Actually, the nuclear spins in the rock encode a single state of an ongoing
computation (which is conscious). Successive states occur in the rock's
counterparts in adjacent branes of the metauniverse, so that the rock is
conscious not of unfolding time, as we see it, but of a journey across
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not exactly (to start with, you can *never* be 100% sure, try though you
might :-) ). Take all of the investigations into rockness since the
dawn of homo sapiens and we still only have a 0.9995 probability that
rocks are not conscious.
2008/6/4 John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually you are on to something. Since there are patterns in the rock,
molecular, granular, electronic, subatomic the rock has string of bits that
represent time frame samples of consciousness recordings. So I mean if they
were played with the right
.
- Original Message -
From: Panu Horsmalahti
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2008 2:27 PM
Subject: **SPAM** Re: Are rocks conscious? (was RE: [agi] Did this message
get completely lost?)
2008/6/4 John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually you are on to something
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Actually, the nuclear spins in the rock encode a single state of an
ongoing
computation (which is conscious). Successive states occur in the rock's
counterparts in adjacent branes of the metauniverse, so that the rock is
conscious not of
2008/6/4 J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What is the rock thinking?
T h i s i s w a a a y o f f t o p i c . . .
Rocks are obviously superintelligences. By behaving like inert matter
and letting us build monuments and gravel pathways out of them they're
just lulling us into a
2008/6/4 Bob Mottram [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
2008/6/4 J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
What is the rock thinking?
T h i s i s w a a a y o f f t o p i c . . .
Rocks are obviously superintelligences. By behaving like inert matter
and letting us build monuments and gravel pathways
J Storrs Hall, PhD wrote:
Actually, the nuclear spins in the rock encode a single state of an ongoing
computation (which is conscious). Successive states occur in the rock's
counterparts in adjacent branes of the metauniverse, so that the rock is
conscious not of unfolding time, as we see
John G. Rose wrote:
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Not exactly (to start with, you can *never* be 100% sure, try though you
might :-) ). Take all of the investigations into rockness since the
dawn of homo sapiens and we still only have a 0.9995 probability that
rocks are not
But, without us droids, how would you verify/validate your
consciousness? And, think about what you'd be taking over. As Sting
says, What good's a world that's all used up? Rhetorical questions,
both. When I start quoting Sting lyrics, I *know* it's time for me to
get off a thread. Ta!
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I agree that it is for us in the modern day technological society. But
it may not have been always the case. We have been grounded by reason.
Before reason it may have been largely supernatural. That's why
sometimes I think AGI's could start off
From: Brad Paulsen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
John wrote:
A rock is either conscious or not conscious.
Excluding the middle, are we?
Conscious, not conscious or null?
I don't want to put words into Ben company's mouths, but I think what
they are trying to do with PLN is to
--- On Tue, 6/3/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually on further thought about this conscious rock, I
want to take that particular rock and put it through some
further tests to absolutely verify with a high degree of
confidence that there may not be some trace amount of
From: Matt Mahoney [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Are rocks conscious? (was RE: [agi] Did this message get
completely lost?)
--- On Tue, 6/3/08, John G. Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Actually on further thought about this conscious rock, I
want to take that particular rock and put
John G. Rose wrote:
You see what I'm getting at. In order to be 100% sure. Any failed tests of the
above would require further scientific analysis and investigation to achieve
proper non-conscious certification.
Not
That's getting reasonably close, assuming you don't require the model to have
any specific degree of fidelity -- there's a difference between being
conscious of something and understanding it.
The key is that we judge the consciousness of an entity based on the ability
of its processes and
On 06/01/2008 09:29 PM,, John G. Rose wrote:
From: j.k. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 06/01/2008 03:42 PM, John G. Rose wrote:
A rock is conscious.
Okay, I'll bite. How are rocks conscious under Josh's definition or any
other non-LSD-tripping-or-batshit-crazy definition?
The
From: j.k. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 06/01/2008 09:29 PM,, John G. Rose wrote:
From: j.k. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 06/01/2008 03:42 PM, John G. Rose wrote:
A rock is conscious.
Okay, I'll bite. How are rocks conscious under Josh's definition or
any
other
On Monday 02 June 2008 03:00:24 pm, John G. Rose wrote:
A rock is either conscious or not conscious. Is it less intellectually
sloppy to declare it not conscious?
A rock is not conscious. I'll stake my scientific reputation on it.
(this excludes silicon rocks with micropatterned circuits :-)
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Monday 02 June 2008 03:00:24 pm, John G. Rose wrote:
A rock is either conscious or not conscious. Is it less intellectually
sloppy to declare it not conscious?
A rock is not conscious. I'll stake my scientific reputation on it.
(this
-Original Message-
From: j.k. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 2:11 PM
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Subject: Re: [agi] Did this message get completely lost?
On 06/01/2008 09:29 PM,, John G. Rose wrote:
From: j.k. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 06/01/2008 03:42 PM, John G
From: Mike Tintner [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Just a quick thought not fully formulated. My model is in fact helpful
here.
Consciousness is an iworld-movie - a self watching and directing a movie
of
the world. How do you know if an agent is conscious - if it directs its
movie - if it tracks
John wrote:
A rock is either conscious or not conscious.
Excluding the middle, are we?
I don't want to put words into Ben company's mouths, but I think what
they are trying to do with PLN is to implement a system that expressly
*includes the middle*. In theory (but not necessarily
From: j.k. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 06/02/2008 12:00 PM,, John G. Rose wrote:
A rock is either conscious or not conscious. Is it less intellectually
sloppy to declare it not conscious?
John
A rock is either conscious or not conscious (if consciousness is a
boolean
From: J Storrs Hall, PhD [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Why do I believe anyone besides me is conscious? Because they are made
of
meat? No, it's because they claim to be conscious, and answer questions
about
their consciousness the same way I would, given my own conscious
experience -- and they
John:Just conscious is too simple. It's too umbrella. A rock is conscious.
Is there an agent specific uniqueness to consciousness? No one is conscious
like me. And they all are unique as I am not conscious as they are... The
uniqueness may be a defining factor. Unreplicable and non-simulatable.
On 06/01/2008 03:42 PM, John G. Rose wrote:
A rock is conscious.
Okay, I'll bite. How are rocks conscious under Josh's definition or any
other non-LSD-tripping-or-batshit-crazy definition?
---
agi
Archives:
From: j.k. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On 06/01/2008 03:42 PM, John G. Rose wrote:
A rock is conscious.
Okay, I'll bite. How are rocks conscious under Josh's definition or any
other non-LSD-tripping-or-batshit-crazy definition?
The way you phrase your question indicates your
On Sun, Jun 1, 2008 at 6:28 PM, J Storrs Hall, PhD [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why do I believe anyone besides me is conscious? Because they are made of
meat? No, it's because they claim to be conscious, and answer questions about
their consciousness the same way I would, given my own conscious
29 matches
Mail list logo
