On Sunday, February 16, 2014 2:23:11 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2014, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 9:58:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2014, at 13:45, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 5:29:09 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 16 Feb 2014, at 00:06, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 15, 2014 3:43:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 15 February 2014 18:32, Craig Weinberg <whats...@gmail.com> wrote: > > You can't copy awareness. Awareness is what is uncopyable, not just > because awareness is special, but because it is ontologically perpendicular > to the possibility of simulation. All attempts to copy awareness result in > a doll. > > > Does that then entail that if a conscious amoeba were to fission, the > resulting two amoebae would be unconscious? Or only one of them? > > > That's not a copy of an amoeba, reproducing its body is part of what an > amoeba does. > > > But the evidences we have is that amoeba use the Dx = "xx" method for the > self-copy (indeed I discovered it by looking at amoeba and reading book on > molecular biology, before finding the logicians got it). > > > That makes sense to me because the amoeba's body will look like a copy to > our body's senses. A 3p view of 3p is truncated and filled in generically. > The 1p amoeba is the localized subset of the entire history of amoeba-like > experience, not just the isolated maintainer of the 3p amoeba body. When we > look for 3p evidence, we will not necessarily see 1p authenticity as > certain evidence. The authenticity has to be felt through the feeling as > semi-describable aesthetic qualities...which is where we get a lot of > unscientific sounding terms like life force, kundalini, prana, xi, etc. > These kind of numinous qualities apply not just to living beings, but to > works of art, sacred places, etc, if you are subjectively receptive to > their authenticity. They do not give us infallible proof of originality, > but they are reminders that there is an important difference between > 'something' and *the real thing*. > > > You are just saying that you are not subjectively receptive to the > machines" 1p. > > > No, I'm saying that I am receptive to the absence of machine 1p (and I'm > not by any means alone in that sensitivity). > > > A nonsense, followed by an authoritative argument. >
The idea that is is nonsense or an authoritative argument is itself an authoritative argument. I'm reporting on what I consider to be a common sense, apprehension which could likely be classified as a human universal. Even a monkey prefers a wire mother which is soft to one which is only wire. The idea that somehow the difference between machines and conscious people is simply a matter of degree of complexity is, believe it or not, a hypothesis which is supported only by certain interpretations of mathematics, not an uncontested truth. My argument is that these interpretations are actually an inversion of Godel's understanding, and falsely attribute tangible aesthetic qualities where none are specified. It's not enough to say that comp cannot be proved wrong, it is my understanding that our progress as a species depends on our realization that the fact that comp cannot be proved wrong is actually proof that it is wrong. I expect that to sound like nonsense, but it is all consistent with the nature of proof being subordinate to more primitive layers of sense from which the expectation of proof or falsification, logic or illogic arise. > > > > > > > The uncanny valley is not merely the failure to detect the presence of > subjectivity it is the positive detection of the failed attempt of an > object disguised as a subject. > > > > What you say is that you, and some others, have a magical talent, capable > of detecting absence of consciousness. > No, I am saying that everyone has this ordinary sense, but a few people deny it. > Do you think that the humans having not that talents are also deprived of > subjectivity, or are they just stupid, or what? > Not at all, those who deny that sensitivity or who have developed their other talents to the point that they lose touch with it are just more specialized. There could be some people who can't tell the difference between a living thing and a machine because they are stupid, or young children, but mostly I think that they are very smart people, just too logical to have an unbiased view of consciousness itself. > > Your theory is the refrain "we are superior". > It has nothing to do with superiority. Your refrain is 'you are elitist', but you are the one projecting a value judgment of consciousness = good, unconsciousness = bad. I say only that there is an important difference and that difference is unrelated to arithmetic or computation. > > > > > > > > > > > > Copy and self-copy are different, for machines too, but in the case under > study, this does not entail any observable difference, and if you are > right, it means that the copy doll will be a zombie. > > > The reproduction of the amoeba's body is an approximate copy from our 3p > perspective, but the Xp copier itself cannot be copied. It is not only > unique, but it is uniqueness itself - meta-unique if you like. The Xp > copier is consciousness, who provides both the meaning and the method of > copying. > > > I can understand that consciousness is a selector, but it makes no sense > for me to say it is the copier. > > > Why? The phenomenon of perceptual fill-in is a pretty vivid example of how > copying is part of how consciousness produces representation. > > > > ? > Our visual awareness copies patterns all the time. > > > > > > > > > > > > > All arithmetic truth relates only to the 3p view of Xp copying language. > > > Why? I illustrate that this is not the case, already with the most known > definition of knowledge. > > > Knowledge and definition are both 3p expectations also. > > > > You are not arguing. > Sure I am. You cite popular mathematical definitions of knowledge, but I am saying that these are 3p expectations. I am proposing that the sense of knowledge is derived from a more primitive, oceanic sense which ranges from the delirious to the rigorously ordered. Craig > Bruno > > > > > > Craig > > > > > Bruno > > > > > Craig > > > Bruno > > > > > > > David > > > -- > 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-li...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at <a href=" > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list"; target="_blank" > onmousedown="this.href=' > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list';return > > ... -- 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. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
