On Sunday, March 24, 2013 10:05:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  
> On 3/24/2013 8:00 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Sunday, March 24, 2013 6:15:53 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>
>>  
>> On 3/24/2013 3:25 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>  
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, March 24, 2013 1:44:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>  On 24 Mar 2013, at 12:53, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sunday, March 24, 2013 7:13:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  On 21 Mar 2013, at 18:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thursday, March 21, 2013 1:28:24 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  On 20 Mar 2013, at 19:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130320115111.htm
>>>>>
>>>>> "We are examining the activity in the cerebral cortex *as a whole*. The 
>>>>> brain is a non-stop, always-active system. When we perceive something, 
>>>>> the 
>>>>> information does not end up in a specific *part* of our brain. 
>>>>> Rather, it is added to the brain's existing activity. If we measure the 
>>>>> electrochemical activity of the whole cortex, we find wave-like patterns. 
>>>>> This shows that brain activity is not local but rather that activity 
>>>>> constantly moves from one part of the brain to another." 
>>>>>
>>>>>  
>>>>>  
>>>>>  Please, don't confuse the very particular neuro-philosophy with the 
>>>>> much weaker assumption of computationalism. 
>>>>> Wave-like pattern are typically computable functions. 
>>>>> (I mentioned this when saying that I would say yes to a doctor only if 
>>>>> he copies my glial cells at the right chemical level).
>>>>>
>>>>>  There are just no evidence for non computable activities acting in a 
>>>>> relevant way in the biological organism, or actually even in the physical 
>>>>> universe.
>>>>> You could point on the the wave packet reduction, but it does not make 
>>>>> much sense by itself.
>>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> Right, I'm not arguing this as evidence of non-comp. Even if there was 
>>>> non-comp activity in the brain, nothing that we could use to detect it 
>>>> would be able to find anything since we would only know how to use an 
>>>> exrternal detection instrument computationally. Mainly I posted this to 
>>>> show the direction that the scientific evidence is leading us does not 
>>>> support any kind of narrow folk-neuroscience of point to point 
>>>> chain-reactions.
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>  Good.
>>>>
>>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>   
>>>>>  
>>>>> Not looking very charitable to the bottom-up, neuron machine view.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>  Ideas don't need charity  but in this case it is totally charitable, 
>>>>> even with neurophilosophy, given that in your example, those waves still 
>>>>> seem neuron driven.
>>>>>  
>>>>
>>>> How do you know that it seem neuron driven rather than whole brain 
>>>> driven?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  In neurophilosophy, they are used to global complex and distributed 
>>>> brain activity, but still implemented in term of local computable rules 
>>>> obeyed by neurons.
>>>>  
>>>
>>> If you look at a city traffic pattern, you will see local computable 
>>> rules obeyed by cars, but that doesn't mean there aren't non-computable 
>>> agendas being pursued by the drivers.
>>>  
>>>
>>>  Indeed.
>>>
>>>  But that is what you get at the Turing universal threshold. If you 
>>> look at the computer's functioning, you will see local computable rules 
>>> obeyed by the gates, but that doesn't mean there aren't non-computable 
>>> agendas being pursued by genuine person supported by those computations.
>>>  
>>
>> Absolutely, but does it mean that it has to be a genuine person?
>>
>>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>>     We must first admit that there does not exist a 3p representation of 
>> what it is like to be a genuine person! Therefore this qustion is off the 
>> mark.
>>  
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> I agree no 3p representation can tell serve as evidence of personhood 
> (although I do not think that means that we can't have a sense which goes 
> beyond the 3p intuitively or instinctively,  but what I'm talking about is 
> more of the zombie question. Just because a simulation fools a high number 
> of observers doesn't mean that it isn't a simulation, i.e. the best Elvis 
> impersonator is not any closer to becoming Elvis Aaron Presley than they 
> are to becoming Groucho Marx.
>  
>
> Hi,
>
>     Right, but here is what I am proposing: In the limit of computational 
> resources, the best possible simulation of an object *is* the object 
> itself. Any simulation of it would be, by definition 'a simulation' and 
> your point would be made.
>

I agree with that, but the whole notion of simulation I think gets turned 
upside down when we are looking as simulating a 1p subject instead of a 3p 
object. In this case, I think that the only possible simulation of the 
subject is the subject themselves, i.e. there is no possible simulation of 
any subject because the quality of being a subject is identical to the 
quality of being completely genuine. "I" is literally 'that which cannot be 
faked', because of the nature of perception. The perception of a someone 
from a tribe in the Amazon might be that all streets in New York look more 
or less the same, and the perception of someone in New York might be that 
all plants in the jungle look more or less the same, but each of them have 
a lot of discernment within their own environment and each of them have the 
maximum possible discernment to be able to identify the difference between 
themselves and anything else in the universe. I don't know if its getting 
across what I'm trying to propose, but I see this continuum of perception, 
familiarity, propriety, and self as a kind of radiant relativism with the 
self as its nucleus. The further out you go from that center point of self 
and 100% propriety/solitude the more your perception will tolerate a margin 
of simulation.


>  
>   
>>
>>  To me it makes sense that the natural development of persons may be 
>> restricted to experiences which are represented publicly in zoological 
>> terms. The zoological format is not the cause of the experience but it is 
>> the minimum vessel with the proper scale of sensitivity for that quality of 
>> experience to be supported. Trying to generate the same thing from the 
>> bottom up may not be feasible, because the zoological format arises 
>> organically, whereas an AI system skips zoology, biology, and chemistry 
>> entirely and assumes a universally low format. 
>>  
>>
>>     It makes sense to you, sure, but we need to talk about things given 
>> the fact above. We can beat around the bush forever ...
>>  
>
> That's up to everyone else, all that I can do is explain why it makes 
> sense to me.
>  
>
>     Well, we cannot invent private languages and expect others to 
> understand us. :_(
>

I'm not inventing a language, I'm explaining an idea in English. I'm happy 
to answer questions about it, but predicting what others can understand 
isn't really something that comes naturally to me.

 

>
>   
>  
>>  
>>  
>> Consciousness does not seem to be compatible with low level unconscious 
>> origins to me.
>>
>>
>>     Why? Are molecules 'alive'? We do not have a measure of what it is to 
>> be alive!!!! Maybe a global measure does not exist and we need to stop 
>> looking for one!
>>  
>
> Because a collection of a billion ping pong balls isn't any more conscious 
> than a dozen. There's just no logical expectation of any kind of 
> experiential qualities appearing in a universe which already contains fully 
> functional unconscious systems.
>  
>
>     Ah, but what if those ping pong balls in motion are acting out the 
> functions required to compute a simulation of the motion of the center of 
> mass of that collection of ping pong balls?
>

There won't be any simulation of anything unless some external engineer has 
an expectation of such a thing and the physical ability to manipulate them. 
Otherwise there isn't anything to recognize any pattern, there is only 
generic ping pong balls colliding with each other...even that is smuggling 
in our own human experiences of ping pong balls. In reality, a universe of 
ideal ping pong balls would be invisible, silent, intangible, and 
unconscious - it would be nothingness unless the balls could detect each 
other, and to telegraph larger detections through each other.
 

>
>
>  
> As far as defining life, I agree, it is a relative and qualitative 
> concept. 
>
>
>     It would help to start with a list of yes/no questions... and end up 
> some how with a definition: the list and its answers from all available 
> answerers of the question.
>

I don't think that is clear that imposing a definition on it would help.
 

>
>  Like the mind body problem, in which we can say in one sense that mind 
> and body are irreconcilable by nature and in another that they are 
> seamlessly integrated, so too is life on the one hand indiscernible as a 
> category of phenomena - the difference between what a virus does and what a 
> parasite does, or the growth of a crystal vs the growth of a fungus...these 
> are hard to draw a line, but in the life of a person, the division between 
> life and death could not be clearer under most circumstances. In the end I 
> think that we can neither expect life to be definable nor can it be 
> dismissed. It, like consciousness, is actually more fundamental than 
> definition itself.
>  
>
>     Ah, your overcomplicating it! Consciousness should apply to the 
> simplest possible object. 
>

I would say that consciousness does not apply to any object, it applies to 
subjects. The simplest possible subject is sensory-motor participation. A 
sense of being able to hold and release tension. Objects come much later.
 

> We are all hung up on questions of reportability and fail to note that 
> reportability requires a 3p. Consciousness is not 3p, so ... If we cannot 
> *prove* that X is conscious, it is best assume that it might be. No harm 
> can come if it is not and if we assume global panpsychism, it traces out. 
> Win Win.
>

I agree as applied to natural phenomena, but because we understand 
specifically that phenomena can be parts of experiences without they 
themselves representing an experience, then we don't need to pretend that 
every doodle on a pad of paper has a life of its own. If the doodle 
appeared naturally on a pad of paper - then I would say definitely give 
that appearance some benefit of the doubt. It may be what it looks like to 
us, but it might be something. When we design something specifically to 
fool us though, we don't have to doubt that we are being fooled. If I make 
a kite that looks like a fish, I don't have to think that there is any 
possibility at all that I have in fact created a fish.
 

>
>  
>   
>>  Looking at language, the rules of spelling and grammar do not drive the 
>> creation of new words.
>>
>>
>>     *Looking at them* no, but *using them* can lead to the creation of 
>> new worlds. Novelists do this constantly.
>>  
>
> For sure, the semiotic characteristics are a major source of inspiration 
> for neologisms, etc. It's always a push and pull, nature/nurture 
> interaction. At every level though, it is still the user who cares about 
> any of it and not the rules. The user uses rules, the rules have no stake 
> in what the user does, and indeed they have no existence at all independent 
> of all forms of user sense.
>  
>
>     Aye.
>
>   
>  
>>  
>>
>>  A word cannot be forced into common usage just because it is introduced 
>> into a culture. There is no rule in language which has a function of 
>> creating new words, nor could any rule like that possibly work. If you 
>> could control the behavior of language use from the bottom up however, you 
>> could simulate that such a rule would work, just by programming people to 
>> utter it with increasing frequency. This would satisfy any third person 
>> test for the effectiveness of the rule, but of course would be completely 
>> meaningless.
>>  
>>
>>     ISTM that you are just restating a semantically different version of 
>> Matiyasevish's proof that there does not exist an algorithm that can 
>> automatically prove mathematical theorem.
>>  
>
> I'm not familiar with it, but it could be related. I'm talking more about 
> the the notion that there exist phenomena which have nothing at all to do 
> with rules, logic, or mathematics. Feelings, experience, and sense are more 
> fundamental and can harden into rules, etc, but rules and logic, if they 
> existed independently of feeling, could never construct any kind of feeling 
> or experience.
>  
>
>     Look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilbert's_tenth_problem
>
> "Occasionally it happens that we seek the solution under insufficient 
> hypotheses or in an incorrect sense, and for this reason do not succeed. 
> The problem then arises: to show the impossibility of the solution under 
> the given hypotheses or in the sense contemplated."
>

It might be related in the sense that "automatically" implies 
unconsciousness.
 

>
>   
>  
>>  
>>  
>>   
>>>   
>>>  
>>>>  
>>>>  What would it look like if the brain as a whole were driving the 
>>>> neurons?
>>>>  
>>>>
>>>>  Either it would be like saying that a high level program can have a 
>>>> feedback on some of its low level implementations, which is not a problem 
>>>> at all, as this already exist, in both biology and computer science, or it 
>>>> would be like saying that a brain can break the physical laws, or the 
>>>> arithmetical laws and it would be like pseudo-philosophy.
>>>>  
>>>
>>> What about the relation between high level arithmetic laws - like the 
>>> ones which allow for 1p subjectivity in UM, LM, etc and the programs which 
>>> support them? 
>>>
>>>
>>>  To eat or to be eaten relatively to the most probable universal 
>>> neighbors. The relations can be complicated.
>>>  
>>
>> Their being complicated is what I would expect from high level laws - but 
>> how is it that low level processes wind up being influenced by them? How 
>> does the law that says dumb code can begin to think for itself come to be 
>> followed by dumb code?
>>  
>>
>>     OK, so we need a way to index things... But then we will have to 
>> index the indexing and index the indexing of the ..
>>  
>
> It seems easier if the indexing is more primitive than the data being 
> indexed. If I can index, then I can make anything into data, but if I only 
> have data, it doesn't seem like it can be coerced into indexing itself.
>  
>
>     It does seem easier, but what is being contemplated is the ability to 
> include the data in the index itself as a call function... No need to 
> source the data locally. A word, like "tree" is not an instance of an 
> actual tree...
>

If you start with the index that does call functions, then it makes sense 
to me, but that index is still the high level feature performing top-down 
functions on whatever is being used as low level data.
 

>
>   
>  
>>  
>>
>>   
>>  
>>>  
>>>  
>>>  Not between the high level program and the low level program, but 
>>> between the X-Level truths and laws and all local functions?
>>>  
>>>
>>>  
>>>  Above the substitution level, only god knows, but you can bet and 
>>> theorize locally, and, below the substitution level, you get the full 
>>> arithmetical mess, the union on all sigma_i formula, well beyond the 
>>> computable. It is not easy, but there are mathematical lanterns, and deep 
>>> symmetries, and deep self-referential insight. 
>>> It is a reality that the universal machines cannot avoid.
>>>
>>>  It is the advantage of comp, you can translate the problem in 
>>> arithmetic, but it is not necessarily a "simple", sigma_1, problem. 
>>> There is a no universal panacea capable of satisfying all universal 
>>> machines at once, nothing is easy. 
>>> You have to look inward, eventually.
>>>  
>>
>> I won't be able to understand that, but it seems to me that if exotic 
>> capabilities like 1p awareness can be made up of dumb programmatic 
>> elements, then the top-down influence of potential intelligence must be 
>> equally important as the bottom-up blind stacking of logical operators. It 
>> seems like you want it both ways - that the higher order arithmetic magic 
>> of UMs are both separate from the primitive machines of today, but the 
>> potential for magic is inherent and inevitable strictly from inferences of 
>> the lowest arithmetic truths.
>>  
>>
>>     But we do need it both ways!
>>  
>
> We can do it both ways, but we should understand that only the top-down, 
> inside-out replication can ever result in genuine high level awareness, 
> while the bottom-up, outside-in engineering can only ever result in 
> prosthetic extensions which are dependent on some other awareness. The 
> second way is ultimate the more desirable route to developing technology to 
> serve the quality of public human life, but the first way is the only way 
> to understand the physics of privacy and experience.
>  
>  
>     Rubbish. You are trying desperately to claim a new version 
> vitalism<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vitalism>with this line of reasoning. 
> Stop now! Nature is not that simple.
>

Not at all, I just see that the universe is not only a place filled with 
mechanical objects, it is an experience of various qualities. Not all 
qualities are interchangeable, or else we could make Swiss cheese out of 
Arsenic. That makes nature much more complicated than we assume currently. 
Every object represents an unbroken fiber of eternity. You can't just take 
scenes from the last five minutes of the movie and splice it into some 
random spot near the beginning, that isn't how the story goes.

When someone accuses me of vitalism, then I know that they don't understand 
what I am proposing is based on the symmetry of space and time rather than 
a difference between life and matter. Likewise when someone says "Stop 
now!" it makes me suspect that I am on the right track.

Craig
  

>
> -- 
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
>  

-- 
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