Not only to lie. In order  to commerce and in general to interact, we need
to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the
others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in
the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have
about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral
from the beginning..

2012/8/29 meekerdb <meeke...@verizon.net>

>  But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.
> That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must
> be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment.
> Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of
> subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do.
> Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern
> sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important
> to learn to lie.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> 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 <rclo...@verizon.net>
>
>>  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, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 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 <agocor...@gmail.com>
>> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>>  *Time:* 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
>>  *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
>>
>>
>>
>>  2012/8/29 Stephen P. King <stephe...@charter.net>
>>
>>>  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 <stephe...@charter.net>
>>>
>>>>  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
>>>> 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 <whatsons...@gmail.com>
>>>> *Receiver:* everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
>>>> *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 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.
>>>
>>
>> --
>> 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.
>>
>>   --
>> 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.
>>
>
>  --
> 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.
>
>
>  --
> 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.
>

-- 
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