On Tue, Sep 25, 2012  Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>> There is no information literally in the wire.
>>>
>>
>> >>Then why are you wasting your money paying for internet service, if its
>> not information then what do you call it, what are you getting for your
>> money?
>>
>
> > I'm getting conduits for the automated assembly of forms
>

Other than the level of pomposity how does "automated assembly of forms"
differ from information?

> Information is your word for God.
>

I don't believe that information is a intelligent omnipotent being that
created the universe so it follows logically that I don't think information
is God and it follows logically that I would not use the two words
interchangeably because I think they mean different things. So no,
information is not my word for God.

> A wire is good at imitating a stumulus with high fidelity.
>

Yes, and so is a nerve.

>>and according to you the ability to do this interpretation has something
>> to do with digestion and the physiological ability to produce flatulence.
>>
>
> > Only if what is being interpreted is a text that requires first hand
> experience of being an animal.
>

And according to your deep philosophy what makes a animal a animal and be
able to do this marvelous interpretation is not the ability to think but
the ability to fart.

> All of human consciousness would require that level of experience as a
> minimum pre-requisite. Why wouldn't it? Otherwise you would see
> refrigerators and boulders having conversations with each other
>

Not all animals can engage in conversation and not all machines can either.

>> There are fundamental differences between males and females and you are
>> a male, so do you think that women are conscious, and if so why? And there
>> is no fundamental difference between you and your twin brother in a deep
>> sleep under anesthesia, do you believe he's conscious, and if not why not?
>>
>
> > Because I have a sense of proportion about the differences.
>

That "sense of proportion" was caused exclusively by what you're accustomed
to, in particular what you've come to expect to behave intelligently and
what you have come to expect to behave stupidly; and it is entirely a
historical accident that we are not living in a world that is very
different, but you in your parochialism believe that the way things are now
is the only way things could be. It's not. If from the time you were born
all the women you met or heard about were in a coma and all the computers
you met engaged you it interesting witty philosophical conversation you
would have an entirely different "sense of proportion".

There are women that are much smarter and much dumber than you, and there
are women who say they have a radically different philosophy than you, and
yet you believe all of them are conscious; but a computer could have the
same level of intelligence as you and say they have a identical philosophy
as you and you would still insist that the computer is not conscious. Why?
Because the computer doesn't have gas. That shows how huge your "sense of
proportion" has distorted reality.

> Both men and women are living beings
>

Not all men and women are living beings, dead ones aren't. Other than a
somewhat different aroma the primary distinction between a living man or
woman and a dead one is their behavior, dead people don't seem very smart,
their behavior is a bit of a bore. But you say how things act is not
important, so if it's not behavior exactly why do you believe a cadaver is
not conscious? Is it because you think they've lost the ability to fart?

> Being dead comes in very low on the taxonomic ladder.
>

Dead people are only low on the intelligent behavior ladder, and again you
don't think that's important, that's why you're totally unimpressed by a
computer's smart behavior or what  brilliant new ideas it creates. Now if
they could just figure out a way to make computers fart then you might
change your mind.

> Without free will it makes no difference what you say or think.
>

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII characters "free will" mean.

>> I have written many many times about the limits of logic as found by
>> Godel and Turing but I have never tried to convince somebody that my
>> philosophical ideas are worthwhile even though they are logically
>> contradictory as you have done. Nobody, absolutely nobody, would embrace a
>> theory that they knew to be logically inconsistent unless it gave them so
>> much pleasure that they just couldn't stand to give it up, and that's no
>> way to find the truth.
>>
>
> > I don't know where you get this assumption about pleasure from.
>

Then I will tell you. If there was a idea that somebody thought was
frighting or disturbing in some way but upon examining it they found it was
not logically self consistent then they would instantly abandon the idea
with joy, but if the idea gave that person pleasure (like the idea that
computers are inherently inferior to humans and so can never take over the
world) then things might be very different. You have admitted that your
ideas are not logically self consistent but you continue to believe in them
anyway, it doesn't take a genius to figure out why.

When one develops a personal philosophy the very first question you need to
ask yourself is: which is more important, that your ideas be pleasant or
that your ideas be true? You've made your choice and I've made mine.

> Living cells matter.
>

Once again I ask what's the fundamental difference between living and dead
cells? And once again I know that it can't be that living cells behave in a
vastly more complex manner as you don't believe that behavior is important.

>> Consciousness is very much in question when the human being in question
>> is sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. Why? Because when they are in that
>> state they don't behave intelligently.
>>
>
> > They behave the same as an intelligent person behaves when they are
> deeply asleep.
>

You're ducking the question. Again. My question was: If your twin brother
is in a deep sleep under anesthesia, do you believe he's conscious, and if
not why not?  But don't feel too bad, if I had your beliefs I'd duck that
question too.

  John K Clark

-- 
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