From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Friday, March 20, 2015 5:28 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness-- 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. Perhaps you are confusing the intended meaning of what I said above. In common usage in the American version of spoken English, the phrase “people [verb] all the time” does not mean that people are continuously engaged in whatever [verb] is embedded in the phrase; rather it means that it is a commonplace thing, and conversely that it is not an extraordinary thing. What I was saying, using a common (perhaps just in the US) idiom is that it is a very common thing for people to lie, almost every single human being has used deception in their lives. Here, I, Quentin and Kim, might just complain on Clark systematic rhetorical trick insinuating there is anything controversial in what I said. I have also complained about John’s use of rhetoric, when he has tried to twist the meaning of what I have said. I think he should be called on it and I know how frustrating and tiring it can be to respond to this kind of argumentative rhetorical tactic. I have always admired your patience Bruno; you have a patience in you that I do not have; and I think your patient approach, in the long run is the wiser one. 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. An interesting hypothesis. 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. I agree, a lot of your long discussions with him seem in the end to become circular. I believe you have been very patient in trying to present your case, and he has instead been scornful, acerbic, loudly argumentative and a host of other not so nice attributes. 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. I like that view of lying being just one form of communication of the false. So much in nature is about communicating the false. So many examples: Camouflage, species mimicking the appearance of other species, animals that use tricks to puff up their apparent size; I am sure at the level of single celled organisms there is a rich palette of deceptive chemical tricks as well. Deception does confer an evolutionary advantage, but it also has a cost I believe, which manifests at the social level. A society or culture with high levels of deception has a higher transaction cost than one with lower levels of deception. 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. In an ideal world that would be so. 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. Yes, I agree. It is not an excuse for bad behavior, though it may be an explanation perhaps for why the person may behave in the manner that they do. 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? Am I arguing that I do? I am for the most part following the various discussions going on here, because I enjoy – at least some of them. I am intrigued by the possibility of a theory of everything that can also explain its own emergence in terms of itself without needing to invoke an external agency. 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. The comment I had made, had nothing to do with any of this. I merely expressed my distaste for pop-psychoanalysis of another human being in an online public forum. On several grounds. One, I find it to be in poor taste, and secondly I feel that it is arrogant for any one (myself included) to pretend to know what is going on in another person’s inner life. Let us just come back to the subject. By all means J 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). Agreed. 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. That is his own loss really. I can see the subtle distinction you are describing and the value in making it. Subtle distinctions can become very significant for ultimate subsequent outcomes in understanding a problem domain. Kim might have done some ugly insult, but then why don't you address John Clark for uglily insulting all the time some people? Oh…. I have. I no longer ever wish to descend into the drawn out slug fests I have engaged in with Mr. Clark; they are of no value to me and in the end achieve nothing. Mr. Clark remains exactly where Mr. Clark was. Believe me I am not a defender of John; all the wearisome things you have described as having had to endure from him.. they evoke immediate memories of my own pointless exchanges with him. 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. Lies are the window dressing that is wrapped around the truth in order for it to appear to be otherwise. Often the lie itself provides clues to the truth it is seeking to hide. It is interesting in this way to listen to liars and to their lies, for – IMO – they often give away far more than they believe they are, and in seeking to misdirect and misinform they can sometimes reveal things that one may have not even been looking for. Cheers, Chris 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. -- 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.
RE: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness--
'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List Fri, 20 Mar 2015 20:38:21 -0700
- RE: Fw: Michael Graziano's theory ... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
- Re: Fw: Michael Graziano's th... meekerdb
- Re: Fw: Michael Graziano'... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
- Re: Michael Graziano's theory... Bruno Marchal
- RE: Michael Graziano's th... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
- Re: Michael Graziano'... Bruno Marchal
- RE: Michael Grazi... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
- Re: Michael ... Bruno Marchal
- RE: Mich... 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List
