Root of consciousness revealed

[Alan Grayson]

My email response to Roger Penrose's speculations about the root of consciousness and computability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUfMZ2dts8

Dr. Penrose; What you intuit exists, and seek, is called in Tibetan Buddhism "The Clear Light of the Void", and is described in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead". Additional information can be found in the Hindu scripture, "The Bhagavad Gita". I call it "The White Light" and experienced it once in a Christian context, momentarily. I don't know if it does computations. If you're blessed to experience it, you will have no doubt of its role as the source of consciousness. It was discovered in the ancient world several millennia ago by Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts. It qualifies to be called Occult or Hidden knowledge, and is essentially unknown to modern scientists and philosophers.

[spudb...@aol.com]

I tend to support Penrose in just about everything. also with Stuart Hammeroff, Penrose's medical medical guy. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa2Kpkksf3k

On Friday, March 7, 2025 at 10:09:57 AM EST, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

My email response to Roger Penrose's speculations about the root of consciousness and computability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUfMZ2dts8

Dr. Penrose; What you intuit exists, and seek, is called in Tibetan Buddhism "The Clear Light of the Void", and is described in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead". Additional information can be found in the Hindu scripture, "The Bhagavad Gita". I call it "The White Light" and experienced it once in a Christian context, momentarily. I don't know if it does computations. If you're blessed to experience it, you will have no doubt of its role as the source of consciousness. It was discovered in the ancient world several millennia ago by Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts. It qualifies to be called Occult or Hidden knowledge, and is essentially unknown to modern scientists and philosophers.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/d7b85829-e4d4-48f2-97b9-1e34854f331fn%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 10:09 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you're blessed to experience it, you will have no doubt of its role as the source of consciousness. 

You may not have the slightest doubt that something is true, but that doesn't mean it is true, people have been known to be wrong about things that they were absolutely certain about, in fact such a thing is very common. I'm sure the 911 hijackers were absolutely certain they would be rewarded in the afterlife for crashing their airliner into the world trade center, but that does not prove they're cavorting with 77 virgins in heaven right now.  

> It was discovered in the ancient world several millennia ago by Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts. It qualifies to be called Occult or Hidden knowledge, and is essentially unknown to modern scientists and philosophers.

Why and how was that knowledge hidden, and why was it hidden so ineptly that Hindu gurus and Yogas were able to find it? And if it was known to modern scientists and philosophers then what observations or experimental outcomes would they be able to predict that currently they cannot?

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

3c8

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/7/2025 7:09 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

My email response to Roger Penrose's speculations about the root of consciousness and computability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUfMZ2dts8

Dr. Penrose; What you intuit exists, and seek, is called in Tibetan Buddhism "The Clear Light of the Void", and is described in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead". Additional information can be found in the Hindu scripture, "The Bhagavad Gita". I call it "The White Light" and experienced it once in a Christian context, momentarily. I don't know if it does computations. If you're blessed to experience it, you will have no doubt of its role as the source of consciousness.

"Source" implies sufficiency.  Yet there dozens of drugs that will eliminate it temporarily.  Making pretty clear that the "source" is in brain chemistry.

It was discovered in the ancient world several millennia ago by Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts. It qualifies to be called Occult or Hidden knowledge, and is essentially unknown to modern scientists and philosophers.

As brain chemistry was unknown to those gurus.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

Your problem is two-fold. First, that you haven't experienced it. And second, that you are unable to imagine its appearance. Otherwise, you're entitled to speak authoritatively about it. AG 

3c8

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, March 7, 2025 at 3:49:36 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 3/7/2025 7:09 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

My email response to Roger Penrose's speculations about the root of consciousness and computability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUfMZ2dts8

Dr. Penrose; What you intuit exists, and seek, is called in Tibetan Buddhism "The Clear Light of the Void", and is described in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead". Additional information can be found in the Hindu scripture, "The Bhagavad Gita". I call it "The White Light" and experienced it once in a Christian context, momentarily. I don't know if it does computations. If you're blessed to experience it, you will have no doubt of its role as the source of consciousness.

"Source" implies sufficiency. 

??? AG

 

Yet there dozens of drugs that will eliminate it temporarily.  Making pretty clear that the "source" is in brain chemistry.

And you know that how? AG

It was discovered in the ancient world several millennia ago by Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts. It qualifies to be called Occult or Hidden knowledge, and is essentially unknown to modern scientists and philosophers.

As brain chemistry was unknown to those gurus.

And the White Light is unknown to you. AG

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/7/2025 4:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, March 7, 2025 at 3:49:36 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 3/7/2025 7:09 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

My email response to Roger Penrose's speculations about the root of consciousness and computability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUfMZ2dts8

Dr. Penrose; What you intuit exists, and seek, is called in Tibetan Buddhism "The Clear Light of the Void", and is described in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead". Additional information can be found in the Hindu scripture, "The Bhagavad Gita". I call it "The White Light" and experienced it once in a Christian context, momentarily. I don't know if it does computations. If you're blessed to experience it, you will have no doubt of its role as the source of consciousness.

"Source" implies sufficiency. 

??? AG

A source of water provides water without anything else being required.  A source of money provides money.  A source of consciousness must provide consciousness.

 

Yet there dozens of drugs that will eliminate it temporarily.  Making pretty clear that the "source" is in brain chemistry.

And you know that how? AG

Have you not heard of anesthetics?

It was discovered in the ancient world several millennia ago by Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts. It qualifies to be called Occult or Hidden knowledge, and is essentially unknown to modern scientists and philosophers.

As brain chemistry was unknown to those gurus.

And the White Light is unknown to you. AG

When you see a white light, be careful.  It might be an oncoming train.

Brent

[Cosmin Visan]

What does root even mean ?

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, March 7, 2025 at 6:38:54 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 3/7/2025 4:45 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:

On Friday, March 7, 2025 at 3:49:36 PM UTC-7 Brent Meeker wrote:

On 3/7/2025 7:09 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

My email response to Roger Penrose's speculations about the root of consciousness and computability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUfMZ2dts8

Dr. Penrose; What you intuit exists, and seek, is called in Tibetan Buddhism "The Clear Light of the Void", and is described in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead". Additional information can be found in the Hindu scripture, "The Bhagavad Gita". I call it "The White Light" and experienced it once in a Christian context, momentarily. I don't know if it does computations. If you're blessed to experience it, you will have no doubt of its role as the source of consciousness.

"Source" implies sufficiency. 

??? AG

A source of water provides water without anything else being required.  A source of money provides money.  A source of consciousness must provide consciousness.

 

Yet there dozens of drugs that will eliminate it temporarily.  Making pretty clear that the "source" is in brain chemistry.

And you know that how? AG

Have you not heard of anesthetics?

I've been administered anesthetics several times. Main effect; no experience of time. No White Light experience, not even dreams. AG

[John Clark]

On Fri, Mar 7, 2025 at 7:42 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>You may not have the slightest doubt that something is true, but that doesn't mean it is true, people have been known to be wrong about things that they were absolutely certain about, in fact such a thing is very common. I'm sure the 911 hijackers were absolutely certain they would be rewarded in the afterlife for crashing their airliner into the world trade center, but that does not prove they're cavorting with 77 virgins in heaven right now.  

>> It was discovered in the ancient world several millennia ago by Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts. It qualifies to be called Occult or Hidden knowledge, and is essentially unknown to modern scientists and philosophers.

>> Why and how was that knowledge hidden, and why was it hidden so ineptly that Hindu gurus and Yogas were able to find it? And if it was known to modern scientists and philosophers then what observations or experimental outcomes would they be able to predict that currently they cannot?

> Your problem is two-fold. First, that you haven't experienced it.

It's true I've never had a mystical experience, but if I ever do have one I intend to keep my mouth shut about it. Perhaps by direct experience I really have found something new about the world, but because direct experience is subjective it can not be communicated, although that hasn't stopped self described mystics from writing millions of words of turgid prose in an attempt to do just that.

And there is another possibility, perhaps I didn't have a mystical experience at all, maybe I just had indigestion.

I agree with Ebenezer Scrooge when he said to the ghost in "A Christmas Carol": 

 

“You may be an undigested bit of beef, a blot of mustard, a crumb of cheese, a fragment of underdone potato. There's more of gravy than of grave about you" 

> And second, that you are unable to imagine its appearance. Otherwise, you're entitled to speak authoritatively about it. AG 

I have no doubt that if I took LSD then I would have a very weird subjective experience, but it wouldn't express any universal truth about the world other than the fact that some chemicals can alter brain chemistry, and I already knew that.  

Change the brain and the mind changes. Change the mind and the brain changes. That hypothesis is testable and it passes all tests with flying colors. The mind-body "problem" is no deeper than the difference between "is" and "does". That is a race car, what it does is go fast. That is a brain, what it does is mind.  

> And the White Light is unknown to you. AG

Isaac Newton made the quality of White Light known to the entire world nearly 400 years ago, by contrast the occult, gurus and religion have never revealed one bit of new knowledge about anything to anyone. This is the 21st century and we're about to enter the Singularity, it's time to set aside childish things.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis  

eb

[Alan Grayson]

 In Act 1 Scene 5 of Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, Hamlet says to his friend:“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”   AG

eb

[John Clark]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 7:41 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> In Act 1 Scene 5 of Shakespeare’s play, Hamlet, Hamlet says to his friend:“There are more things in Heaven and Earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”   AG

But Alan, if religious mystics are unable to even dream of something in their philosophy then why the hell do they write millions of words about something they know nothing about. And why the hell should anybody bother to read it?  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis  

yth

 

[Alan Grayson]

Why do you say that about religious mystics?  Some of them can experience it directly and want to communicate it, say as a public service, to help humanity. I would say the reason you have no contact with the White Light is because it exists at a level of unspeakable joy, way above what you are capable of imagining and experiencing.  I am not intending to put you down. I'm just telling you what I know. AG

[John Clark]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 8:10 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> But Alan, if religious mystics are unable to even dream of something in their philosophy then why the hell do they write millions of words about something they know nothing about. And why the hell should anybody bother to read it?  

> Why do you say that about religious mystics? 

Because in the last two thousand years religious mystics have said some things that make some people feel better (God loves you) and some things that make some people feel worse (God will horribly torture you for an INFINITE number of years if you take just one step out of line) but religious mystics have never revealed one new thing about the world. Not one!

>  I would say the reason you have no contact with the White Light

I am in contact with White Light right now, and 400 years ago Isaac Newton revealed more about its nature than all the religious mystics that have ever lived combined.

 

> Some of them can experience it directly and want to communicate it,

That's exactly the problem. I have sufficient information to judge the accuracy of my own subjective experience but I have no way of judging the accuracy of your mystical experience except by observing the consequences of your actions. And I know for a fact that most of the predictions religious mystics have made have turned out to be dead wrong, and many of their actions have turned out to be horribly immoral.  

 

> say as a public service, to help humanity. 

Help humanity?! Hundreds of millions of people have been tortured and slaughtered because Protestants and Catholics want to kill each other, Hindus and Buddhists want to kill each other, Christians and Muslims want to kill each other and Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims want to kill each other.

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis  

gtu

[Alan Grayson]

As I wrote, the White Light exists at a level of unspeakable joy, and because you have no clue what that would be like, you have no clue about its existence. Your karma is to remain ignorant of what you are; namely, the White Light is what you are. This situation is what defines your Fall. AG

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/8/2025 12:23 AM, Alan Grayson wrote:

Have you not heard of anesthetics?

I've been administered anesthetics several times. Main effect; no experience of time. No White Light experience, not even dreams. AG

And no consciousness; which implies that there is some chemical process necessary.

Brent

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/8/2025 5:52 AM, John Clark wrote:

Help humanity?! Hundreds of millions of people have been tortured and slaughtered because Protestants and Catholics want to kill each other, Hindus and Buddhists want to kill each other, Christians and Muslims want to kill each other and Sunni Muslims and Shiite Muslims want to kill each other.

Think of it as population control by other means.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

When you figure out the relationship of mind and matter, be sure to let us know. AG

 

[Alan Grayson]

That's like saying the inventors of nuclear weapons, presumably to stop the Nazis, are responsible for the nuclear arms race. AG 

[John Clark]

No, it's like saying that with the exception of death itself, nothing has caused more misery in the world than religion.  

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

edi

[Alan Grayson]

If someone discovers an important truth, and communicates it, this has nothing to do with religion. At least now you know why you are unable to experience the White Light. AG 

edi

[Cosmin Visan]

@Clark. Actually, women are causing the most misery, given their inability to love and given their sexual obsession with Chad.

[Brent Meeker]

Seems that I've already figured out more than you did.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

I've seen things you can't even imagine. But generally I don't like to speak about them since I encounter opinionated ignorance. AG 

[Brent Meeker]

Women you know are sexually obsessed with a small landlocked country in Africa?  Maybe they tell you that just to brush you off.

[Brent Meeker]

That chemicals can temporarily eliminate consciousness is not opinion, it's taught in medical schools everywhere.  Do you dispute the inference that chemical processes in the brain are responsible for consciousness?

Brent

[John Clark]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 3:31 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> When you figure out the relationship of mind and matter, be sure to let us know. AG

Recent events have proven that computer scientists have figured out the relationship between mind and matter well enough to be able to turn inert matter into a mind. Meanwhile Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts are doing the exact same thing they've been doing for thousands of years, contemplating their navels and making zero progress on understanding how the world works. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

wys  

[John Clark]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 4:38 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Women you know are sexually obsessed with a small landlocked country in Africa?  Maybe they tell you that just to brush you off.

Damn, I wish I'd said that!  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

haj

 

[Alan Grayson]

You're hopelessly deluded. AG 

wys  

[Cosmin Visan]

Who needs pills ? Who needs pills ? 3 for 1$!

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, March 8, 2025 at 2:46:11 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

Contemplating one's navel is hugely harder to do than you think. I seriously doubt you could do it for five minutes. LOL. As for AI, they've created a black box which can carry on a conversaton as if it is conscious. But since you don't know what conscousness is, how are in a position to judge? AG 

wys  

[John Clark]

On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 5:27 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Recent events have proven that computer scientists have figured out the relationship between mind and matter well enough to be able to turn inert matter into a mind. Meanwhile Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts are doing the exact same thing they've been doing for thousands of years, contemplating their navels and making zero progress on understanding how the world works. 

> Contemplating one's navel is hugely harder to do than you think.

Playing the piano with your feet, even if it's only done very poorly, is also extremely difficult, however like navel gazing it will not help you one bit in understanding how the world works.  

 

> As for AI, they've created a black box which can carry on a conversaton as if it is conscious. But since you don't know what conscousness is, how are in a position to judge? AG 

I don't have a definition of consciousness but I have something better, examples of it, the ability to engage in an intelligent conversation; when one of my fellow human beings is able to do that I  conclude  that he is conscious and when he is unable to do that, for example when he is sleeping or undergoing anesthesia or dead, then I conclude that he is not conscious. And I use the exact same method to judge the consciousness of an AI.    

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

rnnq

 

[Alan Grayson]

FWIW, the reason you are unable to contemplate on your navel for even five minutes is because you have no control over your mind. A word to the wise is sufficient. As for consciousness, since you can't define and more important you don't know how it comes to exist, you can't assert a black box has it. AG 

rnnq

 

[Alan Grayson]

Let's converse about relativity, your specialty, in the context of the parking paradox. Since the car never fits from the car's frame, and will fit from the garage frame for a sufficient velocity of the car, if we place the car observer and garage observer juxtaposed at the center of the garage, they won't see the same thing wrt car fitting, even though their distance locations have different labels. How is this different from the hypothetical situation of both frames having the same sychronized clocks, and seeing contradictory physical events "at the same time"? AG 

[Alan Grayson]

On Saturday, March 8, 2025 at 4:03:01 PM UTC-7 John Clark wrote:

On Sat, Mar 8, 2025 at 5:27 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Recent events have proven that computer scientists have figured out the relationship between mind and matter well enough to be able to turn inert matter into a mind. Meanwhile Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts are doing the exact same thing they've been doing for thousands of years, contemplating their navels and making zero progress on understanding how the world works. 

> Contemplating one's navel is hugely harder to do than you think.

Playing the piano with your feet, even if it's only done very poorly, is also extremely difficult, however like navel gazing it will not help you one bit in understanding how the world works.  

How would you know without trying to navel gaze, even for five minutes, let alone for hours? You presumably believe in experiments, so try it and report back. AG 

[Cosmin Visan]

AI! AI! AI! I masturbate AI! AI! AI! AI!

[John Clark]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 12:51 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Recent events have proven that computer scientists have figured out the relationship between mind and matter well enough to be able to turn inert matter into a mind. Meanwhile Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts are doing the exact same thing they've been doing for thousands of years, contemplating their navels and making zero progress on understanding how the world works. 

>>> Contemplating one's navel is hugely harder to do than you think.

>>Playing the piano with your feet, even if it's only done very poorly, is also extremely difficult, however like navel gazing it will not help you one bit in understanding how the world works.  

> How would you know without trying to navel gaze,

Everybody engages in woolgathering, a.k.a. navel gazing, from time to time, but the more time you spend on that the less time you can spend on figuring out how the world works. That's why yogis and gurus are preaching exactly the same stuff they were preaching a thousand years ago, they have found nothing new so they have nothing new to say.    

 > Since you can't define [it]

As I have said before, I have something far far better than a definition, I have examples. And for me the most important example of consciousness is me.  

> and more important you don't know how it comes to exist, 

Thanks to very recent developments I now know of two ways consciousness can come to exist:
1) Through random mutation and natural selection, which produces intelligence, which produces consciousness, although that process is very slow.

2) Consciousness can also be achieved through the administrations of computer scientists, but unlike Evolution this way is exponentially fast. 

> you can't assert a black box has it. 

Am I allowed to assert that one of my fellow human beings, yourself for example, is conscious, at least when you're not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead? If your answer is yes then why isn't that the same answer for a black box that behaves the same way? Is it really of fundamental cosmic importance that one of you has a brain that is wet and squishy while the other has a brain that is dry and hard?  

 

  John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

aia

[Cosmin Visan]

Magic will happen! We will simulate electricity and we will get free energy!

[Alan Grayson]

You're hopelessly deluded. You live a life in mundane ignorance, You have no chance to grasp the reality discovered by yogis and gurus. AG

aia, 

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, March 9, 2025 at 6:13:26 AM UTC-6 Cosmin Visan wrote:

Magic will happen! We will simulate electricity and we will get free energy!

On Sunday, 9 March 2025 at 14:02:22 UTC+2 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 12:51 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>> Recent events have proven that computer scientists have figured out the relationship between mind and matter well enough to be able to turn inert matter into a mind. Meanwhile Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts are doing the exact same thing they've been doing for thousands of years, contemplating their navels and making zero progress on understanding how the world works. 

>>> Contemplating one's navel is hugely harder to do than you think.

>>Playing the piano with your feet, even if it's only done very poorly, is also extremely difficult, however like navel gazing it will not help you one bit in understanding how the world works.  

> How would you know without trying to navel gaze,

Everybody engages in woolgathering, a.k.a. navel gazing, from time to time, but the more time you spend on that the less time you can spend on figuring out how the world works. That's why yogis and gurus are preaching exactly the same stuff they were preaching a thousand years ago, they have found nothing new so they have nothing new to say.    

What exactly do you think they're preaching? Do you have a clue? Do you think the Clear Light of the Void, what is also referred to as The White Light, is indistinguishable from the light Newton passed through a prism and discovered it could be decomposed into the visible colors? AG 

 > Since you can't define [it]

As I have said before, I have something far far better than a definition, I have examples. And for me the most important example of consciousness is me.  

> and more important you don't know how it comes to exist, 

Thanks to very recent developments I now know of two ways consciousness can come to exist:
1) Through random mutation and natural selection, which produces intelligence, which produces consciousness, although that process is very slow.

2) Consciousness can also be achieved through the administrations of computer scientists, but unlike Evolution this way is exponentially fast. 

What's been done is to create a computer (HW and SW) which can mimic human speech and arguments so well, that you can't distinguish it from entities you believe are conscious, since they are like you. IOW, what's called AI, passes the Turing Test. AG 

[John Clark]

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 9:42 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Thanks to very recent developments I now know of two ways consciousness can come to exist:
1) Through random mutation and natural selection, which produces intelligence, which produces consciousness, although that process is very slow.

2) Consciousness can also be achieved through the administrations of computer scientists, but unlike Evolution this way is exponentially fast. 

> What's been done is to create a computer (HW and SW)

IHA.

 

> which can mimic human speech and arguments so well, that you can't distinguish it from entities you believe are conscious

Yes, but you are also "mimicking" human speech, you mimicked how to do it by watching and listening to adults when you were a child.

> what's called AI, passes the Turing Test. AG

Yep, but I might add that modern AI's can pass the Turing Test with a considerably higher score than you can, so if they are not conscious then I would have to conclude that you are not either.   I really wish you would answer a question that I posed in my last post: 

Is it really of fundamental cosmic importance that one of you has a brain that is wet and squishy while the other has a brain that is dry and hard?  

   John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

waq

 

  

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/9/2025 11:16 AM, John Clark wrote:

Yep, but I might add that modern AI's can pass the Turing Test with a considerably higher score than you can, so if they are not conscious then I would have to conclude that you are not either.   I really wish you would answer a question that I posed in my last post:

Intelligence is only one dimension of consciousness.  I don't think the two can be equated.  My dog is not as smart as me, but I'd say he's clearly more conscious than by computer (even if is smarter than me).

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, March 9, 2025 at 12:17:21 PM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Mar 9, 2025 at 9:42 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Thanks to very recent developments I now know of two ways consciousness can come to exist:
1) Through random mutation and natural selection, which produces intelligence, which produces consciousness, although that process is very slow.

2) Consciousness can also be achieved through the administrations of computer scientists, but unlike Evolution this way is exponentially fast. 

> What's been done is to create a computer (HW and SW)

IHA.

You claim to be conscious but can't figure out that HW and SW refer to HardWare and SoftWare? AG 

 

> which can mimic human speech and arguments so well, that you can't distinguish it from entities you believe are conscious

Yes, but you are also "mimicking" human speech, you mimicked how to do it by watching and listening to adults when you were a child.

> what's called AI, passes the Turing Test. AG

Yep, but I might add that modern AI's can pass the Turing Test with a considerably higher score than you can, so if they are not conscious then I would have to conclude that you are not either.   I really wish you would answer a question that I posed in my last post: 

Is it really of fundamental cosmic importance that one of you has a brain that is wet and squishy while the other has a brain that is dry and hard?  

Is this the question you want me to answer? If so, without a definition of consciousness, I see no basis for claiming either is conscious. Without a definition, it's impossible to say what we're talking about. Why don't you ask your favorite AI what the White Light is, and what the Clear Light of the Void is? Or what consciousness is? Or if it thinks it's conscious? AG

[Cosmin Visan]

Brain! Brain! Brain! AI! AI! AI! So exciteeeed!!!

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> without a definition of consciousness, I see no basis for claiming either is conscious.

I have 4 questions for you: 

1) Why do you think definitions are better than examples? 

2) Where do you think lexicographers obtained the knowledge they needed to write the definitions that are in their dictionaries? 

3) Are definitions of words also made of words, and do those words in the definition also have definitions made of words, and do those words in the definition of the definition of words also have definitions made of words, and ....? 

4) What is the definition of "definition"? 

   John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

d4w

[Alan Grayson]

Maybe "definitions" is the wrong way to look at the problem. It's really the unsolved mind-body problem. How does chemistry give rise to consciousness? If you can't explain that, you can't say that AI is conscious. Maybe you can't even assert that any of us are conscious. AG 

d4w

[Quentin Anciaux]

All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)

Le lun. 10 mars 2025, 15:03, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :

On Monday, March 10, 2025 at 6:43:21 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 2:28 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> without a definition of consciousness, I see no basis for claiming either is conscious.

I have 4 questions for you: 

1) Why do you think definitions are better than examples? 

2) Where do you think lexicographers obtained the knowledge they needed to write the definitions that are in their dictionaries? 

3) Are definitions of words also made of words, and do those words in the definition also have definitions made of words, and do those words in the definition of the definition of words also have definitions made of words, and ....? 

4) What is the definition of "definition"? 

   John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

Maybe "definitions" is the wrong way to look at the problem. It's really the unsolved mind-body problem. How does chemistry give rise to consciousness?

Information processing. 

If you can't explain that, you can't say that AI is conscious.

Information processing as us,just different substratum. 

Maybe you can't even assert that any of us are conscious. AG 

d4w

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/51110d3c-8634-4da4-87e8-b7f78e7d1a12n%40googlegroups.com.

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:03 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe "definitions" is the wrong way to look at the problem. It's really the unsolved mind-body problem. How does chemistry give rise to consciousness? 

Regarding that I have five points. 

1) In 1936 Alan Turing showed us how inert matter can produce intelligent behavior. 

2) Natural selection can see intelligent behavior but it can't see consciousness.

3) Evolution produced me and I know with absolute certainty that I am conscious. I strongly suspect you are too. 

4) An iterative sequence of "how does" questions either goes on forever or ends in a brute fact, that is to say a fact that cannot be explained by something deeper or more fundamental.

5) There are only two possibilities, either the sequence of questions goes on forever or it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently. The evolutionary argument strongly suggests that the second explanation is far more likely.  

> If you can't explain that, you can't say that AI is conscious. Maybe you can't even assert that any of us are conscious. AG 

Exactly! And I don't believe anybody this side of a loony bin really believes that solipsism is true.  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

tis

I have 4 questions for you: 

1) Why do you think definitions are better than examples? 

2) Where do you think lexicographers obtained the knowledge they needed to write the definitions that are in their dictionaries? 

3) Are definitions of words also made of words, and do those words in the definition also have definitions made of words, and do those words in the definition of the definition of words also have definitions made of words, and ....? 

4) What is the definition of "definition"? 

  

d4w

-

[Alan Grayson]

On Monday, March 10, 2025 at 9:13:21 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:03 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe "definitions" is the wrong way to look at the problem. It's really the unsolved mind-body problem. How does chemistry give rise to consciousness? 

Regarding that I have five points. 

1) In 1936 Alan Turing showed us how inert matter can produce intelligent behavior. 

I think you're exaggerating here. AG 

2) Natural selection can see intelligent behavior but it can't see consciousness.

3) Evolution produced me and I know with absolute certainty that I am conscious. I strongly suspect you are too. 

4) An iterative sequence of "how does" questions either goes on forever or ends in a brute fact, that is to say a fact that cannot be explained by something deeper or more fundamental.

The  White Light is a good candidate for a brute fact. But first you have to see it, and so far it's virtually impossible for the overwhelming majority of human beings. I was just lucky, or blessed. I can assure you it's nothing like the light Newton used to show white light can be decomposed into the visible colors. The White Light surely seems conscious, attached to each of us, and the source of our being or consciousness. If you try to meditate for five minutes, and grasp how difficult it is to do so, you'll gain respect for the navel gazers you glibly mock. AG

5) There are only two possibilities, either the sequence of questions goes on forever or it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently. The evolutionary argument strongly suggests that the second explanation is far more likely.  

> If you can't explain that, you can't say that AI is conscious. Maybe you can't even assert that any of us are conscious. AG 

Exactly! And I don't believe anybody this side of a loony bin really believes that solipsism is true.  

All we can really be sure of, is that chemicals effect consciousness, but how this happens is likely unknown, or far from being known. AG  

ti

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/10/2025 8:12 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Mar 10, 2025 at 10:03 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe "definitions" is the wrong way to look at the problem. It's really the unsolved mind-body problem. How does chemistry give rise to consciousness? 

Regarding that I have five points. 

1) In 1936 Alan Turing showed us how inert matter can produce intelligent behavior. 

2) Natural selection can see intelligent behavior but it can't see consciousness.

That's questionable.  I can certainly see the difference between conscious and unconscious.  Conscious thought in the sense of imagining scenarios with one's self in them is pretty damned useful.

3) Evolution produced me and I know with absolute certainty that I am conscious. I strongly suspect you are too. 

4) An iterative sequence of "how does" questions either goes on forever or ends in a brute fact, that is to say a fact that cannot be explained by something deeper or more fundamental.

5) There are only two possibilities, either the sequence of questions goes on forever or it's a brute fact that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed intelligently. The evolutionary argument strongly suggests that the second explanation is far more likely.  

> If you can't explain that, you can't say that AI is conscious. Maybe you can't even assert that any of us are conscious. AG 

Exactly! And I don't believe anybody this side of a loony bin really believes that solipsism is true.  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

tis

I have 4 questions for you: 

1) Why do you think definitions are better than examples?

Examples are more ambiguous.

2) Where do you think lexicographers obtained the knowledge they needed to write the definitions that are in their dictionaries? 

3) Are definitions of words also made of words, and do those words in the definition also have definitions made of words, and do those words in the definition of the definition of words also have definitions made of words, and ....?

They terminate in ostensive definitions which are special examples that are less ambiguous than most

4) What is the definition of "definition"?

A description that picks out a single meaning of a word.

Brent

  

d4w

-

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1YG0zX3b3yDBfHO9CMShDE%2BKhs%3DgVDFVbAkjS7te4RUQ%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 1:54 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>2) Natural selection can see intelligent behavior but it can't see consciousness.

 > That's questionable.

I don't think there is anything we can be more sure about than natural selection can't see consciousness. And you can't see it either except in yourself. 

 

> I can certainly see the difference between conscious and unconscious.

No you cannot!

 

 > Conscious thought in the sense of imagining scenarios

But the thing is, you may be able to "imagine scenarios" but natural selection can not. And there is no reason to think  your "imaginary scenarios" correspond with anything in the physical world.  

 

> with one's self in them is pretty damned useful.

I could not say this two years ago but today if you could only observe what an intelligent agent did then not only natural selection but also YOU could not tell if it was performed by an AI or a human, provided that the AI pretended to be stupider and think slower than it really can.   

>> 1) Why do you think definitions are better than examples?

 

> Examples are more ambiguous.

Examples can contain such little ambiguity that even a child is not confused by them. You didn't learn English by reading a dictionary, you learned it because some adult pointed to a tall thing in the ground that had green stuff at the top and said "tree". All definitions are ultimately circular, that's why if you're totally unfamiliar with a concept in higher mathematics a definition of that concept will not help you understand it, it'll just be a bunch of gobbledygook, unless somewhere in that definition there are words equivalent to "such as".  

>> 2) Where do you think lexicographers obtained the knowledge they needed to write the definitions that are in their dictionaries? 
3) Are definitions of words also made of words, and do those words in the definition also have definitions made of words, and do those words in the definition of the definition of words also have definitions made of words, and ....?

> They terminate in ostensive definitions which are special examples

Yes examples, if you dig deep enough into a definition you'll always come to an example at its root, or at least you will if the definition is worth a damn. 

 

>>4) What is the definition of "definition"?

> A description that picks out a single meaning of a word.

I asked Google for a synonym for the word "meaning" and it listed a bunch of them, but the very first one was "definition".  And I asked for a synonym for "description" and it said  "exemplification". As I said , all definitions are ultimately circular. Without examples language would be useless because there would be no way to make a connection between the squiggles on a page and something in the real world, a dictionary would just be a book that links one squiggle to another squiggle. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

tbs

[Cosmin Visan]

Children debating the most obvious thing possible, lol.

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/11/2025 5:28 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 1:54 AM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>2) Natural selection can see intelligent behavior but it can't see consciousness.

 > That's questionable.

I don't think there is anything we can be more sure about than natural selection can't see consciousness. And you can't see it either except in yourself. 

 

> I can certainly see the difference between conscious and unconscious.

No you cannot!Si

Sure I can.  If he's breathing and got a heartbeat but unresponsive, he's unconscious. If he's breathing and got a heartbeat and responsive, he's conscious. 

I notice you claim to be able to tell whether people are intelligent or not by their actions...something that require inferences about their internal motives and intents.

 

 > Conscious thought in the sense of imagining scenarios

But the thing is, you may be able to "imagine scenarios" but natural selection can not. And there is no reason to think  your "imaginary scenarios" correspond with anything in the physical world.

Which is why natural selection is not conscious. 

There are very good reasons to think my imaginary scenarios correspond to physical processes in my brain.  A blow to my head or consumption of a bottle of bourbon drastically affects the effectiveness of those scenarios in guiding my behavior.

 

 

> with one's self in them is pretty damned useful.

I could not say this two years ago but today if you could only observe what an intelligent agent did then not only natural selection but also YOU could not tell if it was performed by an AI or a human, provided that the AI pretended to be stupider and think slower than it really can. 

What does have that to do with anything I wrote??  I didn't say anything about discriminating AI and natural intelligence.

 

>> 1) Why do you think definitions are better than examples?

 

> Examples are more ambiguous.

Examples can contain such little ambiguity that even a child is not confused by them. You didn't learn English by reading a dictionary, you learned it because some adult pointed to a tall thing in the ground that had green stuff at the top and said "tree".

And I learned that a bird or maybe a leaf was called "tree".  It usually takes several examples to be definitive.

All definitions are ultimately circular,

Not unltimately.  Ultimately they bottom out in ostensive definitions

that's why if you're totally unfamiliar with a concept in higher mathematics a definition of that concept will not help you understand it, it'll just be a bunch of gobbledygook, unless somewhere in that definition there are words equivalent to "such as".  

>> 2) Where do you think lexicographers obtained the knowledge they needed to write the definitions that are in their dictionaries? 
3) Are definitions of words also made of words, and do those words in the definition also have definitions made of words, and do those words in the definition of the definition of words also have definitions made of words, and ....?

> They terminate in ostensive definitions which are special examples

Yes examples, if you dig deep enough into a definition you'll always come to an example at its root, or at least you will if the definition is worth a damn.

But not a example, rather examples.

 

>>4) What is the definition of "definition"?

> A description that picks out a single meaning of a word.

I asked Google for a synonym for the word "meaning" and it listed a bunch of them, but the very first one was "definition".  And I asked for a synonym for "description" and it said  "exemplification". As I said , all definitions are ultimately circular.

So in spite me giving an example of the words use you have still never hear of ostensive definition.

Brent

Without examples language would be useless because there would be no way to make a connection between the squiggles on a page and something in the real world, a dictionary would just be a book that links one squiggle to another squiggle. 

John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis 

tbs

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To view this discussion visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2OMcrODdgoRSwHfg_qdSeWTOr%2B3owZzc6wiSKTTiZouA%40mail.gmail.com.

[John Clark]

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 5:20 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I can certainly see the difference between conscious and unconscious.

>> No you cannot!

> Sure I can.  If he's breathing and got a heartbeat but unresponsive, he's unconscious. If he's breathing and got a heartbeat and responsive, he's conscious.

Responsive? That's a test for intelligent behavior not consciousness. You have made an implicit assumption that consciousness is the inevitable byproduct of intelligence.  I think that is a very reasonable assumption and all I ask is that you use the same assumption  when you judge humans when you judge the intelligence and consciousness of an AI. 

> I notice you claim to be able to tell whether people are intelligent or not by their actions...

Yes, of course! 

 

> something that require inferences about their internal motives and intents.

No, good thing too because that's something you don't know.  Even Einstein didn't know what internal motives caused him to become a genius, so are you really unwilling to unequivocally state that Einstein was smart?  

>> But the thing is, you may be able to "imagine scenarios" but natural selection can not. And there is no reason to think  your "imaginary scenarios" correspond with anything in the physical world.

 

> Which is why natural selection is not conscious. 

True, and yet in spite of not being conscious Natural Selection nevertheless managed to manufacture consciousness at least once and probably many billions of times; the only way that could have happened is if consciousness is an evolutionary spandrel, a byproduct of another trate that Evolution can see. Intelligent behavior for example. 

>> I could not say this two years ago but today if you could only observe what an intelligent agent did then not only natural selection but also YOU could not tell if it was performed by an AI or a human, provided that the AI pretended to be stupider and think slower than it really can. 

 

> What does have that to do with anything I wrote?? I didn't say anything about discriminating AI and natural intelligence.

But you did say that to conclude that something is intelligent "require inferences about their internal motives and intents", and nobody would say such a silly thing if AI didn't exist and nobody had even proposed that such a thing might someday be possible. 

>> I asked Google for a synonym for the word "meaning" and it listed a bunch of them, but the very first one was "definition".  And I asked for a synonym for "description" and it said  "exemplification". As I said , all definitions are ultimately circular.

 

>So in spite me giving an example of the words use you have still never hear of ostensive definition.

I had never heard of that particular phrase before although I was pretty sure I knew what it meant, but I thought it might have some obscure technical meaning in formal logic or philosophy so I better look it up, but it turned out to mean exactly what I thought it did.  This is what Wikipedia said:  

"An Ostensive Definition conveys the meaning of a term by pointing out examples."

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis  

rfx

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/12/2025 4:49 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Mar 11, 2025 at 5:20 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> I can certainly see the difference between conscious and unconscious.

>> No you cannot!

> Sure I can.  If he's breathing and got a heartbeat but unresponsive, he's unconscious. If he's breathing and got a heartbeat and responsive, he's conscious.

Responsive? That's a test for intelligent behavior not consciousness.

No it's not.  If you shine a light in his eye and his pupil contracts that's a response.  If you ask who he voted for and he says, "Trump" that's a response.

You have made an implicit assumption that consciousness is the inevitable byproduct of intelligence. 

No, I've made an argument that consciousness imagination is an evolved feature of thought that adds to intelligence.

I think that is a very reasonable assumption and all I ask is that you use the same assumption  when you judge humans when you judge the intelligence and consciousness of an AI.

I do.  Why to you think I don't?

> I notice you claim to be able to tell whether people are intelligent or not by their actions...

Yes, of course! 

 

> something that require inferences about their internal motives and intents.

No, good thing too because that's something you don't know.  Even Einstein didn't know what internal motives caused him to become a genius, so are you really unwilling to unequivocally state that Einstein was smart? 

I'm not talking about some vague motives that may have contributed to his genius over the years.  I'm talking about walking to the tavern that served beer.  That's intelligent if he wanted a beer or if he fancied the bar maid, but not if he wanted to buy shoes.  So you had to attribute certain motives for it to count as intelligent.

>> But the thing is, you may be able to "imagine scenarios" but natural selection can not. And there is no reason to think  your "imaginary scenarios" correspond with anything in the physical world.

 

> Which is why natural selection is not conscious. 

True, and yet in spite of not being conscious Natural Selection nevertheless managed to manufacture consciousness at least once and probably many billions of times; the only way that could have happened is if consciousness is an evolutionary spandrel, a byproduct of another trate that Evolution can see. Intelligent behavior for example.

Only because you cherry pick what to count as "intelligent behavior".  You and evolution can see language behavior such as describing one's thoughts about a mathematical proof.  This is generally taken as evidence of conscious thought, and that thought as essential to the development of the proof.  Not a spandrel.  Or maybe you think mathematicians never get laid.

 

>> I could not say this two years ago but today if you could only observe what an intelligent agent did then not only natural selection but also YOU could not tell if it was performed by an AI or a human, provided that the AI pretended to be stupider and think slower than it really can. 

 

> What does have that to do with anything I wrote?? I didn't say anything about discriminating AI and natural intelligence.

But you did say that to conclude that something is intelligent "require inferences about their internal motives and intents", and nobody would say such a silly thing if AI didn't exist and nobody had even proposed that such a thing might someday be possible.

LLMs require prompts as motivation.  You claim to know they are intelligent by their response.  But you wouldn't say that if the response didn't match the motivation.

>> I asked Google for a synonym for the word "meaning" and it listed a bunch of them, but the very first one was "definition".  And I asked for a synonym for "description" and it said  "exemplification". As I said , all definitions are ultimately circular.

 

>So in spite me giving an example of the words use you have still never hear of ostensive definition.

I had never heard of that particular phrase before although I was pretty sure I knew what it meant, but I thought it might have some obscure technical meaning in formal logic or philosophy so I better look it up, but it turned out to mean exactly what I thought it did.  This is what Wikipedia said:  

"An Ostensive Definition conveys the meaning of a term by pointing out examples."

Plural.

Brent

[John Clark]

On Wed, Mar 12, 2025 at 11:10 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Responsive? That's a test for intelligent behavior not consciousness.

 

> No it's not.  If you shine a light in his eye and his pupil contracts that's a response.  If you ask who he voted for and he says, "Trump" that's a response.

Yes and that proves that the Trump voter is more intelligent than a rock. If I kick a rock I can calculate what the rock will do with F=ma and other Newtonian equations using just a pencil and paper, but if I kick a Trump voter things would be slightly more complicated. 

>> You have made an implicit assumption that consciousness is the inevitable byproduct of intelligence. 

> No, I've made an argument that consciousness imagination is an evolved feature of thought that adds to intelligence.

I'm not sure how "consciousness imagination" differs from just "imagination", but computers have been imagining what the next move a competitor might make in a game of checkers since the mid-1950s.  And don't you think it would be safe to say that computers reached a new level of intelligence about two years ago?

>> I think that is a very reasonable assumption and all I ask is that you use the same assumption  when you judge humans when you judge the intelligence and consciousness of an AI.

> I do. 

Great, so you must believe as I do that, however imperfect, the Turing test is the only way to detect intelligence (maybe rocks are brilliant but shy and uncommunicative) and consciousness. So computers have been conscious for at least the last two years, or at least as conscious as our fellow human beings are.  

 

>> and yet in spite of not being conscious Natural Selection nevertheless managed to manufacture consciousness at least once and probably many billions of times; the only way that could have happened is if consciousness is an evolutionary spandrel, a byproduct of another trate that Evolution can see. Intelligent behavior for example.

> Only because you cherry pick what to count as "intelligent behavior".

 

Cherry pick? Use any criteria you want to determine what is intelligent and what is not, all I ask is that you play fair and use the SAME criteria for judging both human intelligence and AI intelligence, and you can't be certain about the motivations of either.

 

> You and evolution can see language behavior such as describing one's thoughts about a mathematical proof. This is generally taken as evidence of conscious thought, and that thought as essential to the development of the proof.  Not a spandrel.

No. Evolution produced us to be intelligent enough to survive on the African savanna and not to be good at making mathematical proofs, that's why we're so bad at it. In the 1950s nobody understood what was intellectually easy and what was hard at a fundamental level. We find it easy to figure out how to move our appendages to catch a thrown ball, or to recognize objects from any angle even under strange lighting conditions, but we find it hard to solve partial differential equations or to play a good game of chess. In 1950 everybody figured that was because one class of tasks was fundamentally more difficult than the other, but when we tried to reproduce both chores from square one we learned that catching a baseball was far more difficult than playing a good game of chess.

There must be machinery in our head (constructed from genes) that makes even the most clumsy among us to be masters of hand eye coordination compared with today's robots (although that situation is changing at an exponentially fast rate), but there is no such dedicated machinery for being good at chess, so we find that hard. In fact I think it is only a slight exaggeration to say that at a fundamental level a janitor has a more intellectually demanding job (requiring more FLOPS) than a professor of mathematics.

 >  maybe you think mathematicians never get laid.

I don't know this as a fact but I suspect that on average janitors at universities have more children than professors of mathematics at those universities. 

 

>> you did say that to conclude that something is intelligent "require inferences about their internal motives and intents", and nobody would say such a silly thing if AI didn't exist and nobody had even proposed that such a thing might someday be possible.

 

> LLMs require prompts as motivation. 

And I wouldn't have written this email if you hadn't prompted me to do so in your previous email, and you wouldn't have written that if I hadn't prompted you to do so in my previous email. 

> You claim to know they are intelligent by their response.  But you wouldn't say that if the response didn't match the motivation.

I understand the motivation of a modern large language model about as well as I understand the motivation of one of my fellow human beings. I'm sure there have been times when you saw somebody do something very strange so you asked "why did you do that?" and the response you received you did not consider satisfactory. Sometimes the only response possible was "because I wanted to" because the person is unable to explain the detailed pattern of neuron firings that caused him to do what he did. Exactly the same thing could be said about a modern AI. 

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis  

rdb

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/13/2025 6:02 AM, John Clark wrote:

> You claim to know they are intelligent by their response.  But you wouldn't say that if the response didn't match the motivation.

I understand the motivation of a modern large language model about as well as I understand the motivation of one of my fellow human beings. I'm sure there have been times when you saw somebody do something very strange so you asked "why did you do that?" and the response you received you did not consider satisfactory. Sometimes the only response possible was "because I wanted to" because the person is unable to explain the detailed pattern of neuron firings that caused him to do what he did. Exactly the same thing could be said about a modern AI.

But now you've elided any reference to intelligence.  Yet you wouldn't infer that the person was not conscious, simply because he couldn't explain his action.  My point is that "conscious" means different things, or may be said to have many components.  One of them is making and carrying out plans, which you see as intelligent action.  But you must know from your own experience that this involves imagining the consequence of sequences of action; that's what it means "to plan".  And that imagination is a kind of consciousness, which necessarily entails internal representations of the world.  Do you think an AI could do it some other way, that would look the same to an observer?

Brent

[John Clark]

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 8:42 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I understand the motivation of a modern large language model about as well as I understand the motivation of one of my fellow human beings. I'm sure there have been times when you saw somebody do something very strange so you asked "why did you do that?" and the response you received you did not consider satisfactory. Sometimes the only response possible was "because I wanted to" because the person is unable to explain the detailed pattern of neuron firings that caused him to do what he did. Exactly the same thing could be said about a modern AI.

> But now you've elided any reference to intelligence.  Yet you wouldn't infer that the person was not conscious, simply because he couldn't explain his action. 

It's true I can't conclude a person is not intelligent and conscious just because I don't know his motivations, I can't always explain, even to myself, why I did what I did other than "I just wanted to" and yet I know for a fact that I am conscious and sometimes my actions are slightly more intelligent than a rock's actions. And EXACTLY the same thing can be said about an AI; so you were wrong when you said we have to understand the motivations of an AI before we can say it is intelligent. 

 

My point is that "conscious" means different things, or may be said to have many components. 

Use any definition of consciousness you like but to be useful the definition must be made out of observables and not just be a bunch of synonyms for the word "consciousness", and most important of all, whatever definition you end up using you've got to play fair and use the same definition when judging an AI.

 

> One of them is making and carrying out plans, which you see as intelligent action.  But you must know from your own experience that this involves imagining the consequence of sequences of action; that's what it means "to plan". 

 

And the hot new thing right now is "Agentic AI" which can do precisely what you described in the above, including simulating the consequences of potential actions it could take.  

> And that imagination is a kind of consciousness, which necessarily entails internal representations of the world.  Do you think an AI could do it some other way.

Making good plans without thinking about what the consequences of those plans might be? No, I don't think that's possible.  

 John K Clark    See what's on my new list at  Extropolis  

3sh

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/14/2025 4:47 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Mar 13, 2025 at 8:42 PM Brent Meeker <meeke...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I understand the motivation of a modern large language model about as well as I understand the motivation of one of my fellow human beings. I'm sure there have been times when you saw somebody do something very strange so you asked "why did you do that?" and the response you received you did not consider satisfactory. Sometimes the only response possible was "because I wanted to" because the person is unable to explain the detailed pattern of neuron firings that caused him to do what he did. Exactly the same thing could be said about a modern AI.

> But now you've elided any reference to intelligence.  Yet you wouldn't infer that the person was not conscious, simply because he couldn't explain his action. 

It's true I can't conclude a person is not intelligent and conscious just because I don't know his motivations, I can't always explain, even to myself, why I did what I did other than "I just wanted to" and yet I know for a fact that I am conscious and sometimes my actions are slightly more intelligent than a rock's actions. And EXACTLY the same thing can be said about an AI; so you were wrong when you said we have to understand the motivations of an AI before we can say it is intelligent.

So if the AI loses every chess game we can say it's unintelligent without knowing whether it wanted to win?

 

My point is that "conscious" means different things, or may be said to have many components. 

Use any definition of consciousness you like but to be useful the definition must be made out of observables and not just be a bunch of synonyms for the word "consciousness", and most important of all, whatever definition you end up using you've got to play fair and use the same definition when judging an AI.

 

> One of them is making and carrying out plans, which you see as intelligent action.  But you must know from your own experience that this involves imagining the consequence of sequences of action; that's what it means "to plan". 

 

And the hot new thing right now is "Agentic AI" which can do precisely what you described in the above, including simulating the consequences of potential actions it could take.  

> And that imagination is a kind of consciousness, which necessarily entails internal representations of the world.  Do you think an AI could do it some other way.

Making good plans without thinking about what the consequences of those plans might be? No, I don't think that's possible. 

Then we're in agreement that consciousness in not just a spandrel, and all things with human level intelligence probably have it.

Brent

[Alan Grayson]

On Friday, March 7, 2025 at 8:09:52 AM UTC-7 Alan Grayson wrote:

My email response to Roger Penrose's speculations about the root of consciousness and computability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=biUfMZ2dts8

Dr. Penrose; What you intuit exists, and seek, is called in Tibetan Buddhism "The Clear Light of the Void", and is described in the "Tibetan Book of the Dead". Additional information can be found in the Hindu scripture, "The Bhagavad Gita". I call it "The White Light" and experienced it once in a Christian context, momentarily. I don't know if it does computations. If you're blessed to experience it, you will have no doubt of its role as the source of consciousness. It was discovered in the ancient world several millennia ago by Hindu gurus and Yoga adepts. It qualifies to be called Occult or Hidden knowledge, and is essentially unknown to modern scientists and philosophers.

No response from Penrose, probably because he gets a ton of email. AG