Philosophy Now Forum

kep wrote:On consciousness: I think consciousness was evolved by our genes to allow us to learn behaviors that benefit them. Simpler animals only have instinct and don't change their behavior in their lifetime. We learn through experiences that are registered by the means of emotions and our decisions are made because of them. Artificial intelligence doesn't have consciousness because it was made by a higher intelligence (human) with the purpose to serve it.

So... When does consciousness begin? At what exact point in evolution did consciousness first manifest, and what are the signs?

By 'simpler animals', do you mean all animals other than Homo sapiens or all animals before the earliest hominids, or what classification? Are all 'simpler animals' unconscious? How can you tell? What are the criteria? How do you test for consciousness? If you could teach an old dog a new trick (i.e. persuade him to change his behaviour in his lifetime), would that prove consciousness in that one individual dog, or suggest consciousness in domestic dogs, or all of the species canis lupus?

Much to explore.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

kep wrote:

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.




You have my attention. Say something.




.

On consciousness: I think consciousness was evolved by our genes to allow us to learn behaviors that benefit them. Simpler animals only have instinct and don't change their behavior in their lifetime. We learn through experiences that are registered by the means of emotions and our decisions are made because of them. Artificial intelligence doesn't have consciousness because it was made by a higher intelligence (human) with the purpose to serve it.

Sorry but this is quite boring and simplistic. It's also quite ignorant in many regards. Daniel C. Dennett made a book about this theory however the book implies the wrong thing. Consciousness is a qualia, evolution does not evolve qualia for qualia's sake. You cannot say with any scientific credibility that AI cannot ever become sentient. And sentience has nothing to do with whether or not something was created by humans. You also imply the reason AI have no consciousness because they are slaves. How simple-minded and lolworthy. As for animals, they have sentience, what I call consciousness, but not so big egos, not so many thoughts.

On boring: Entertainment and art should be separated from serious things. Extremisms use art and entertainment to manipulate. Justice and reasonableness only exist in the center. Humans evolved the ability to create to create knowledge and tools. They started using the ability to create to create art, which only usefulness is to entertain and manipulate.

So, basically, you have no ideas that can't fit on a bumper-sticker?

Skip wrote:So, basically, you have no ideas that can't fit on a bumper-sticker?

Why is that bad?

kep wrote:
On boring: Entertainment and art should be separated from serious things. Extremisms use art and entertainment to manipulate. Justice and reasonableness only exist in the center. Humans evolved the ability to create to create knowledge and tools. They started using the ability to create to create art, which only usefulness is to entertain and manipulate.

Seriously? What a ridiculous statement. "Extremisms"? Is that a made up word or something?

Your post was boring because it didnt entertain, it was philosophically weak, ungrounded, untrue, unsound and humdrum. Knowledge is novelty, philosophy is entertaining, just not entertaining to some. What a simplistic way to define art, much art has cultural and historical significance, and much art is meant to educate, and heal the spirit. I suppose education is a type of manipulation, but I suspect that's not the type of manipulation nor education to which you refer.

kep wrote:

Skip wrote:So, basically, you have no ideas that can't fit on a bumper-sticker?

Why is that bad?

Didn't say it was bad. In fact, it's fine, even advantageous. You can find a far bigger audience for your ideas in a Wal-Mart parking lot than a philosophy forum.

.






...................................................








.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

kep wrote:
On boring: Entertainment and art should be separated from serious things. Extremisms use art and entertainment to manipulate. Justice and reasonableness only exist in the center. Humans evolved the ability to create to create knowledge and tools. They started using the ability to create to create art, which only usefulness is to entertain and manipulate.

Seriously? What a ridiculous statement. "Extremisms"? Is that a made up word or something?

Your post was boring because it didnt entertain, it was philosophically weak, ungrounded, untrue, unsound and humdrum. Knowledge is novelty, philosophy is entertaining, just not entertaining to some. What a simplistic way to define art, much art has cultural and historical significance, and much art is meant to educate, and heal the spirit. I suppose education is a type of manipulation, but I suspect that's not the type of manipulation nor education to which you refer.

which art educates?

kep wrote:... Humans evolved the ability to create to create knowledge and tools. They started using the ability to create to create art, which only usefulness is to entertain and manipulate.

And to pass knowledge as the old cave and rock paintings show.

Arising_uk wrote:

kep wrote:... Humans evolved the ability to create to create knowledge and tools. They started using the ability to create to create art, which only usefulness is to entertain and manipulate.

And to pass knowledge as the old cave and rock paintings show.

are you sure art passes knowledge?

Greetings
Perhaps art is just a form of nonverbal communication that plays on emotion.

Bill Wiltrack wrote:.




You have my attention. Say something.




.

Sorry Bill, he said;"intelligent people that appreciate the things I say."

I N T E L L I G E N T. Get it? Look it up.

kep wrote: On consciousness: I think consciousness was evolved by our genes to allow us to learn behaviors that benefit them. Simpler animals only have instinct and don't change their behavior in their lifetime. We learn through experiences that are registered by the means of emotions and our decisions are made because of them. Artificial intelligence doesn't have consciousness because it was made by a higher intelligence (human) with the purpose to serve it.

Yo've got off to a slippery start.
Genes are the passive recipient by differential selection, of evolutionary pressure, based on survival of individual genomes capable of viable progeny.
It does not make sense to say "conscious (or anything for that matter) was evolved BY OUR genes", and then offer a teleological explanation.
This is a common enough misunderstanding of Natural Selection.

Whilst it is true that humans (possibly more than other species) are characterised by more reliance on learning and least on innate instinctual behaviours there is a problem with how you conceive this:
What each of us as individuals experience and learn through our lives in NOT passed on to our own genes, as we pretty much die with the genes we were born with.
Social evolution through learning and the creation of culture provide a type of extra-somatic means of adaptation, but whilst this might encourage the preservation of some variation, it is not necessitated by it. And we all know that just about any human from any culture is capable of adopting the mores, customs and language of any other providing they are either intelligent enough or introduced whilst young.
We know this as the massive changes in culture in the last ten thousand years cannot be explained by the limited changes available to genetic natural selection.

Huh?

garr wrote:Greetings
Perhaps art is just a form of nonverbal communication that plays on emotion.

Art is not nonverbal. Some paintings are.