On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 21 Apr 2013, at 02:14, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:32 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>>>>> You may be pedantic about the use of anthropomorphic language but I >>>>>>> am >>>>>>> not. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> It can become distracting / misleading in deeper discussions about the >>>>> mechanisms of evolution. >>> >>> >>> >>> I don't care, anybody who was mislead or distracted and believed >>> Evolution >>> could think would be so stupid that I wouldn't care to talk to them. And >>> as >>> you once said "who are you to say what's useful or not as a tool for >>> other >>> people to think and understand?". >> >> >> Ok, I think this is getting a bit hostile and I apologise for my part >> in that. John, I don't know you personally so I have nothing against >> you. We're just debating ideas. Maybe you're a great guy and maybe I'm >> a great guy. Maybe we're both idiots. Can we keep this discussion >> light-hearted? >> >>>> >>>>> Emergence is just a way to connect different levels of abstraction. >>> >>> >>> >>> The trouble is people say X leads to Y but when asked how they just wave >>> their hands around and say it's a emergent property, as if that explains >>> something. >> >> >> People also use the word "quantum" to sell self-help snake oil. That >> does not invalidate QM. There is an entire field of physics, for >> example, dedicated to studying emergence in a rigorous fashion -- >> statistical physics. It explains how local molecule interactions give >> rise to pressure, for example. Or the emergence of ferromagnetism. >> There's also mean field theory. Cellular automata show how simple >> local rules can give rise to complexity, again in a well-defined >> fashion. Artificial Life provides us with a number of computational >> experiments that show life-like emergence. We know how social insects >> like ants perform integration through simple local interactions and >> pheromone trails. There's schelling's segregation model in social >> science. It's not all wishy-washy stuff. > > > You are right, emergence is a fundamental notion. With comp we can also > tackle it with rigor. > Some people misused it, but then some people misused QM, as you say, or > Gödel, or theology, etc. > > > > >> >>>>> What do you mean "useful"? >>> >>> >>> >>> I'm not going to tell you. Any definition I give you will be made of >>> words >>> and I have no doubt you would then demand a definition of at least one of >>> those words. >> >> >> It wasn't a trick question, but it's a valid one when someone invokes >> utilitarianism -- a concept that can be dangerous, as History as shown >> us a number of times. Science is undoubtfuly useful in providing >> plausible theories for how the universe works (provided we understand >> a priori assumptions). Also for generating new technologies. It even >> helps me in understanding what I am, but only too a degree. The >> missing part I don't understand bugs me. I love science too much not >> to question it. Because, like you, I loathe religion. > > > Religion is what happens when people put theology out of science.
Bruno, I'm still not sure I understand your definition of theology. Is it the same as metaphysics? > > > > > >> >>>>> >>>>>>> That's the trouble with this list, everybody is a big picture man >>>>>>> with >>>>>>> their own fundamental holistic theories about consciousness >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Isn't "big picture" the theme of this list? >>> >>> >>> >>> I thought the theme of this list was everything, and details are >>> something. >> >> >> Ok. >> >>> Dilettantes are always big picture men because that is so much easier >>> than >>> being a details man; they are VERY big picture men, so big that their >>> ideas >>> have made absolutely no changes to science or to anything that anyone can >>> measure. >> >> >> Can one be both? I promise you, I spend most of my time on details. >> Here I do as I please, until the list sends me a paycheck :) >> >>> >>>>> If consciousness is easier than intelligence >>> >>> >>> >>> Evolution certainly found that to be the case. >> >> >> There is not scientific evidence whatsoever of this. Nor do I think it >> can be. People like António Damásio (my compatriot) and other >> neuroscientists confuse a machine's ability to recognise itself with >> consciousness. This makes me wonder if some people are zombies. > > > Careful! > Some people don't think, but are still conscious, most plausibly. I guess > you were joking. I meant the opposite: people who think but are not conscious. I'm half-joking. > You are right about Damásio. he confuses [] p and (([] p & p). Not sure I understand. Doesn't []p => p ? > Machines > already know the nuances, when they look inward, and bet that they are > correct. > > > > > >> >>>>> how come we have scientific progress in the latter and not in the >>>>> former? >>> >>> >>> >>> Today's computers are smarter than they were 10 years ago so I think it >>> is >>> highly likely that they are more conscious too. >> >> >> Computers are what they have always been, Turing machines with finite >> tapes. The tapes are getting bigger, that's all. We have discovered >> more algorithms. >> >>> If you have another method >>> for measuring consciousness other than intelligent behavior I would very >>> much like to hear about it. >> >> >> The lack of a method is not a reason to accept any alternative. >> Measuring conscious by intelligent behaviour is mysticism, just like >> believing that it rains because Zeus is peeing. >> >>>>> how do you know that intelligence is a requirement of consciousness? >>> >>> >>> >>> The only consciousness I have direct experience with is my own and I note >>> that when I'm sleepy my consciousness is reduced and so is my >>> intelligence, >>> when I'm alert the reverse is true. >> >> >> I agree on intelligence, but I don't feel less conscious when I'm >> sleepy. Just differently conscious. I'm a bit sleepy right now. > > > That's something amazing with consciousness. It exists in different modes. > We are not trained to develop vigilance during sleep, but sleep produces a > lot of intriguing altered state of consciousness. Yes, it's so frustrating to not be able to come back with the full memories. Telmo. > > > > >> >>>>>> Somebody who puts "philosopher" in the occupation line on his tax >>>>>> form >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ok, I guess Plato and Aristotle and the rest of that gang are out then. >>> >>> >>> >>> Archimedes was a mathematician and he discovered more philosophy than >>> Plato >>> and Aristotle combined. >> >> >> You have a personal bias for certain types of intellectual >> contributions. I think Archimedes was a swell guy too. > > > If John read those lines, he might be kind enough to tell us what > Archimedes, who was a great mathematician and physicist, discovered in > philosophy. Plato and Aristotle discovered and shaped the modern science. > > Bruno > > > > >> >> Telmo. >> >>> 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 [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >> >> -- >> 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 [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> 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 [email protected]. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. > > -- 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 [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
