree. >That is what makes humans interesting, to other humans. Undoubtedly true. >By the time someone can revive people frozen with the techniques of >today, 20th century humans may no longer count as "real people". We >have a much narrower window of opportunity than most of today's >people acknowledge. It's important to improve our cryopreservation >technology today so that we can be revived _before_ we no longer are >interesting as people. Very good point! I'm sure my value to the world of a few hundred years from now will be almost zero, I just hope it's not exactly zero. John K Clark -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.i iQCzAgUBM1GkGn03wfSpid95AQFBvATvW+sHJgFDpwRFIkCQWCqa15H2a9jo2F1G LQwvk06wcKCEZfdMazdD1YMx59BlKVPIcRQA9kA/E76hDVUj32DLw3AKcPqEnBP2 2Ug8iHth82Q2/3GTrl4/exAHg+bJ6rhso/J82N/eOWJ/hbLk/O59ZLjchFT/jHfI 5LdtbvGR6n6h0s9Rot/AHaxJIeQ9b+e23MyQ052mDLsmUVIrT1A= =QAur -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=8065