On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:45:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> <whats...@gmail.com<javascript:>
> > wrote:
>
>  > Everything simulated is physical ultimately, but the physical has no 
>> signs of being a simulation, 
>>
>
> Maybe, but I'm not sure what sort of sign you're talking about and some 
> have said only half joking that Black Holes, particularly the singularity 
> at the center of them, is where God tried to divide by zero. And others 
> have said that the quantum nature of reality when things become very small 
> reminds them of getting too close to a video screen and seeing the 
> individual pixels  
>

I was thinking more of the absence of some counterfactual such as someone 
emulating a computer which runs faster than the physical host, or some 
broken TV screen letting a cartoon character accidentally step out into the 
world.
 

>
> > If you go look at Bryce Canyon and can't tell that its more real than a 
>> video game, then that would be alarming. A computer can't tell the 
>> difference though.
>>
>
> Could you? Even today a computer could generate a high resolution 3D image 
> of Bryce Canyon where you couldn't be sure if you were looking at a video 
> screen or looking through a window.
>

Not talking about windows - I'm talking about full embodied presence. If 
you talk about windows and images, then you are only talking about visual 
sense, which is only one aspect of reality. Making something that is 
visually similar to something is easy if you take a photo and digitize it. 
It's not much of a simulation either, since the computer isn't generating 
the image, just copying it.
 

>
>  > I think that it is very likely that the quality of electronic ears will 
>> improve modestly but never will approach that of natural hearing
>>
>
> And if events prove you wrong will that change your worldview? No of 
> course it will not because a belief not based on logic can not be destroyed 
> by it nor will contradictory evidence change it in any way.
>

Why is that a question? You're just saying "I can't prove you wrong now, so 
my only hope is that you will be some day." 
 

>
> > the Google search algorithm has not improved in 20 years. 
>>
>
> Bullshit, Google did not even exist 20 years ago! 
>

You're right! I don't know why I was thinking 1993, but I was remembering 
that it improved dramatically a couple years after it came out and has 
plateaued ever since, until recently when it seems to have begun eroding. 
You got me there, I was absolutely wrong about it being 20 years. I should 
have said 16 years.

 

>
> >> Considering that Evolution has been working on it for nearly 4 billion 
>>> years it's very crappy technology indeed, we've been working on it for less 
>>> than a century and already we're producing things that do better in some 
>>> ways than what Evolution came up with. One instant from now (from 
>>> Evolution's timescale) we will have things that are superior in EVERY way.
>>>
>>
>> > Or it could be that we are one instant away from having things which 
>> will exterminate the biosphere. 
>>
>
> Could be.
>
> > That we have such a short history of success should not be cause for 
>> enthusiasm. 
>>
>
> I'm not sure if "enthusiasm" is the correct word. Machines that are 
> superior to people in every way is not good news for those who don't want 
> biological human beings to become extinct sometime in the next century.
>

Whether we can become the machines or not is the question. I don't know why 
anyone would care if they are biological or not, as long as whatever the 
are is at least as good.
 

>
> >> Chemistry is based on physics and It would be easy for me to change the 
>>> chemistry of your brain, and if I were to do so you would experience 
>>> ENORMOUS differences in consciousness; and when you report changes in your 
>>> conscious experience I can detect changes in your brain chemistry.   
>>>
>>
>> > That's all inference and correlation
>>
>
> And thus using Weinbergian logic if changing X always changes Y and 
> changing Y always changes X that proves that X and Y have nothing to do 
> with each other. 
>

It proves that we can infer they are correlated. If Rush Hour always 
happens around sunset, does that mean that we can make the Sun go down by 
causing a traffic jam?
 

>
>  > I can't see the chemical in my brain. I see no crystals, no molecules, 
>>
>
> And thus using Weinbergian logic that means that chemicals and molecules 
> have nothing to do with your ability to see.
>

That's not what I said. You are only able to see your assumption that 
chemicals and molecules cause an effect which seems like consciousness. I 
am saying that chemicals and molecules already are consciousness and that 
the effects that they cause and the causes which sometimes effect them, are 
human qualities of consciousness. 
 

>  
>
>> > So will there be a difference in the chemistry of my brain should I 
>> decide to think about something infuriating or sexy.
>>
>
> Yes, and if I change the chemistry of your brain it will change what you 
> decide. 
>

Obviously. But if I change what I decide then my brain will change. Get it? 
The brain doesn't always lead the mind - the mind can also lead and the 
brain will follow - they aren't different things. We are chemical 
reactions, biological structures, physical objects and we (partially) 
control ourselves. 


>  > How does physics explain that "I" can "control" this?
>>
>
> How do you explain that physics can control "I" ?
>

Easily. Physics is sense. Sub-personal, impersonal, personal, and 
super-personal. The personal range is the "I" territory and it is 
influenced by the other ranges, which are usually more influential. There 
are a lot of things which will be controlled by impersonal forces unless we 
choose to exert our personal influence.
 

>
>  >>> Certainly access control to our experience supervenes on physics, 
>>>> like access to TV programs supervenes on a TV set
>>>>
>>>
>>> >> In this analogy what corresponds to the TV station? Heaven, Santa 
>>> Claus's workshop? 
>>>
>>
>> > Just plain old eternity. Time isn't a nothingness, it a local unwinding 
>> of everythingness.
>>
>
> That reply is meaningless to me. What I want to know is if the brain is 
> just a antenna for receiving consciousness from  Santa Claus's workshop or 
> somewhere and operates our body like a toy RC car why is it that when I 
> give you a drug that changes the chemistry of your brain and tears form in 
> your eyes it's not just that the glands near your eyes are overproducing 
> lubricating fluid but you genuinely feel sad, and deeply so?    
>

Different drugs change different local conditions. Tear gas does cause your 
glands to produce fluid without making you feel sad. A drug which affects 
the limbic system exposes you to different feelings, like tuning a radio 
exposes you to different stations. If you put a bank of guitar pedals 
between your radio and speaker, you can put in whatever distortion and 
chorus effects that you want. It doesn't effect the signal from the radio 
station though.


> > A team of millions of people could do what Watson does with flash cards 
>> and telephones, it would just take much longer. They still wouldn't 
>> understand the questions or the answers, and neither does Watson.
>>
>
> That sounds like Searle's Chinese Room, the single stupidest thought 
> experiment ever devised by the mind of man.  
>

It's because you don't understand it. Searle was 100% right, even if it 
seems a little awkward. I wonder how you justify it's enduring popularity, 
since you favor the social Darwinist for of validation in all areas. The 
Chinese Room will probably be considered one of the most famous 
encapsulations of a position in the history of Philosophy.


> > We can see and feel some of the experience of others
>>
>
> The Mystical Bullshit Express is now boarding on platform 9 3/4. 
>

You have never looked as someone and felt some of what they were feeling? 
Do you recognize facial expressions or do you use a book to look them up?
 

>
> > Since there has been no significant improvement in the last 20 years in 
>> CGI realism, I am comfortable betting you $5000 that even in 2028 there 
>> will still be no CGI of a person that no person can tell apart.
>>
>
> It's a bet! I doubt we'll still be in touch in 2028 but I doubt I'll have 
> to wait that long to demand my $5000. By the way, back in 2007 I saw the 
> computer animated movie "Beowulf" and this is some of what I had to say 
> about it for another list: 
>
> "I just saw the movie "Beowulf", it's a pretty good movie but what is of 
> interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old Moore's 
> Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a real human 
> being not something a computer produced. However there is something 
> puzzling, all the voices in the movie were still made by human beings. An 
> innocent might think that as video is a much higher bandwidth media than 
> audio video would be harder to simulate than audio, but apparently that is 
> not the case."
>

Praise from a fan that they could swear they were looking at a real human 
being is not the same thing as a computer character which *nobody can tell 
is not a human being* - which is my bet. 

>  
>
>> > Will you admit your ideas are wrong when you pay me your $5000 and 
>> watch Toy Story 11 and wonder how it was that you thought 15 years seemed 
>> like such a long time?
>>
>
> In the vastly unlikely event that computer animation has not advanced in 
> the next 15 years I will not only pay you $5000 I will need to seriously 
> reexamine my worldview. Can you honestly say you will do the same if things 
> do not turn out as you expect?  
>

Computer animation will continue to advance, just not in a way that makes 
it a plausible replacement for live action. CGI has improved in superficial 
ways, and it will continue to, but if you compare it to classic Disney 
animation or live action, it continues to remain an inferior (although 
interesting to some) expression of humanity. I have no problem saying 
honestly that I will pay you and reexamine my worldview, especially since I 
have already re-examined my worldview. Have you though? As an adult have 
you ever reexamined your worldview?


> > The same thing that can't prove that I'm conscious can't prove that 
>> you're conscious either.
>>
>
> Obviously, but I don't need to prove to myself that I'm conscious because 
> I have something better than proof, direct experience. Unfortunately direct 
> experience is available only to me.  
>

You don't need to prove that other people are conscious either, because it 
makes sense in every way that they are and in comparatively few ways that 
they aren't.
 

>
> >>> I can know the difference between an identical mp3 which is played as 
>>>> a song and the same file plotted as a bitmap. 
>>>
>>>  
>>> >> And a computer can tell that the outputs of 2 very different programs 
>>> will be different even if the inputs to the programs were identical.
>>>
>>
>> > Not unless it was programmed specifically to check the output.
>>
>
> True, and you can't tell if 2 things are identical or not unless you 
> decide to look at them, and you either decided to look at them for a reason 
> just like the computer did or you did it for no reason just like a roulette 
> wheel does.
>

We were talking about the difference between experiencing an identical set 
of data as a visual display versus a musical experience and how we could 
tell the difference but a computer did not. I don't know where you are 
trying to wriggle out of that to.


> >>>I can communicate with gestures, even to a cat. With another person I 
>>>> could even make up words on the spot.
>>>>
>>>
>>> >> You couldn't do any of that without some knowledge of the 
>>> environment, like the fact that there is a thing called a "cat" and there 
>>> were things called "hands" that you could control. And a computer couldn't 
>>> do any of that without someting in its memory circuits.
>>>
>>
>> > Nah, I could encounter anything in the universe and be guided (perhaps 
>> insufficiently) by my experience 
>>
>
> If you had no memory you'd have no experience and could do nothing just 
> like a computer could do nothing if it had no memory. 
>

Memory capacity or memory content? A baby has no memories and it learns to 
interact with cats pretty quickly. A computer never will, unless someone 
writes a program which maps out possible cat interactions as a logic tree 
barfs it into a meaningless binary code.
 

>
> > We don't know how to give a machine general reasoning.
>>
>
> See Watson.
>

Jeopardy is not general reasoning. Can Watson figure out how to unclog a 
toilet?
 

>
> > you could reverse the microphone and webcam inputs and it will not 
>> figure it out.
>>
>
> Then why does the computer display a "unrecognized format" error message 
> when they are plugged in wrong but not when they are connected correctly?  
>

Because software is written to protect the interests of software producers, 
not consumers. It might say "unrecognized format" if your license has 
expired too. There is no natural technical sense that a computer would have 
about any line input signal as to its origin. It's just an electronic 
bitstream, same as any other.
 

>
>  >>> Does it mean that even though I only speak English into a 
>>>> microphone, it actually hears it in every possible language
>>>>
>>>
>>> >> No.
>>>
>>
>> > Then why would generic data be interpreted in every possible media 
>> format?
>>
>
> Neither you nor computers interpret generic data in every possible media 
> format.
>

Exactly. That's my point. I'm not the one saying that computers can smell 
the difference between audio related data and video related data.
 

>
> > Evolution has evaluation. 
>>
>
> Yes, natural selection. 
>
>  If you throw a bunch of bolts into a bucket with hole in it, the first 
>> one that falls out into another bucket has satisfied the entirety of the 
>> significance of evolution.
>>
>
> No, that's not all there is. In this analogy the bolts falling out of the 
> bucket corresponds with random mutation and that's only half of what makes 
> Evolution work, the other more interesting half is natural selection.  
>

The selection is already over when the bolt falls. I was only modeling the 
evaluation of evolution, because that's the only form of valuation that 
happens. Adding in reproduction, we get a whole other morphological story, 
which although interesting to us, adds no more evaluation. Bolt that falls 
from the hopper gets mass produced into a bunch of other hoppers, combines 
shapes with other bolts, falls out of a new hopper. So what? 
 

>
> > I will never have to 'admit my ideas are wrong' because they are right.
>>
>
> Being certain is easy, being correct is not.
>

You would know.

Craig 

>
>   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 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