On Feb 24, 11:02 pm, Craig Weinberg <[email protected]> wrote: > On Feb 24, 7:40 am, 1Z <[email protected]> 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 [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
