On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:05:36 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 10 Feb 2013, at 21:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:49:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 10 Feb 2013, at 02:04, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:54:38 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
>>>
>>> What an extraordinarily interesting idea, Craig! I'll have to let Brian 
>>> Eno know about this. Eno was recently talking about the possibilities of a 
>>> new kind of "inaudible music". Actually, John Cage already "invented" that 
>>> in the '50s with his infamous piece "4'.33" " - where the pianist walks to 
>>> the keyboard, sits there for 4 minutes and 33 seconds (without playing 
>>> anything) and then gets up and leaves. The "music" is in fact all the 
>>> little reactionary giggles, guffaws, sighs etc. of the audience's outraged 
>>> reaction. Also the tweets of the little birdies in the trees outside etc. 
>>> It qualifies as music because each and every performance of 4'. 33" is 
>>> different. The environment interprets the score; the performer is merely 
>>> the catalyst. And I can assure you, good old John Cage was no stranger to 
>>> the odd hallucinogenic experience.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The history of art and music is full 
>> of conceptual provocations, from Malevich to Duchamp, Shoenberg to Zappa. 
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACCAF04wSs
>>
>> While I agree that these can be very interesting and imaginative, they 
>> hardly disprove my point. Music is in no danger of being replaced by silent 
>> representations of music.
>>
>>
>>> Can we encode the music of silence in binary?
>>>
>>
>> We can't encode any music in binary, we can only encode instructions for 
>> an instrument to stimulate human ears in a way that we find musical, or 
>> silent.
>>
>>
>>
>> OK. But then if you accept this for music, why not accept it for math.
>>
>
> I don't deny the richness of math beyond the associated symbols, nor do I 
> deny the pervasiveness of its reach. I only say that is a motive of sense, 
> not a generative source of sense or motive. As rich as math is though, it 
> is one layer deep. Its power derives especially from the constraint on 
> quality and interiority. I think the problem with comp is that it mistakes 
> this lowest denominator uniformity for an essence, when in fact it is the 
> very inversion of essence: it is the essence of the existential void - the 
> default, the test pattern. The actual essence is in the fertility of direct 
> participation, of significance and motive. By betting on comp, we bet on 
> insignificance and entropy.
>
>
> You beg the question. People can agree on elementary arithmetic, but we 
> still miss a notion of motive and sensory on which we can agree. 
>

Our agreement is based on sense and motive. If you are citing agreement as 
an indication of validity, then you are already validating the capacity to 
agree which is - sense. Sense is beneath notions and agreements - it is the 
very participation upon which they supervene.
 

> You cannot make strong negative statement (like machine can't think) from 
> a vague theory which refer to your personal experience. It looks like a 
> form of racism, as we have already discussed.
>

Since thinking is only a personal experience, it is the only appropriate 
criteria from which to make such assessments. We already know that 
subjectivity is private, why should I have to pretend to be surprised that 
we can't find it in public? I would say that you cannot make a strong 
negative statement about my strong negative statement, since you don't know 
what I can or can't know about machines. Why do you trust machines more 
than me?
 

>
> Smullyan said it well. Those who strongly believe that machines are 
> necessarily idiot will take comp as an insult. 
>

I don't at all though. Comp is not an insult, it just happens not to be 
true. I have said this before. I assumed Comp for most of my life, and I 
have no problems with strong AI in theory, except that the theory is based 
on assumptions of logic rather than sense, and I now understand that logic 
is only a narrow band of sense and that it is in fact sense which is 
unexplainable in any other universe except a sense-primitive universe.
 

> Those who believe in their own intelligence/consciousness will take comp 
> as a machine apology. Betting on comp, for almost all our descendant, will 
> be a bet in a technology allowing to visit Mars in less than 4 minutes. 
> They will not believe that this make them insignificant. There is just no 
> reason, beyond *your* negative intuition about them.
>

It's not just my intuition, it is my experience and the experience of the 
human population thus far, which unquestionably assigns unconsciousness and 
unfeeling qualities to machines. But that would not even give me pause if 
it weren't for my understanding of the symbol-grounding problem - of how 
easy it is to confuse symbols with referents. I understand that computers 
are not actually aware of the content of the data they are processing, only 
an ability to record and play them back for someone who cares about them. I 
know too much about computers in the real world, I have been working with 
them too long and too often not to notice that they fail spectacularly to 
meet up to any expectations of proto-sentience.

Craig
 

>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Craig
>
>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Craig
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> Kim
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 09/02/2013, at 10:45 AM, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If music were just an audible math though, then people should enjoy 
>>> watching oscilloscope renditions of songs with no sound as much as they do 
>>> listening to them.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>>  
>>  
>>
>>
>> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>>
>>
>>
>>
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>.
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com<javascript:>
> .
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>  
>  
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to