On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:34 PM, John Mikes <[email protected]> wrote: > Telmo: > I would not draw nth conclusions on a plain assumption. > Particles (IMO) are explanatory presumptions upon (mostly math-phys) > temporary explanatory 'understanding' of some phenomena we got. So are the > reasons for 'dacay' taken from the limited access we have so far. > - The rest of it goes into the term RANDOM. > 1000 years ago there was more 'random' than today. So was 'emergent' and > 'unexplainable (not that all our today's explanations are 'perfect' (I do > not use "true").
"Emergent" is undoubtably an abused term. I do not equate it with unexplainable or random, though. I see it as a shortcut to allow us to reason with phenomena that would otherwise be computationally intractable for our monkey brains. Why are some people rich and other poor? This is caused by a quadrillion socio-economic interactions that we cannot possible hold in our minds at the same time. But we can understand the mechanism of preferential attachement and a picture emerges. It's not perfect, it's not the whole story, but it's a step towards explanation. > My agnostic view includes future explanations for - what we call - > particulate decay (random in today's usage). > If we suppose 'order' in the world - nothing is random. Ok, I am equally suspicious of "random". Telmo. > John M > > On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> > wrote: >> >> Hi Brent, >> >> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:48 AM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: >> > On 4/29/2013 2:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, John Clark <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >>> >> >>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>>> I also believe that some isolated tribes assume everything is >> >>>>> conscious. >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> If they're right then that certainly solves the consciousness problem >> >>> and >> >>> we >> >>> can move on to solving the REALLY hard problem, figuring out why some >> >>> things >> >>> behave intelligently. >> >> >> >> I don't really understand why you insist that intelligence is a harder >> >> problem than consciousness. >> > >> > >> > I think John's point is that it's easy to theorize about the "hard >> > problem" >> > of consciousness because the problem isn't even well defined and there's >> > no >> > way to test the theories because consciousness is taken to be a >> > first-person-only phenomenon by definition. On the other hand it is >> > pretty >> > easy to test intelligence - we do it all the time. But creating >> > intelligence is a "hard" problem. >> >> I understand the point, I just find that there's something rather >> puritanical about this view. Tweaking a computer program to perform a >> task well is "hard" and "real work", laying in an isolation tank >> trying to observe yourself from inside is silly. I enjoy both kinds of >> activities, by the way :) I think both are hard and rewarding in a >> sense. >> >> > >> >> I think we have very solid hypothesis on >> >> why some things behave intelligently, you explained it yourself. The >> >> problem becomes easier if we reject meaning, and accept that evolution >> >> is just a mindless process of complexification. >> >> >> >> In any case, through a modern combination of computer science, >> >> neuroscience and biology, we know a lot about intelligence. We know >> >> nothing about consciousness (scientifically, that is -- I know a lot >> >> about my own consciousness). >> > >> > >> > Maybe because (scientifically) there's nothing to know. >> >> Yes. But there are other forms of inquiry. They just won't get you a >> Nobel prize or a fat research grant. >> >> > What would >> > constitute a solution to the "hard problem" that could be tested? I >> > think >> > the best we will be able to do is to understand human brains to the >> > point >> > that we can manipulate thoughts and emotions as reported by subjects and >> > we >> > can make AI robots that behave like humans and whose "character" we can >> > design as desired. When we've done that we'll "bet" (as Bruno would >> > say) >> > that we've solved the problem. >> >> This last step is the one that I revolt against. I am all for AI >> robots that behave like humans -- or better yet, do all of the nasty >> work for us. Or that appear emotional enough to provide companionship >> to lonely people. All of this is great. But why bet that we solved the >> consciousness problem then? I don't see how the two things are >> related. The reason this is forced down our throats is that it is now >> blasphemy to suggest that Science is not the be-all and end-all of >> intelectual inquiry. It is possible to love and practice Science and >> reject this sort of dogma at the same time. >> >> Telmo. >> >> > Brent >> > >> > >> > -- >> > 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. >> >> > > -- > 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.
