On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation
> quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter.
And a computer can be and often is the interpreter.
> You are really saying that we could use a program that acts like a video
> screen instead of an actual video screen.
Exactly. If you don't want to look at a video screen to see a cat scan then
a X ray computerized tomography machine will be happy to print out the
spacial coordinates of the organs, although I don't know why you'd want
>There will never be an app on your iPhone to make it waterproof.
As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated flame
won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object. A real flame
won't burn the laws of chemistry but it will burn your finger. And some
things cross all levels, like information processing; there is no
difference between simulated arithmetic and real arithmetic or between
simulated intelligence and real intelligence.
> > Consciousness is the capacity to discern between menu and meal
A computer with a optical character reader and a simple amino acid detector
could easily tell the difference between a menu and a meal.
>> A electronic cochlear implant that enables deaf people to hear produces
>> no sound, all it makes is lots of zeros and ones. The same thing is true of
>> the experimental artificial eye.
> Sure, because there is ultimately a living person there to hear and see.
> Without the person, the implants won't do anything worthwhile.
Before you were saying only a eye or ear made of meat would do and now
you've abandoned that position, how far back along the chain of perception
will you retreat before you admit you were wrong? My guess is you will
never change your position because a belief that was not formed by logic
can not be destroyed by it.
> it won't be able to open any file without software to identify which
> application to associate it with.
Yes, and you couldn't tell the difference between audio and video without a
neural network inside a bone box sitting on your shoulders.
How can you have spent any time programming a computer without noticing
> that everything must be explicitly defined and scripted or it will just
Nobody has found anything in the human brain that didn't strictly follow
the laws of physics either. And I have never been able to consistently
predict what a computer is going to do even if I'm the one who wrote the
program, and you're no better at making such predictions than I am, nor is
> it's not an audio or video file. Not literally or physically. A file is
> just a source of generic binary instructions.
And that's all a cochlear implant produces and yet the deaf report those
generic binary instructions give them the qualia of sound.
> computer + user = high quality user experience. Computer + computer = no
> high quality experience.
You have no pathway whatsoever to judge the quality of experience of even
your fellow human beings, the best you can do is observe there behavior and
then guess; and yet you continue to make these grand sweeping statements
about what a computer does and does not feel without a shred of evidence or
theoretical justification, and that's as tiresome as it is stupid.
> > Plug a cochlear implant into a computer and the raw data remains raw all
> the way through. There is no conversion to any sense modality
HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW!
> I understand why computers have no experience.
Your "understanding" is based on amorphous mystical drivel.
> > A computer is only going to say what it is programmed to say.
BULLSHIT! The human programer himself does not know what the computer is
going to say next.
> If it has no vocabulary which refers to human experiences of sound, it
> will have nothing to say about some new stream of generic data that related
> to aural sensation. It's not going to try to express anything about the
> experience of sound.
Of course the computer could comment on aural sensation but it wouldn't
matter if it did it 10 times a day and gave you brilliant insights into
Beethoven's music you never had before, you would not change your ideas one
iota, you'd just say that's "just" something or another and so it doesn't
> It's a fact that thus far implants do not compare favorably to natural
Is that what your ideas hinge on, the lack of audio fidelity using current
electronic technology? When future technology makes electronic ears that
provides better fidelity than ears made of meat will you then admit you
were wrong. Of course not!
> It's not important though - even if the implant sounded perfect,
I thought as much.
> you would rather believe that a roll of toilet paper with holes in it is
> as smart as anyone
Although for practical reasons I would recommend using electronics, a roll
of toilet paper can indeed be as smart or smarter than the 3 pounds of grey
goo in your head because toilet paper can be made into a Turing Machine.
> Proof is part of consciousness. Try proving something to a cadaver.
Try proving that a cadaver is conscious or is not conscious.
> >> I understand as well as you do that there is such a thing as
>> consciousness, but I also understand that because it has no observable
> > All observations are its consequences.
Blather that sounds deep until you think about it for more than 1.2 seconds.
> Are you expecting the movie camera to be found in the movie?
Perhaps, if there is also a mirror in the movie.
> > Evidence is not an appropriate criteria for evaluating consciousness
After that I don't think I need to say more.
John K Clark
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 post to this group, send email to email@example.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.