Dear MarkCC.
Thank you for paying attention on my crackpottery article.
I like your comment.
Very like.
==.
You say:
Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds
of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that
we see - and e and π won't change.
=..
Now
On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:52, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
The learned men confuse the mathematical tools with the
physical reality and therefore we have math-physical fairy-tales.
=.
That happens too, and is of course even worst than confusing
mathematical tools and the mathematical
Intuitive Understanding Of Euler’s Formula
http://betterexplained.com/articles/intuitive-understanding-of-eulers-formula/#comment-190704
=….
On Feb 14, 8:48 am, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.
=.
Mr. Dexter Sinister
On 14 Feb 2013, at 08:48, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.
=.
Mr. Dexter Sinister wrote:
‘ I understand Euler's Identity,
and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it,
there's nothing particularly mystical about it,
it just demonstrates that
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
So far, nobody has been able to figure out a learning algorithm as
generic as the one our brains contains.
The developers of Watson have come very close
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
there aren't as many brain surgeon-level fields that require maniacal
focus for competence as
people seem to think.
I would maintain that for the last 200 years every major advance in science
or mathematics has come from
The learned men confuse the mathematical tools with the
physical reality and therefore we have math-physical fairy-tales.
=.
On Feb 14, 5:39 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2013, at 08:48, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:
Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful
supercomputer in the world. I'll
On 2/13/2013 3:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
The main reason Watson and similar programs fail to have human like
intelligence is that they lack human like values and motivations
True, but they could have generic intelligence -- the ability to learn
something new in a new domain, just by being
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
So far, nobody has been able to figure out a learning algorithm as
generic as the one our brains contains.
The developers of Watson have come very close to doing exactly that.
there is definitely room for generalists.
Then
On 11 Feb 2013, at 18:30, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote
The Watson program is competent, but I doubt it makes sense to say
it is intelligent.
Just like with God and atheist it looks like we're back at the
tired old game of
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent.
It is competent in jeopardy.
And the enormously impressive thing about Watson is that unlike Chess
Jeopardy is not a specialized game, you could get asked
Hi John,
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent.
It is competent in jeopardy.
And the enormously impressive thing about
On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards it
is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful
supercomputer in the
world. I'll wager it would take you less than five minutes to find and
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:49:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most
powerful supercomputer in the world. I'll
On 2/12/2013 4:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:49:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards
it is almost certainly a supercomputer,
On 10 Feb 2013, at 19:38, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
Consciousness might be the unconscious
Okey dokey, and if you allow that X is not X you can prove or
disprove anything you like.
Please, quote the entire sentence. It
On 10 Feb 2013, at 23:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What makes computers useful is that they have no capacity to object
to drudgery. That is the capacity which is inseparable from
unconsciousness.
That is what slaves are useful at. And that does not make slaves
unconscious. It makes them
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
The Watson program is competent, but I doubt it makes sense to say it is
intelligent.
Just like with God and atheist it looks like we're back at the tired
old game of redefining words. Using the normal meaning of
On 2/11/2013 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
Watson can do even better than make sense out of intelligence, Watson can make concrete
actions out of intelligence, among many other things Watson can move chess pieces around
in such a way as to beat you or any other human in a game.
Actually I'm not
On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:24:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Feb 2013, at 23:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What makes computers useful is that they have no capacity to object to
drudgery. That is the capacity which is inseparable from unconsciousness.
That is what slaves are
The situation in ' philosophy of physics'.
=.
‘ Suddenly I realized that a nagual did have one point to
defend - in my opinion, a passionate defense for the
'description of the Eagle', and 'what the Eagle does'.
But what kind of a force would the Eagle be?
I would not know how to answer
On 08 Feb 2013, at 17:23, John Clark wrote:
... consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence.
Consciousness might be the unconscious, i.e. instinctive and
automated, belief or bet in a reality, or self-consistency (for
machine expressing their beliefs in first order languages), so that
On 09 Feb 2013, at 00:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Outside of consciousness, there is no possibility of discerning any
difference between accidental byproducts and selected products. Only
consciousness selects. Only consciousness has accidents.
Good point.
But this does not make
On 09 Feb 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
I totally agree with that, what I don't agree is when you say the
moment you're becoming Telmo again, you should lose
On 09 Feb 2013, at 23:38, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:
snip
If you're still want to go on the technical detail, then give real
technical insight of how the mind works and what can really prevent
that
One insight is
On 09 Feb 2013, at 23:44, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 08 Feb 2013, at 13:45, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Well, yes... with computer you could imagine doing just that... so
why not ? Also, the fact that you can't imagine
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Consciousness might be the unconscious
Okey dokey, and if you allow that X is not X you can prove or disprove
anything you like.
Consciousness accelerates the growing of intelligence
Then it would be easier to make a
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:15:00 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You are convinced that computers and other machines
don't have consciousness, but you can't say what test you will apply
to them and
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Why would being generated in a single moment through cell
fertilization have any bearing on consciousness?
Because consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time, or
rather through which time is
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:23:52 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Why would being generated in a single moment through cell
fertilization have any bearing on consciousness?
Because
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/8/2013 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
My point is that the only possible write algorithm that doesn't read
information that is already stored is one that starts writing at random in
any position. You could erase or
On 08 Feb 2013, at 13:45, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 ameekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Evolution can only move species to local maxima of fitness.
That is true and is a severe limitation of Evolution, a limitation a mind
designed by a intelligence, like a computer, would not have. You seem to be
saying that a mind
On 2/9/2013 1:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/8/2013 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
My point is that the only possible write algorithm that doesn't read
information
that is
On 2/9/2013 7:52 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 ameekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Evolution can only move species to local maxima of fitness.
That is true and is a severe limitation of Evolution, a limitation a mind designed by a
intelligence,
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 08 Feb 2013, at 13:45, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You are convinced that computers and other machines
don't have consciousness, but you can't say what test you will apply
to them and see them fail.
I'm convinced of that because I understand why there is no reason
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
I'm not claiming
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:00:17 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I'm not
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM,
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes
On Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:35:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 2/7/2013 9:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:50:09 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
You're avoiding the
On Friday, February 8, 2013 11:23:48 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript:wrote:
I don't believe other people have minds when they are sleeping or
under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those states they don't
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You believe that other people have minds when they are sleeping or under
anesthesia or dead!??
Do you believe that you have a house when you aren't standing in it?
Yes. Do you believe that other people have minds when they
On Friday, February 8, 2013 1:49:54 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
You believe that other people have minds when they are sleeping or
under anesthesia or dead!??
Do you believe that you have a house when you aren't
On 2/8/2013 1:02 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com
On 2/8/2013 3:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo memories
should be
erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be back as Telmo + the
memories of
having been a cat ?
Hi Quentin,
Because that would require that I
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/8/2013 3:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be
back as Telmo + the memories of having
On Friday, February 8, 2013 4:18:02 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:
On 2/8/2013 3:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased,
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin
On 2/8/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote:
I don't know what you mean by that, what I mean is that consciousness is a spandrel, it
is the unavoidable result of intelligence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29
Or it could be
On 2/8/2013 1:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/8/2013 3:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories
should be
On 2/8/2013 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
My point is that the only possible write algorithm that doesn't read information that is
already stored is one that starts writing at random in any position. You could erase or
corrupt previous information and you have no index.
I don't see why that
Outside of consciousness, there is no possibility of discerning any
difference between accidental byproducts and selected products. Only
consciousness selects. Only consciousness has accidents.
Craig
On Friday, February 8, 2013 5:53:18 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/8/2013 10:49 AM, John
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:
2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
Yes (weakly).
You
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Stathis,
The simulation of our 'self' that our brain generates *is* good enough
to fool oneself! I speculate that schizophrenia and autism are caused by
failures of the self-simulation system... The former is
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
That's just because the simulation of a person isn't good enough. The
question is what if the simulation *is* good enough to completely fool
you.
Fooling me is meaningless. I think that you think therefore you are
On 06 Feb 2013, at 19:04, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
Yes (weakly).
You believe that only weakly?! Do
On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I'm not claiming
On Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:12:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
That's just because the simulation of a person isn't good enough. The
question is what if the simulation *is* good enough to completely
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:12:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:
That's just because the simulation of a person isn't good enough. The
On Thursday, February 7, 2013 6:28:39 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:12:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You're avoiding the question. What is your definitive test for
consciousness? If you don't have one, then you have to admit that your
friend (who talks to you and behaves like people do, not in a coma,
not on a video
On Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:50:09 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You're avoiding the question. What is your definitive test for
consciousness? If you don't have one, then you have to admit that your
On 2/7/2013 7:04 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:
Hi Stathis,
The simulation of our 'self' that our brain generates *is* good enough
to fool oneself! I speculate that schizophrenia and autism are caused by
On 2/7/2013 9:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:50:09 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
You're avoiding the question. What is your definitive test for
consciousness? If
On 2/7/2013 8:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I don't think that will happen unless they aren't robots. The whole point is that the
degree to which an organism is conscious is inversely proportionate to the degree that
the organism is 100% controllable. That's the purpose of intelligence - to
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You're saying that a robot behaving like a human may fool you, but how do
you know that your apparently fellow humans are not robots?
Because I live in 2013 AD, where I now need to reboot my office telephone if
I
On 2/6/2013 7:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You're saying that a robot behaving like a human may fool you, but how do
you know that your apparently fellow humans are not robots?
Because I live in 2013 AD, where I
On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:41:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we fix the TOE as arithmetic.
If arithmetic has no theory of itself,
Arithmetic has a theory of itself. That's what Gödel discovered.
Bruno
can it really be said
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 7:18:51 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You're saying that a robot behaving like a human may fool you, but how
do
you know that your apparently fellow humans are not
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
Yes (weakly).
You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49% chance
that you are
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:04:02 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript:
wrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
Yes
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote
we also realize intuitively that computers are unconscious
We? Speak for yourself. Maybe your spider senses start to tingle when you
encounter something with consciousness but I am not Spiderman.
without any logical analysis.
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:35:45 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote
we also realize intuitively that computers are unconscious
We? Speak for yourself. Maybe your spider senses start to tingle when you
encounter
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
People can pretend to be asleep or anesthetized or dead also.
True.
In that case, the criteria of behaving intelligently would not help you
determine whether they have a mind or not.
Also true. The Turing Test
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:53:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
People can pretend to be asleep or anesthetized or dead also.
True.
In that case, the criteria of behaving intelligently
On 2/6/2013 10:04 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
On 2/6/2013 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:53:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:
People can pretend to be asleep or anesthetized or dead also.
True.
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:15:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/6/2013 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:53:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
People can pretend to be asleep or
On 04 Feb 2013, at 18:18, John Mikes wrote:
Here is another one about intelligence:
My definition goes back to the original Latin words: to READ between
- lines, or words that is. To understand (reflect?) on the unspoken.
A reason why I am not enthusiastic about AI - a machine (not Lob's
I think that it is possible to understand the universe
using usual common logical thought.
We need only understand in which zoo (reference frame )
physicists found higgs-boson and 1000 its elementary brothers.
socratus
.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
I hate to refresh an old-old topic, but...
what is really your context of a machine?
(In the usual verbiage it points to some 'construct of definite parts with
definite functions' or the like.)
I doubt that 'your' universal machine can be inventoried in KNOWN parts
only. Or; that it may have a
On 05 Feb 2013, at 17:38, John Mikes wrote:
I hate to refresh an old-old topic, but...
what is really your context of a machine?
(In the usual verbiage it points to some 'construct of definite
parts with definite functions' or the like.)
That's a good idea. I use the term machine for
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:41:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
If we fix the TOE as arithmetic.
If arithmetic has no theory of itself, can it really be said to provide a
TOE? Isn't it just like physics in the sense of 'Give me one free miracle
(energy or numbers) and I'll tell
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 , Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
I define intelligence as the ability to make choices or selctions
completely on one's own.
Such as roulette wheels.
Adding free will to the requirements, it rules out computers
Because free will is gibberish and computers are
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
Yes (weakly). Occam's razor. If I'm the
On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:00:17 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
javascript:wrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I question whether it is possible to ask whether your fellow human beings
have minds without resorting to sophistry. I say that not because I am
incapable of questioning naive reasoning, but because it does not
1 - 100 of 116 matches
Mail list logo
