That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. With
these worlds you transmit to us this information "craig says that he perceive"..
From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith
What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same functionality, and
subject to the same statement of faith from my side.
2012/8/29 Roger Clough <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
Hi Alberto G. Corona
The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.
For example, consider:
"I see the cat." Here:
I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.
When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as
are all
subjective
states and all experiences.
However, when he afterwards vocalizes "I see the cat", he has translated
the experience
into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience
into a
publicly accessible statement.
All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words
are objective.
Any statement is then objective.
Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective,
so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless
(codeless).
Roger Clough, [email protected] <mailto:[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:* Alberto G. Corona <mailto:[email protected]>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:[email protected]>
*Time:* 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
*Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
2012/8/29 Stephen P. King <[email protected]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[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 <mailto:[email protected]>
*Receiver:* everything-list
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:everything-list%[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:everything-list%[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]
<mailto:[email protected]>.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
<mailto:everything-list%[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.
