On Feb 24, 11:02 pm, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 24, 7:40 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>

> Which only underscores how different consciousness is from
> computation. We can't share the exact same software, but computers
> can. We can't re-run our experiences, but computers can. By default
> humans cannot help but generate their own unique software, but the
> reverse is true with computers. We have to work to write each update
> to the code, which is then distributed uniformly to every (nearly)
> identical client machine.

AIs can generate their own software. That is the point of AI.

> > > By default,
> > > everything that a computer does is mechanistic. We have to go out of
> > > our way to generate sophisticated algorithms to emulate naturalistic
> > > human patterns.
>
> > which could mean humans transcend computation, or
> > could mean humans are more complex than current computers
>
> Complexity is the deus ex anima of comp. There is no reason to imagine
> that a complex arrangement of dumb marbles adds up to be something
> which experiences the universe in some synergistic way.

THat;s a more plausible reason for doubting CT0M.

> > >Human development proves just the contrary. We start
> > > out wild and willful and become more mechanistic through
> > > domestication.
>
> > You think mechanisms can't be random or unpredictable?
>
> That's not the same thing as wild and willful.

Isn't it? Is there any hard evidence of that?

>There is agency there.
> Intentional exuberance that can be domesticated. Babies are noisy
> alright, but they aren't noise. Randomness and unpredictability is
> mere noise.

> > > > Altenatively, they might
> > > > just be illogical...even if we are computers. It is a subtle
> > > > fallacy to say that computers run on logic: they run on rules.
>
> > > Yes! This is why they have a trivial intelligence and no true
> > > understanding.
>
> > Or current ones are too simple
>
> Again - complexity is not the magic.

Again..you can;t infer to all computers from the limitations
of some computers.

> > > Rule followers are dumb.
>
> > You have no evidence that humans are not following
> > complex rules.
>
> We are following rules too, but we also break them.

Rule-breaking might be based on rules. Adolescents are
predictably rebellious.

> > >Logic is a form of
> > > intelligence which we use to write these rules that write more rules.
> > > The more rules you have, the better the machine, but no amount of
> > > rules make the machine more (or less) logical. Humans vary widely in
> > > their preference for logic, emotion, pragmatism, leadership, etc.
> > > Computers don't vary at all in their approach. It is all the same rule
> > > follower only with different rules.
>
> > > > They have no guarantee to be rational. If the rules are
> > > > wrong, you have bugs. Humans are known to have
> > > > any number of cognitive bugs. The "jumping" thing
> > > > could be implemented by real or pseudo randomness, too.
>
> > > > > Because of 1, it is assumed that the thought experiment universe
> > > > > includes the subjective experience of personal value - that the
> > > > > patient has a stake, or 'money to bet'.
>
> > > > What's the problem ? the experience (quale) or the value?
>
> > > The significance of the quale.
>
> > You mean apparent significance. But apparent significance *is* a
> > quale.
>
> Apparent is redundant. All qualia are apparent. Significance is a meta
> quale (appears more apparent - a 'signal' or 'sign').


Apparent significance, you mean.

> > > > Do you know the value to be real?
>
> > > I know it to be subjective.
>
> > Great. So it's an opinion. How does that stop the mechanistic-
> > physicalistic show?
>
> Mechanism is the opinion of things that are not us.

Says who?

> > > > Do you think a computer
> > > > could not be deluded about value?
>
> > > I think a computer can't be anything but turned off and on.
>
> > Well, you;'re wrong. It takes more than one bit (on/off) to
> > describe computation.
>
> you forgot the 'turning'.

That does't help.

> > > > > Because of 2, it is assumed
> > > > > that libertarian free will exists in the scenario
>
> > > > I don't see that FW of a specifically libertarian aort is posited
> > > > in the scenario. It just assumes you can make a choice in
> > > > some sense.
>
> > > It assumes that choice is up to you and not determined by
> > > computations.
>
> > Nope. It just assumes you can make some sort of choice.
>
> A voluntary choice.
>
> Craig

Some sort of "voluntary"

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to