On 17 Feb 2014, at 00:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:
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 <[email protected]> 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 don't think so.
I'm reporting on what I consider to be a common sense, apprehension
which could likely be classified as a human universal.
.... perhaps machine universal.
We should avoid reference to common sense, in a highly counter-
intuitive context.
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,
Do you read the post? I am explaining that comp cannot been proved
true. It can only, like any scientific theory, been proved wrong.
You talk like if I wad defending comp, but I show only that comp
forces us to come back to Plato's theology and physics, and to a many
dream interpretations of arithmetic brought by the numbers themselves,
and that we can test that theory, once we can agree on some definition
(like the axiom that" knowing(p) implies p", for example.
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 would agree with this, but the premise is wrong. Comp can be proved
wrong. it is all what I explain.
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.
In your imagination only.
I say only that there is an important difference and that difference
is unrelated to arithmetic or computation.
Nobody understand why you introduce that difference in the first place.
Bruno
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
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 [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
