2012/8/29 Stephen P. King <[email protected]> > On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, 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. > > > Hi Albert, > > Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory > and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. "I am what I remember > myself to be." > > > in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me.
> > This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life > of ourselves. > > > No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the > sense of "only I can know what it is like to be me" is exactly true for > each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like > to be you. > > That´s why this uniqueness is not essential > > 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. > > > Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. > There is something important to this! > This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further.... > > > > 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King <[email protected]> > >> 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, [email protected] >> 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 <[email protected]> >> *Receiver:* everything-list <[email protected]> >> *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 >> >> -- >> >> > -- > 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 [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. > -- 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.
