On Tue, May 20, 2014 at 5:13 AM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]> 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) >
Good old uncle Harris! > > >> >> >> 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. > I'm not so sure which photo of me you might have seen to get that impression, but the second sentence makes me more relaxed about what might have transpired. Telmo. > >> 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 >> >> ... > > -- > 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. > -- 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.
