On 20 Mar 2015, at 18:06, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]
] On Behalf Of Quentin Anciaux
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 2:23 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Fw: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
2015-03-19 23:44 GMT+01:00 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <[email protected]
>:
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Kim Jones <[email protected]>
To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]
>
Sent: Thursday, March 19, 2015 2:56 PM
Subject: Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness
>>Clark is that desperate order of human whose only creative ability
lies in shitting on the thinking of others. He is quite simply
bereft of any thinking of his own and has clearly never once in gis
life experienced a creative idea - even by accident. He is therefore
exists only as a parasite on the back of others since he lacks the
means to exist as a thinker in his own right.
Come on now, you do not have that kind of insight into the mind of
John, to be able to make the slew of assertions, you just made about
him;
Well, there is one true fact, he lies, that's simple to check... two
emails before he's asserting that Bruno is affraid of intelligent
machine... it's not the first lie he does, not the last one he will,
it's an habit... it's bad faith in its purest form... while letting
him lie and say nothing ? He will *never* apologize about his lies
(he never did for years, it's doubtful he will one day), that's
shameful, he does not deserve respect for that.
Sure that may be true, but he would not be the first nor certainly
the last to do so. People lie all the time.
I would say we can only suspect some people to lie sometimes. People
who lie all the time exists only in the idland of knaves and knight
(cf Smullyan). Now, in math, and at the base level, you can identify a
liar like a set of false proposition.
Here, I, Quentin and Kim, might just complain on Clark systematic
rhetorical trick insinuating there is anything controversial in what I
said. It is material in computer science and (toy, if you want)
machine's theology (defined in a simple obvious way, and with theology
used in the sense of Parmenides, Plato, Plotinus, Proclus, Damascius),
witha clear lexicon, so that everything I say is 3p verifiable, and
has been 3p verified by already more than three juries, with all
experts in all field crossed admitting not saying any mistake. The
problem comes by people who have of fake having dogma in the matter
(excuse the inevitable punt).
And all this does not solev the proble, it formulates it and lead to a
sequence of precise open problem in math, one of which has been solved
by late Eric Vandebusche.
I might disagree with Kim. I think John got the idea, may be by
himself independently. He is jealous he did not published and
destroyed the idea like a child would destroy its brother toys, or
something. I don't know, I am interested in trying to understand.
The real problem is that I get bored by the absence of argument. Clark
admits not having read the sane04 paper after UDA step 3: which means
he has not study what some of us are just talking about, and his
constant lack of respect is boring and distracting of what is really
interesting.
By the way it is funny, because I was invited today by the psycho-
analyst school of Brussels to make a talk on "lie and trausmatism". It
is a talk I did to a subset of them many times and which has some
success, and this time I explain things more technically, with the
modal form of the incompleteness <>[]f, the consistency of
inconsistency, and how this is related with the fact that Lies are
just one particular case of communication of the false, as the error,
the dream, and death (in the Kripke semantics: accessing a cul-de-sac
world) are all of type []f (which is consistent if added as new
axiom). Somehow, arithmetic itself contains many lies. Lying has some
evolutionary advantage like in the prisoner dilemma, for some short
run special private advantage. But, well, it is also a technic of
moral harrasment, or ways to destroy carriers.
people lies sometimes, and it is really bad for everybody, so when it
is noticed, normally the liar should apologize or leave. Or the lied
should discuss elsewhere else. repeating the lies when noticed is no
more argumenting, it is trolling.
And some people find it exceedingly difficult to admit they are
wrong about something.
That is not an excuse. Some people seems to find exceedingly difficult
not to drink and beat their partner or kids.
John and I have had some very heated exchanges so I know what you
are speaking of, but it makes me uncomfortable to see people
psychoanalyzed by other people who smugly define and hang out to
dry, the inner core of their being.
Quen,tin just makes the notice. It is good for the mental health of
the one lied at. I thanks Quentin for that.
Kim might fall is John's trap, by insulting him? I will read it later.
I find such kinds of gratuitous pop psychoanalysis as being an
exercise in conceited arrogance and one that is destructive in
nature and intent. I do not see the kind of pop psychoanalysis that
I was responding to as being anything more than a form of insult. He
intent is not to help John in any manner; it is to insult the man as
well as to make the person – giving the free unsolicited pop
psychoanalysis -- feel smugly superior.
The problem is that since more than one year, probably even more, John
Clark seems to have adopt the dogma that I am crackpot. I know some
people who have built that rumor, and I appreciate John to play the at
least the game, and argue. But he never admit when its mainly
rethorical tricks are defeated.
I agree, let stop the psycho-drama, and tell me, do YOU, chris,
understand step 3 and step 4?
Have you understand the picture, I mean you can conceive the solution
a long time before understanding it is imposed by some hypothesis.
Or do you understood John Clark's critics? So please, explain.
Let us just come back to the subject.
A problem is that not much people seems to know about theoretical
computer science, which does not help a mathematician to explain the
logical necessary consequence of computationalism.
The subject is not that easy, and I am patient. And John Clark knows
some physics, and is less bad in duplication experiment that he
pretends, but he mocks the cognitive sciences, philosophy of mind,
theology (in all sense of the terms, which is already not a scientific
attitude).
His main technic consists in mocking the nuances I introduce, and
then, by not using them, pretend that something is fuzzy not well
defined. I introduced in precise way the nuance bteween 1p and 3p pov
in the duplication experience, and called that pee-pee (!). Come on. I
introduce a nuance between intelligence and competence, and again, he
refuses just to listen to what I am saying.
Kim might have done some ugly insult, but then why don't you address
John Clark for uglily insulting all the time some people?
I am happy that during the talk, I never mentionned duplication or the
UDA, and used only G, without saying, and G*, which added the type
[]<>t, the blasphem, and I did explain that claiming the caricature of
a prophet is a blasphem is, actually, a blasphem.
On some occasion a guy told me that what I was saying was quite
jewish, and I told him that I was not sure, as I am contradicting
Maimonides.
I liked its answer very much. He told that Maimonides was
Aristotelian, on the tone that this mean we should not take him too
much seriously. Yeah....! I saw he understood Parmenides.
This does not mean he would say yes to the doctor, and swallow the
(sigma_1) arithmetical multi-dream, but what was nice in that talk,
was that it was not on the nature of reality, but on why lies exists,
and since when, and people understood the abyss between agnostic
atheism and non agnostic atheism.
OK. After the colloquium we drink some wine and I talk probably too
much, walk at 5h am, did the talk at 5h pm, and I am currently, well
not a zombie, but a bit under the effect of a legal drug, which is
more terrible than all the illegal drugs combined.
We search truth, I think. Truth is what is behind all the lies.
Quentin and Kim are right, no need to add one.
Bruno
This would be my opinion regardless of who it was who was being
psychologically dissected in a public forum. I find this kind of
public attack on a person by another person on a public forum to
sink into the region of gratuitous nastiness. Speaking of some
person’s alleged psychological and moral deficiencies, in the third
person and in a public forum is nothing more than an ugly insult.
I am stating quite clearly and unambiguously that – IMO – it is a
small minded act that itself is as ugly as anything it purports to
describe. Kim may feel she has some brilliant insight into the inner
working of John Clark’s soul, but she doesn’t… and her dissection of
his inner character is an act of poor taste and -- IMO -- deserves
to be called out for being what it is.
Come on, we can do better than that!
-Chris
Quentin
about how and who he is. As everyone knows -- me and John have had
it out on this list on several occasions and there are many things
with which we do not agree in the slightest (though on some matters
we seem to be in accord). John and I have insulted each other with
gusto... no one can accuse me of being a John Clark fanboy.
Every human being is a flawed outcome of experiences and inner
development; we all have our own failings and blemishes; pronouncing
judgement on others is a risky business -- in the best of cases. As
has been said (probably many times by many people in many cultures
throughout the ages: Judge not; lest you be judged.
-Chris
I predict that the day Clark actually proposes something new and
insightful as opposed to merely criticising others attempts to do so
will never occur. This is because once you have defined yourself
publicly as a liar, the only way forward is to maintain the fictions
you mistakenly outed - even after you and everyone have seen through
them.
Kim Jones
On 20 Mar 2015, at 7:20 am, Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
On 18 Mar 2015, at 18:07, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Liar Clark seriously ? you wanna go down that way, asserting Bruno
is affraid of machine intelligence where all is work is about
computationalism ? really ?
I am glad you notice the anomaly. It looks like a lie, indeed.
It's so pathetic,
Yes. I wonder why he acts like that. How much conscious he is. Is it
incompetence or malice?
At least John acts in front of me. My usual opponents lied too, but
behind my back.
It comforts me somehow to hear those lies. It shows the problem is
not my work, but in the difficulty that some people have with
fundamental question, on which they have already their religion.
I still don't know if John Clark is aware of its aristotelian
prejudices. But may be it is lower than that, and it could be the
usual jealousy or something. Presenting me as against machine
intelligence is frankly incredible, and very low, as you say.
Bruno
I don't understand why you can stoop so low and lie so much against
him... Is he threatening you ? maybe because even competent is not
an adjective we should use with you.
Quentin
2015-03-18 17:57 GMT+01:00 John Clark <[email protected]>:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 Bruno Marchal <[email protected]> wrote:
>> So, consciousness - evolutionary advantage or spandrell?
> Both. I would say.
Then the Turing Test works for consciousness and not just for
intelligence. But then you don't believe the Turing Test even works
for intelligence because you believe that the ability to do
intelligent things has nothing to do with being intelligent, an idea
so breathtakingly silly nobody would dream of uttering it unless
they were driven to do so by their fear of intelligent machines. I
guess "competent machines" sounds less threatening to you.
John K Clark
--
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.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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.
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/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.
--
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.
--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy
Batty/Rutger Hauer)
--
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.
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/d/optout.
