On 21 Mar 2015, at 04:37, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
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.
OK.
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.
Sometimes I doubt, but I guess it is normal. Thanks.
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.
OK, thanks for saying. I think Kim and Quentin ware trying something
of that kind.
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,
Yes, I use them in my talk yesterday. The cuttlefish lies in "saying"
that he is not there (imicit saying 'course. The mimicking ant spider
lies to birds by implicitly saying "I am not a comestible spider but
an non edible ant".
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.
Good bet. Not sure I cross examples, but I would bet you are right.
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.
It is a bit like in the prisoner dilemma.
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.
OK, but we must try to go to that ideal world. Lies leads to trauma.
They can be worse than bullets.
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.
I am not sure that saying that "all people do something" explains why
they do it.
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.
OK. (To be sure, the theory does not explains its own axioms, but kept
them very simple and minimal, and explains a large part of the rest.
If true it is the first explanation of all of matter appearance, and
of 99,9% of consciousness, first person, etc.)
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.
OK.
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.
Yes.
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;
OK. This confirms PGC analysis.
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.
I think so.
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.
OK. I am afraid of liars, because I see that lies are injuring people,
or even killing them, like with a friend of mine who died from
cancer's treatment, where I strongly suspect he would have lived much
longer, and in better shape without the treatment, and with other
treatments we are lied about since a long time.
Same with the jews, and the Israeli, and many muslims, and the
homosexual, which I think are victim of a propaganda quite similar to
the propaganda against cannabis, with the same kind of inversion p->q/
q->p, same overgeneralization, same quasi-professional lie.
Lies among humans make their life more insecure, for bad reason. How
to trust them on climate if they can lie on cancers for so long.
I have no problem with liberal markets, but if money is based on lies,
then it is a case of stealing others, and injuring them.
Cheers,
Bruno
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.
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.
