Hi Richard Ruquist  

For the umpteenth time, monads are not physical, they cannot be some kind of
product of EM waves. 

[Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
1/11/2013  
"Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
----- Receiving the following content -----  
From: Richard Ruquist  
Receiver: everything-list  
Time: 2013-01-11, 09:56:26 
Subject: Re: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from 
brainsviaacomputer 


Yes, Roger. 

They come with 500 topo holes thru which super EM flux winds. 
Given perhaps 6 quantum states for the flux, 
there are 6^500 different types of monads. 
Richard 

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:32 AM, Roger Clough  wrote: 
> Hi Craig Weinberg 
> 
> Due to their universal perceptions, monads should be extremely complex. 
> 
> 
> [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 
> 1/11/2013 
> "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." - Woody Allen 
> ----- Receiving the following content ----- 
> From: Craig Weinberg 
> Receiver: everything-list 
> Time: 2013-01-11, 08:07:47 
> Subject: Re: Subjective states can be somehow extracted from brains 
> viaacomputer 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, January 11, 2013 12:27:54 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
> On 1/10/2013 9:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 7:33:06 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
> On 1/10/2013 4:23 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: 
> Do you think there can be something that is intelligent but not complex (and 
> use whatever definitions of "intelligent" and "complex" you want). 
> 
> 
> 
> A thermostat is much less complex than a human brain but intelligent under my 
> definition. 
> 
> But much less intelligent. So in effect you think there is a degree of 
> intelligence in everything, just like you believe there's a degree of 
> consciousness in everything. And the degree of intelligence correlates with 
> the degree of complexity ...but you don't think the same about consciousness? 
> 
> Brent 
> 
> 
> I was thinking today that a decent way of defining intelligence is just 'The 
> ability to know "what's going on"'. 
> 
> This makes it clear that intelligence refers to the degree of sophistication 
> of awareness, not just complexity of function or structure. This is why a 
> computer which has complex function and structure has no authentic 
> intelligence and has no idea 'what's going on'. Intelligence however has 
> everything to do with sensitivity, integration, and mobilization of awareness 
> as an asset, i.e. to be directed for personal gain or shared enjoyment, 
> progress, etc. Knowing what's going on implicitly means caring what goes on, 
> which also supervenes on biological quality investment in experience. 
> 
> 
> Which is why I think an intelligent machine must be one that acts in its 
> environment. Simply 'being aware' or 'knowing' are meaningless without the 
> ability and motives to act on them. 
> 
> 
> Sense and motive are inseparable ontologically, although they can be 
> interleaved by level. A plant for instance has no need to act on the world to 
> the same degree as an organism which can move its location, but the cells 
> that make up the plant act to grow and direct it toward light, extend roots 
> to water and nutrients, etc. Ontologically however, there is no way to really 
> have awareness which matters without some participatory opportunity or 
> potential for that opportunity. 
> 
> The problem with a machine (any machine) is that at the level which is it a 
> machine, it has no way to participate. By definition a machine does whatever 
> it is designed to do. Anything that we use as a machine has to be made of 
> something which we can predict and control reliably, so that its 
> sensory-motive capacities are very limited by definition. Its range of 
> 'what's going on' has to be very narrow. The internet, for instance, passes a 
> tremendous number of events through electronic circuits, but the content of 
> all of it is entirely lost on it. We use the internet to increase our sense 
> and inform our motives, but its sense and motive does not increase at all. 
> 
> Craig 
> 
> 
> Brent 
> 
> -- 
> 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/-/pf0w53nZsoMJ. 
> 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