On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM 'Cosmin Visan' < [email protected]> wrote:
>> So you have free will if you feel free, and you feel free if you have >> free will. And round and round we go! The only definition I know of "free >> will" that is not circular gibberish is the inability to always know what >> you will do next even in a unchanging environment. Of course by that >> definition even a cuckoo clock has free will so it's not a useful >> definition, but at least it's not circular and it's not gibberish. >> > > *> My definition is not circular. Your is by adding additional things in > order to attack a strawman.* > It is only the second part that I added that gives the thing a meaning, not a useful meaning I admit but at least it's better than gibberish. > *All that I said is that free will is the feeling of being free. I didn't > add the second part.* > And klogknee will is the feeling of being klogknee. > *And a cucko clock is not free since it has no feelings*. > I won't bother asking how you know what feelings a cuckoo does or does not have if you can't determine that through observing behavior because I know you won't answer my question, you can't. But I will say there are only 2 posabilities, an event happens for a reason or it doesn't. If it happens for a reason then it's deterministic. If a event happens for no reason then by definition it's random. So you're either a cuckoo clock or a roulette wheel, take your pick. >> How on earth did you determine the college professor has the ability to >> bring new qualia into existence but the computer did not when they >> behaved in exactly precisely the same way? >> > > > Really ? > Yes really. > > *The behave in precisely the same way ?* > They did unless I missed something, what behavior did you *OBSERVE* the college professor perform that a computer never could do even in theory? Before answering please remember ONLY your own consciousness emotions and qualia are directly detectable. > >>> *Since computers are deterministic systems* [....] >>> >> >> >>Then DETERMINE what the atoms in my computer will do after I program >> it to find the smallest even number that is not the sum of 2 prime numbers >> and then stop. Come on I'm waiting! >> > > *> They will continue to bang into each others, what else ?* > The atoms in the computer will very suddenly start behaving in a radically different way, if you were plotting the movement of atoms on a graph the point where the computer found a even number that is not the sum of 2 prime numbers would be unique, it would be the only point on the curve that was discontinuous and did not have a tangent line. Will that point ever be reached? I don't know you don't know nobody knows. Turing showed that there are statements in arithmetic that are true but have no proof, if the Goldbach Conjecture is one of them then a billion years from now mathematicians will still be looking, unsuccessfully, for a proof to show it is correct and computers will still be grinding through huge even numbers looking, unsuccessfully, for a counterexample to show it is incorrect. Of course it's possible tomorrow somebody could find a proof or a counterexample, but if Goldbach isn't undecidable we know for a fact there are an infinite number of other mathematical statements that are true but have no proof. *>>> Learning is a property of consciousness* >>> >> >> >>If so then the long debate has been settled at last, computers are >> conscious. >> > > *>You are again using your upside down logic* > You have used that phrase about a dozen times as your only rebuttal point, a unsophisticated debate bot would do the same. > in which you deduce the hypothesis from the conclusion. > I deduce hypothesis from observation. You have first decided that computers can not be conscious (and they can't even be intelligent, which is not a very intelligent thing to say) and only after you've decided what is true do you bother to look for reasons to support your decision. Ready, Fire, Aim! >>> *> >>You not knowing what those atoms will do, and the fact of those >>> atoms not being determined what will do, are 2 different things. Are you >>> making these "mistakes" intentionally ?* >>> >> >> >> The above would be a interesting remark on the very cutting edge of >> physics ... if this was 1927 and not 2019. But a hell of a lot has >> happened since then and that's the trouble with amature internet >> philosophers, they know nothing about modern physics and show no desire >> to learn any. I'll bet you've never even heard of Bell's Inequality or the >> fact that it's been experimentally proven to be violated. >> > > *Now you just say random things, because you are left without arguments, > as if computers are quantum systems. And as a matter of fact, I heard about > Bell, since I'm a physicist by training: * > If you believe a mention of Bell's inequality and the fact that it has been experimentally proven to be violated is a random remark of no relevance in a discussion about the difference between epistemological chance and ontological randomness then you have received very poor physics training, very poor indeed. As for knowing about Bell's inequality before I mentioned it and the fact it's been proven to be violated .... hmmm.... I don't know this for a fact but I have a strong hunch you just Googled it for the first time. >> Prove to me you have the ability to experience a quale and then prove to >> me a computer lacks that ability. And just reaching into your bag of stock >> phrases like "computers are deterministic" won't do, before you simply >> state that "computers are X but humans are not X" I want you to tell me how >> you know this if they both behave the same way. >> > > > *Except that they don't behave the same.* > OK tell me exactly what behavior you observed in the human that no computer will ever be able to produce even in theory. And your answer had better not contain the words "qualia", "feeling", or "consciousness" because you can't observe any of those in a human or a computer, you can only observe them in yourself. > >> According to you creativity means bringing something new into >> existence and you say Chess is creative. A computer can easily beat you at >> Chess so you brought a crappy game into existence while the computer >> brought an excellent game into existence. Therefore following your "logic" >> I would have no choice but to conclude the computer is more conscious than >> you. >> >> > > You are just using one more time your upside down logic. > And being a early 1980's vintage debate bot that is the best rebuttal you could come up with, I suppose next time you're stumped it will be "computers don't exist" . Or even worse, the next item on your stock rebuttal list might be "computers are deterministic" as if that would be a bad thing if true. > >> Why are you so embarrassed to admit you believe in the God Theory? On >> second thought never mind, I already know the answer. >> > > > *You are just inventing things because of lack of anything meaningful > to say. * > It's a hypothesis, and one you could easily disprove simply by saying "I don't believe in God". The fact that you steadfastly refuse to do so strengthens my hypothesis. >>> >>> *Reason is a property of consciousness. * >>> >> >> >>Although I'll never be able to prove it I think you're probably right >> about that, and therefore reason is a fairly good test for consciousness in >> others, it's not perfect but it's all we've got. You can't win at Chess by >> making random moves, reason is needed, therefore if something (human or >> otherwise) can beat you at Chess that is evidence (although falling short >> of a proof) it is at least as conscious as you. >> > > *> You are using again your upside down logic.* > Is that it? If that's all you've got to say then you are again demonstrating you are a 1980's debate bot not a intelligent human. > >> According to you there is no perceivable difference between something >> that exists and something that does not, and so the property of existence >> is a property of no importance whatsoever. And thus we return to silly-land >> where words mean precisely nothing. >> > > *> Existence is what qualia do. * > That remark is of no use whatsoever to anyone who is honestly trying to figure out how the world works. > *Conscious beings are beings. * > Thanks, I never would have guessed that. *>>> What happens when you say that a computer makes a Chess move, is that >>> atoms are randomly banging into each other* >>> >> >> >> Even for you that is a mind bendingly dumb thing to say. You can't >> even make legal moves let alone become the best Chess player on the planet >> by randomly banging into Chess pieces. >> >>> > > *Only because you attribute meaning to random movements of atoms,* > If I'm a good Chess player and the "random" movement of atoms in the chess pieces is beating me at Chess then they can't be random motions. And don't bother accessing your canned rebuttal queue I'll do it for you: Chess pieces don't exist and atoms don't exist and most idiotic of all, computer are programed so they do things for a reason therefore they're random and don't do things for a reason and are not intelligent. Talk about upside down logic! > > *it doesn't mean that the meaning is on the movements of the atoms. It > only means that it is YOU who attribute meaning where there is none.* > If you know I'm a good Chess player and X is beating me at it and (this is important) you are intelligent then you would have to conclude that X is an even better Chess player. As to what I or a computer attribute meaning to, you have no way of knowing that except by observing our behavior. > >> Other than by observing his actions *HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT HUMAN IS >> CONSCIOUS*? And if observing actions works in humans for detecting >> consciousness why doesn't it work for computers too? I already know the >> answer, because the human's brain is wet and squishy but the computer's >> brain is dry and hard. You have nothing more profound than that. Nothing. >> > > *> Because computers don't exist.* > I was wondering when that brain dead dumb remark would come up again in the rebuttal queue those 1980's programmers put into your data banks. > * > The "brain" does not exists.* > OK, in your computer rebuttal queue we have "the brain does not exist" and "computers don't exist" and "atoms don't exist" and "upside down logic", but my favorite is "computers are deterministic" because you're using "upside down logic" and claiming that would be a bad thing because doing something for a reason means randomness, but doing something for no reason produces reason and intelligent behavior. Did I miss one, is there anything else in your rebuttal queue? > *the magic of the elf DOESN'T kill any orc.* If your only goal is to get good at the computer game then the above information is correct in its domane, just as Newtonian physics is correct for things that are big and slow and not too massive, > *You are making confusion between ontology and epistemology. The causal > powers are in only 1 place: at the ontological level.* > It's silly to believe only one correct causal explanation can be correct: Of my own free will, I consciously chose to go to a restaurant. Why? Because I want to. Why ? Because I want to eat. Why? Because I'm hungry? Why ? Because lack of food triggered nerve impulses in my stomach, my brain interpreted these signals as pain, I can only stand so much before I try to stop it. Why? Because I don't like pain. Why? Because that's the way my brain is wired. Why? Because my body and the hardware of my brain were made from the information in my genetic code (lets see, 6 billion base pairs 2 bits per base pair 8 bits per byte that comes out to about 1.5 gig, ) the programming of my brain came from the environment, add a little quantum randomness perhaps and of my own free will I consciously decide to go to a restaurant. > *>>> I just have to assume that there are other consciousnesses out-there. >>> * >>> >> >> >>Me too, I could not function if I really thought I was the only >> conscious entity in the universe, therefore I have a axiom I could not live >> without, intelligent behavior implies consciousness. My axiom is not that >> only wet and squishy things can be conscious or intelligent. >> >> *> 1) Intelligent behavior doen't imply consciousness. * > I've lost count how many times I've asked you this question but whatever the number is it's equal to the number of times you've refused to answer. If Intelligent behavior does not imply consciousness then why do you believe minds other than your own exist, why don't you embrace solipsism? If it's not the Turing Test for intelligent behavior (and it's better than the your silly wet and squishy test) I'd really REALLY *REALLY* like to hear about this wonderful new method you've discovered for directly detecting consciousness in things other than yourself! *> 2) Computers don't even have intelligent behavior. They just trick you > that they do.* > And then seconds before he was vaporized, the last surviving member of the human race turned to the Jupiter Brain and said "I STILL don't believe you're REALLY more intelligent than me, you just tricked me into thinking you are". >> However important it is for us consciousness by itself has no survival >> value so Evolution couldn't even see it much less select for it. But >> intelligence most certainly does have survival value therefore, unless I >> stoop to embrace the invisible man in the sky theory, I must conclude that >> consciousness is a inevitable byproduct of intelligence and consciousness >> is just the way data feels when it is being processed. >> > > *> You are using again your upside down logic.* > And you need your computer programmers to restock your canned rebuttal response queue with some new material. > > Is not consciousness the one that is selected by evolution. > No, it is not, it can't be. Consciousness can only be selected by evolution if it has survival value, and it only has survival value if it effects observable behavior. But you claim intelligent behavior does not imply consciousness, if so then Evolution can't see consciousness any better than you can directly detect consciousness in anything except yourself. And Evolution can't select for something it can't see. And I await to see what comes up next in your canned rebuttal queue. >> I've asked you this several times before but received no answer, I ask >> again, HOW DO YOU KNOW HUMANS ARE CONSCIOUS AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT >> COMPUTER'S ARE NOT? >> > > *> Because consciousnesses have the property of intelligence, while > computers don't exist.* > Is that really the best you could do? I don't expect you to be honest with me but try to be honest with yourself. Ask yourself if you really want to know how the world works and if you think the above adequately answers my question. > *> Intelligence is the property of consciousness of bringing new qualia > into existence out of nothing. Therefore, computers are not intelligent. * > How did you determine that human minds have the ability to bring "qualia into existence out of nothing"? How did you determine that computers lack the ability to bring "qualia into existence out of nothing" ? I don't know why I bother asking these questions, there is not a snowball's chance in hell of you actually answering them as I don't consider regurgitating another old canned response from your rebuttal queue an answer. > *Have a look again at my explanation with the duck-rabbit image.* > I did and I still don't see your point. Yes computers can make observational errors, and so can humans. Yes ambiguous images exist. So what? If it's a non-typical rabbit or duck, or if the angle of view is strange, or the lighting is bad, or the resolution of the picture is poor then a computer could mistake a rabbit for a duck, but a human would make the exact same mistake so I don't know what you think you've proven. 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
