On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory 
> because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it 
> needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. 


What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream 
whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be 
intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think 
you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about 
consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking 
consciousness only.
 

>
> This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of 
> ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed 
> to other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could 
> come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. 
> Although this probably will never happen.
>

In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider 
themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others. 
They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on 
the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more 
awkward position than the other, etc).
 

>
> 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King <step...@charter.net <javascript:>>
>
>>  On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>>  
>> Hi Craig Weinberg 
>>  
>> I agree.
>>  
>> Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
>>  
>> Cs = subject + object
>>  
>> The subject is always first person indeterminate.
>> Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
>>  
>> QED
>>
>> Hi Roger,
>>
>>     It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not 
>> restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) 
>> while the object is possibly singular. 
>>
>>   
>>  
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <javascript:>
>> 8/29/2012 
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
>> everything could function."
>>  
>> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
>> *From:* Craig Weinberg <javascript:> 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list <javascript:> 
>> *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
>> *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary
>>
>>  This sentence does not speak English.
>>
>> These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.
>>
>> s l u ,u s 
>>
>>
>>  If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help 
>> illustrate that form is not inherently informative.
>>
>> The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
>> ascertaining the origin of awareness. 
>>  
>> Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless 
>> epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation 
>> can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular 
>> category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.
>>
>> Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what 
>> Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp 
>> contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively 
>> assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G 
>> del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of 
>> course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be 
>> complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect 
>> that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, 
>> but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that 
>> this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining 
>> consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a 
>> priori and independently of any arithmetic logic.
>>
>> Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of 
>> awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or 
>> that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary 
>> indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place 
>> and *why* is has not been addressed at all.
>>
>> As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to 
>> demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative 
>> assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another 
>> thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure 
>> up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not 
>> follow from quanta.
>>
>> Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of 
>> sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining 
>> shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would 
>> necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between 
>> channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial 
>> frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the 
>> entropy of the totality.
>>  
>> Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from 
>> either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences, 
>> for direct participation?
>>
>> Craig
>>  
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Onward!
>>
>> Stephen
>> http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
>>
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/AQOANUvnFz4J.
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