On Tuesday, May 20, 2014 12:35:47 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 8:40 PM, <[email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > > On Monday, May 19, 2014 6:24:45 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 7:06 PM, meekerdb <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 5/19/2014 2:38 AM, LizR wrote: > > His main interest is the mind-body problem; and my interest in that > problem is more from an engineering viewpoint. What does it take to make a > conscious machine and what are the advantages or disadvantages of doing > so. Bruno says a machine that can learn and do induction is conscious, > which might be testable - but I think it would fail. I think that might be > necessary for consciousness, but for a machine to appear conscious it must > be intelligent and it must be able to act so as to convince us that it's > intelligent. > > That is fair enough, but it (of course) assumes primary materialism - > > > No it doesn't. Why do you think that? I think "assuming primary > materialism" is a largely imaginary fault Bruno accuses his critics of. > Sure physicists study physics and it's a reasonable working hypothesis; but > nobody tries to even define "primary matter" they just look to see if > another layer will be a better layer of physics or not. > > > But I think Bruno's criticism is that physics->psychology is assumed, and > that the reversal hypothesis is rejected a priori. So it's not just a > matter of "another layer". > > > Well yes, but if Brent's illustration reflects the actual > thinking, Bruno's position is logically unviable. > > > Show, don't tell... > You're not a Rolf Harris relation are you? :O)
> > > Because although physics-->psychology is assumed..that word 'assumed' sits > in a special case tense. It means 'for practical purposes' and does not > mean 'we know what's fundamental and it's matter so we totally reject the > possibility maths or concepts or sexy fantasies are actually what's > fundamental' > > > Yes, that is what "assumed" means. My problem is not with making the > assumption, it's not being aware that you are making it. > That's why I like you Telmo, you've got some major fucking problems. But they just might be the right kind of fucking problems! > > > > So it's a resolvable situation. For Bruno to take his stance, it has to be > the case what Brent says is fundamentally wrong and a brutal dogma of > 'knowing what we can't know' grips science in iron fist. > > > I'm not sure I follow. What statements by Brent and Bruno are in direct > contradiction? Neither is Bruno claiming that comp is true, nor Brent that > it is false, as far as I can tell. b > Bruno's got problems at this juncture, whatever reading. If it's the same problem that you just mentioned above, then in Bruno context it ain't a good problem because he thinks other humans get a problem that's impossible that he could get. Because I've spent about 30 posts talking about that sort of problem of assuming what we don't know we are assuming, and no matter which way I said it, Bruno apparently didn't have a possibility, in terms of some working background concepts in play, that he could ever assume something he didn't know he assumed. In fact he was clear from start to finish, I was talking jibberish. That's a case of a good problem cut in two, one side murdered and buried and forgotten, the other side pulped, mixed up with a pot of tea, some facial moisturizer and a pack of tasty after eight mints, and generously shared around the room all over, and inside everyone else, while he feasts on 500ml pot of hagen daz all for himself :O) > > > > I don't think anything like that stands up. All the major scientists wont > to nurse a public profile or top up the pension with a popular science book > are very clear on this matter. > > > Bruno wrote logical arguments. I don't know if he's right, but I couldn't > find a flaw in is reasoning so far (for what that's worth). If a refutation > is published, I'll read it. If you write an email refuting it, I promise to > read it too. What else matters? > What else matters? You don't look 25 yet Telmo. Getting high, and laid dude, is what else matters. > > Cheers > Telmo. > > > -- > 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 every <javascript:> > > ... -- 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/d/optout.
