On Thursday, March 14, 2013 4:27:17 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com <javascript:>>wrote:
>
> > The color white is not red, but since white cannot be made without using 
>> red wavelengths, then it can't be said that it is not not red either.
>>
>
> If that's true, and you're the one who keeps telling me that the qualia 
> color has nothing to do with wavelengths of electromagnetism, then either 
> your assumption is wrong and the white is red or you are talking gibberish 
> again. It's mind boggling to me that I must continually explain grade 
> school logic to someone who thinks he's unraveled the secrets of the 
> universe. 
>

Maybe you should stop trying to use grade school logic to understand the 
universe? Color qualia has something to do with electromagnetic 
wavelengths, but it is not the former which is caused by the latter. 
Remember, I never deny any observations of nature. Color mixing, 
reflection, and absorption do make sense when modeled mathematically - just 
as sentences can be analyzed grammatically. The mistake that people make is 
to jump to the conclusion that sentences are make themselves through 
grammar, or that 'wavelengths of light' are colorful. You can readily 
observe by the pixels of your monitor that white areas of the screen can be 
seen as red, green, and blue pixels at full brightness and equal balance. 
That is all that is necessary to understand that white is both not red and 
not not red.
 

>
> > Warm water can be said not to be hot but also not to be not hot either, 
>>
>
> BULLSHIT. If warm is not hot and warm is not not hot then the concept of 
> "warm" is as useful as a bucket of warm spit.
>

No, concepts don't have to communicate a single unambiguous meaning, they 
can contain all kinds of indirect associations and subtle understandings. 
Again, your view of the universe seems arrested at some adolescent level.
 

>   
>
>> > Free will doesn't need to be defined because it is inescapable and 
>> obvious.
>>
>
> I've escaped it and free will is not obvious to me, 
>

You've escaped it using your free will. You choose to see the concept as 
ill-defined.
 

> I don't know what the hell you're talking about! And not only can't you 
> define "free will" you can't point to example of it that is not 
> deterministic and not random and not gibberish.   
>

Free will doesn't need to be defined any more than the color red needs to 
be defined. If you have not experienced free will then no example will help 
you experience it, and if you have experienced free will then no example is 
necessary. It is beneath the threshold of definition. It's not a big deal, 
it's not a mystical koan, it's the simple fact. You can't dehydrate water, 
and you can't get outside of your own free will to treat it as an object.
 

>
> >> Just exactly like you the program is the way it is for a reason OR it 
>>> is the way it is for no reason.
>>>
>>
>> > The reason that the machine stops has nothing to do with the goals of 
>> the machine. 
>>
>
> You continue to make oracular declarations and insisting without evidence 
> or argument that you speak the truth, but I don't believe the Pope when he 
> engages in that sort of crap so I don't see why I should believe you either.
>

I try to explain with reason what cannot be understood with evidence. The 
evidence is already all around you, you just don't recognize it as such. It 
is incredibly obvious that a mouse trap does not have a goal of catching a 
mouse, yet you try to make even something so clear and sensible into a 
sleazy sales pitch. 

 
>
>> >>> I can catch a mouse in a trap and the mouse will stop moving.
>>>>
>>>
>>> >> True, and the mouse trap will stop moving too.
>>>
>>
>> >You could make one that resets itself. What's the difference?
>>
>
> The difference is that then the mouse trap would have a different goal.  
>

Why is it different? No goal repeated is still no goal.
 

>
> > It could have been a child's finger broken in the trap instead. 
>
>
> And the trap moved very fast and then stopped when it was touched.
>

Not sure what you mean. My point is that whatever sets off the trap; mouse, 
finger, carrot, or just a loud thump nearby, it doesn't matter to the trap. 
The trap knows nothing. There is metal in a tense condition and when that 
condition is changed, the tension is relieved. That is the extent of the 
goal of the trap - to spring when it can, or to bend or break over time. 
Any option is equal for the piece of wire, it doesn't care about mice.


>  >>> I respond to the game voluntarily,
>>>>
>>>  
>>>  >> So you responded the way you did for a reason, namely because you 
>>> wanted to. The computer game responds the way it does for a reason too.
>>>
>>
>> > 'Because I wanted to' is the opposite of 'because it is programmed to'. 
>
>
> Both the program and you behaved the way they did for a reason. Or are you 
> saying its opposite because a program does what it does because it doesn't 
> want to?
>

Yes, the program neither wants to execute the program nor doesn't want to. 
The program is constructed to exploit a natural motive, to piggyback a 
foreign motive on top of it. That's the essence of any technology. A wheel 
is just an object that is shaped to keep falling in a circle. Once you have 
a wheel or clock, then you can attach all kinds of complications to it. 
It's all just falling forward though. Not growing or feeling or living, 
it's just cycling mindlessly.
 

>
> > The former intentionally creates and initiates a sequence of actions, 
>> the latter executes and acts as a consequence of unintentional following.
>>
>
> So if we follow your chain of reasoning its voluntary because its 
> intentional and its intentional because its voluntary. 
>

There is no cause there, the two words are just synonyms. Water is wet 
because wet things contain water.
 

> Well, that's as illuminating as much of what modern philosophers say so 
> there may be a future for you in that line of work yet. 
>
>  That doesn't mean that we have no access to valid intuition and judgment 
>> beyond the evidence of objects.
>
>
> As a practical matter both you and I judge that something is conscious in 
> exactly the same way, we look for intelligence.
>

No, I would generally look for movement. Breathing. Then responsiveness. 
Intelligence has nothing to do with consciousness. If human beings were 
gone, you would have a whole planet of conscious organisms without much of 
what we would consider intelligence.
 

> That's why neither of us believes our fellow human beings are conscious 
> when they are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead.   
>
> > There might be a way to conduct some useful experiments to prove whether 
>> or not people can unconsciously detect the presence of living organisms
>>
>
> ESP parapsychology junk science. 
>

You must be psychic to know the results of experiments before they are even 
designed.

 
>
>> > I'd be in favor of that,
>>
>
> I sure as hell don't want my tax money funding that crap.
>

Are you normally under the impression that it matters how you feel about 
where your tax money is spent?
 

>
> > but I don't need it to know exactly why machines built from the bottom 
>> up from human motives are different from organisms who grow from the inside 
>> out from their own motives.
>>
>
> Organisms grow according to digital instructions encoded in their DNA, and 
> they learn from their environment. Machines are built from written digital 
> instructions and can learn from the environment as we do,  and they are 
> continually getting better at it. People are not.
>

Machines are getting better in some ways, but not in any way that matters 
to anything except human minds.
 

>  
>
>>  >>And people have control over their actions for a reason and so are 
>>> deterministic or they have control over their actions for no reason and so 
>>> are random, and if they have no control over their impulses to murder then 
>>> they should be treated more harshly not less than those that do because 
>>> they are far more dangerous.
>>>
>>
>> > What do you mean by "control over their impulses"? How does such a 
>> concept fit in with determinism?
>>
>
> Some systems are more nonlinear than others and allow trivial fluctuations 
> in the environment to grow without bound and overpower everything else in 
> the system. I was reading about a guy in a movie theater who got up to get 
> popcorn and accidentally stepped on a stranger's foot, so the stranger got 
> out a knife and stabbed popcorn guy to death. Knife guy was a very 
> nonlinear system, that is to say poor impulse control. 
>

Does a hurricane have poor impulse control? Or the San Andreas fault?
 

>
> > Deterrence makes no sense to a machine. 
>>
>
> Nonsense.  The environment is a important factor in determining the way 
> machines behave, just like with people. 
>

But deterrence specifically is meaningless w/r/t machines. If a machine is 
stapling papers incorrectly, no amount of threats or sanctions against the 
machine will deter it from continuing to have the problem. You can't yell 
at your car until it starts. Where is this nonsense you speak of?
 

>
> > without free will, their "want" isn't connected to anything that can 
>> cause changes in the universe.
>>
>
> Cannot comment, don’t know what ASCII sequence “free will” means.
>

Cannot accept juvenile sophistry. Assume cowardice.
 

>
> >> Deterrence wouldn’t work if people actions were always non 
>>> deterministic (random)
>>>
>>
>> > It wouldn't work if people's actions were always deterministic either. 
>>
>
> What the hell are you talking about? If it's deterministic its cause and 
> effect so if society changes the environment (the cause) then the effect 
> (behavior) will change.  
>

The effect will change whether they like it or not. Deterrence is based on 
the idea of creating a condition which will cause you to to avoid a 
behavior because you don't like the idea of what will happen if you don't. 
It is based on the reality that you have the power to freely choose your 
own actions based on what you prefer, not just that something has changed 
your behavior despite your indifference.
 

>  
>
>> > Free will is so obvious that a four year old can understand it.
>>
>
> And a four year old understands that Santa Claus lives at the north pole, 
> but by the time he reaches 5 he understands that a year before he did not 
> understand even though he thought he did.
>

The five year old doesn't claim not to understand what Santa Claus is 
supposed to be though.
 

>
> > There is no culture on Earth which fails to recognize the obvious and 
>> unavoidable reality of our own voluntary participation in the world.
>>
>
> Yeah, every culture on Earth makes the "free will" noise and they all have 
> turned their laws into a ridiculous tangled mess in a hopeless attempt to 
> make sense out of that noise.
>

Do you think they would have created all of those laws if they could have 
avoided it? In your universe, the Free Will noise either exists for a 
reason or it does not. You don't seem to allow that it could have a reason, 
nor do you allow that the belief in free will could be random and outside 
of people's control. You clearly believe that people intentionally choose 
their belief in free will and that they could and should correct this error 
by educating themselves in a particular way. You don't think that their 
belief or mine is an inevitable part of nature - you think it is artificial 
and malignant - more wrong than the flow of electrons could ever be.

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