On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
A possible answer is that all
possible universes exist and we find ourselves in one of those that
has the kind of physical laws leading to observers.
I'm familiar with the Anthropic principle, but what program
Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex computations ?
The short answer is that I am proposing that :
1) Penrose's noncomputability position is equivalent to the position
that consciousness emerges at such a level of complexity.
2) In addition, that while Godel's
Hi Russell Standish
1) It is a cruelty of nature to make the two IMHO most powerful thinkers
(Peirce and Leibniz) to be the two most difficult to understand.
I would not throw them out just yet.
2) If somebody can make something useful out of autopoesis,
more power to them. At first, it
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:02:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
A possible answer is that all
possible universes exist and we find ourselves in one of those that
has the kind of physical laws
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you
could have computation without sense, then there would be no consciousness.
Craig
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 7:50:17 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex
computations
Roger,
Philosophers such as Lucas, Hofstadter and Chalmers as well as Penrose
and Godel suggest that consciousness may be due to incompleteness
itself allowing for emergence...
See http://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
Richard
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 7:48 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you could
have computation without sense, then there would be no consciousness.
Craig
Could you provide a link where you more fully explain what sense
Hi Roger,
On 10/16/2012 7:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex
computations ?
No!
The short answer is that I am proposing that :
1) Penrose's noncomputability position is equivalent to the position
that consciousness emerges at such a
On 10/16/2012 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:02:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
There is of course the idea that the universe is actually a
simulation but that is more controversial.
A tempting idea until we question what it is a simulation of?
On 10/16/2012 8:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you
could have computation without sense, then there would be no
consciousness.
Craig
Hi Craig,
I agree, you would have the zombie without sense. By definition!
--
Onward!
On 10/16/2012 8:33 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
Philosophers such as Lucas, Hofstadter and Chalmers as well as Penrose
and Godel suggest that consciousness may be due to incompleteness
itself allowing for emergence...
Seehttp://vixra.org/pdf/1101.0044v1.pdf
Richard
Hi Richard,
I only
Hi Richard Ruquist
I'm well aware of that, except you don't need
Godel to reach an impossibly complex state of
calculations. My own position is that if you
can't calculate upward any more, you calculate
downward. From Platonia, except that you begin
to use the forms, numbers, reason, all of
On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you could
have computation without sense, then there would be no consciousness.
Craig
Could you provide
Hi Craig Weinberg
You said,
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense.
If you could have computation without sense, then there would be no
consciousness.
That sounds potent, I'm but not sure what it means.
Could you expand on it a little ?
Roger Clough,
Hi Stephen P. King
Thanks. My mistake was to say that P's position is that
consciousness, arises at (or above ?)
the level of noncomputability. He just seems to
say that intuiton does. But that just seems
to be a conjecture of his.
ugh, rclo...@verizon.net
10/16/2012
Forever is a long
Hi Stephen P. King
This may have little connection to what you said,
but in one of Brain Greene's talks (on time) he
made mention that the subjective state, the
experiential state, always just experiences now.
Similarly calculations flow in time as they are made,
and the one being made is
On 10/16/2012 9:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Thanks. My mistake was to say that P's position is that
consciousness, arises at (or above ?)
the level of noncomputability. He just seems to
say that intuiton does. But that just seems
to be a conjecture of his.
ugh,
On 14 Oct 2012, at 22:44, Roger Clough wrote:
Computational Autopoetics is a term I just coined to denote
applying basic concepts
of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free to
do it more justice
than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been
Magic emergence from magic enough complexity has been advocated for almost
anything. Most of the time as an excuse for not saying I don´t know,
that is the prerequisite for thinking deeper about the problem. I prefer to
say I don´t know.
2012/10/16 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Stephen
2012/10/10 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
2012/10/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Oct 2012, at 18:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It may be a zombie or not. I can´t know.
The same applies to other persons. It may be that the world is made of
zombie-actors that try to
2012/10/11 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 10 Oct 2012, at 20:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Oct 2012, at 18:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It may be a zombie or not. I can´t know.
The same applies to other persons. It may be that the
On 10/16/2012 9:36 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Magic emergence from magic enough complexity has been advocated for
almost anything. Most of the time as an excuse for not saying I
don´t know, that is the prerequisite for thinking deeper about the
problem. I prefer to say I don´t know.
Hi
On 15 Oct 2012, at 16:14, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
After looking at how computers make choices--
whether they are free or whatever-- I now see
that my previous position that computers have
no intelligence was not exactly right, because
they do have intelligence, but it is
On 10/16/2012 9:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Oct 2012, at 16:14, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
After looking at how computers make choices--
whether they are free or whatever-- I now see
that my previous position that computers have
no intelligence was not exactly right, because
On 15 Oct 2012, at 18:25, John Mikes wrote:
Thanks for a detailed inquisition upon my post.
It did not convince me.
#1: you postulate to ACCEPT your condition to begin with.
I don't. (once you agree).
That contradicts what is meant usually by a postulate. You put too
much in the term
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously
wrote: Magic emergence from magic enough complexity has been advocated
for almost anything. and now you suggest that consciousness is
contingent on a level of evolution, ala: ... in this stage of evolution
a form
The difference between consciousness as an emergence from complexity and
consciousness is a functionality necessary for, and evolved with by
natural selection is that the latter is a falsable theory (if we find
an observable effect of consciousness) while the former is not even a
theory.
Hi Russell,
I think if autopoeisis has failed to achieve some practical measure,
it is a reflection of how under-developed our collective toolbox is
for working with complexity and holistic systems in general. Imaginary
numbers are a good example of an idea whose practical measure didn't
emerge
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Did I ever say that I thought computers followed rules?
I was under the impression that you believed all computers did was blindly
follow programed rules. Apparently not. Not only are your ideas foolish
they are inconsistently
Hey John,
We get it! You are just making sure that when the Singularity
http://singularity.org/what-is-the-singularity/ happens that the AI
Overlords will consider you a useful pet. :-[
On 10/16/2012 11:55 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I know you don't have a proof of the Goldbach Conjecture. Well OK, I
don't know that with absolute certainty, maybe you have a proof but are
keeping it secret for some strange reason, but my knowledge is more than
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:55:44 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Did I ever say that I thought computers followed rules?
I was under the impression that you believed all computers did was blindly
follow programed
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so
how and why did Evolution produce it? The fact that you have no answer to
this means your ideas are fatally flawed.
I don't see this as a *fatal*
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 12:13:55 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:02 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I know you don't have a proof of the Goldbach Conjecture. Well OK, I
don't know that with absolute certainty, maybe you have a
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
That there are literally laws which physics obeys is a fairy tale.
That statement is ignorance pure and simple.
How can reason be created for a reason (circular) or created not for a
reason
I don't understand
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 1:04:24 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 12:34 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
That there are literally laws which physics obeys is a fairy tale.
That statement is ignorance pure and simple.
Not at all. I
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:54:10 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you
could
have computation without sense, then there would be no
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:08:49 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig
Weinbergwhats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense. If you
could
On 10/16/2012 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:08:49 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig
Weinbergwhats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:
Computation is an overly
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously wrote: Magic
emergence from magic enough complexity has been advocated for almost anything. and now
you suggest that consciousness is contingent on a level of
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:24:07 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:08:49 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:42:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously wrote:
Magic emergence from magic enough complexity has been advocated for almost
anything. and
On 10/16/2012 9:37 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so
how and
why did Evolution produce it? The fact that you have no answer to
On 10/16/2012 10:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
*How can reason be created (for the very first time in the cosmos) for a reason (fails
because it is circular) *
Seems to be a pun on reason = rational thinking and reason = explanatory
cause.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are
On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously
wrote: Magic emergence from magic enough complexity has been
advocated for almost anything. and now you suggest that
On 10/16/2012 3:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I agree 100%. All 3p related concepts are abstractions
constructed from many different 1p's. The idea of Reality is a
good example of this and it is why I define Reality as what which
is incontrovertible for some collection N (N
Bruno:
corn starch is not a fluid (newtinian or not). It is a solid and when
dissolved in water (or whatever?) it makes a N.N.fluid -My question
about it's 'live, or not' status is:
does it provide METABOLISM and REPAIR ?
I doubt it.
Do not misunderstand me, please: this is not my
On 10/16/2012 12:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:42:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously wrote:
Magic
emergence from magic enough
On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously wrote: Magic
emergence from magic enough complexity has been advocated for
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:19:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously wrote:
Sorry Craig but http://s33light.org/SEEES did not make any sense as to
how sense underlies consciousness and comp. In fact you seem to
contradict that claim: I.G., These experiential phenomena
(telesemantics, sense, perception, awareness, consciousness) are
different levels of same thing.
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 3:40:41 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/16/2012 10:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
*How can reason be created (for the very first time in the cosmos) for a
reason (fails because it is circular) *
Seems to be a pun on reason = rational thinking and reason =
I can be the result of a tautological causation: natural selection: what is
reasonable? what at a certain level in tjhinking beings achieve survival..
what exist? what help to survive. What survives? what perdures. What
perdures? waht reproduces. What reproduces? what is sucessfull. What is
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:41:59 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Sorry Craig but http://s33light.org/SEEES did not make any sense as to
how sense underlies consciousness and comp. In fact you seem to
contradict that claim: I.G., These experiential phenomena
(telesemantics, sense,
On 10/16/2012 4:19 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You previously
wrote: Magic emergence from magic enough
On 10/16/2012 4:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:19:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am
On 10/16/2012 5:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:41:59 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Sorry Craig but http://s33light.org/SEEES did not make any sense
as to
how sense underlies consciousness and comp. In fact you seem to
contradict that claim: I.G., These
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 6:48:51 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 4:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:19:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 2:42 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2012
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:42:16 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 5:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:41:59 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Sorry Craig but http://s33light.org/SEEES did not make any sense as to
how sense underlies
On 10/16/2012 10:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 6:48:51 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 4:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:19:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/16/2012 12:41 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 10:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:42:16 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 5:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:41:59 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Sorry Craig but http://s33light.org/SEEES did
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 07:58:35AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
1) It is a cruelty of nature to make the two IMHO most powerful thinkers
(Peirce and Leibniz) to be the two most difficult to understand.
I would not throw them out just yet.
I'm not. But until someone can
62 matches
Mail list logo
