Intelligence and Trivial Intelligence defined
Trivial Awareness = Invariance (comparison (variance, invariance))
aka Pattern Matching
Machine, computer program, inorganic molecules. Detection of
difference.
Trivial Intelligence = Any quantifiable consequence of recursive
enumeration.
Intelligence = Significant qualitative augmentation of subjective
cognitive experience.
Cognitive experience = Motive participation in a sense channel
characterized by qualities of logical symbolic abstraction.
Sense channel = Departmentalization of sense by invariance of qualia.
Motive = Causally efficacious output through any sense channel. To
‘do’ or to ‘try’ or to feel like it is possible to do or try to affect
change in the content of any or all of one’s own sense channels or
those shared by others (including inanimate objects). We may want to
break a window purely to satisfy a motive arising from the pleasurable
tactile-acoustic-percussive-violent-gestural sense qualities
associated with it. A motive is a open sensory circuit in a particular
sense channel which attracts possible fulfillment strategies within
that sense channel or across other sense channels. The completion of
the circuit is dependent upon a quality of realism, so that the desire
is for fulfillment in a concrete motive enactment, not merely as a
logical condition. You have to care whether it is fulfilled or not.
Recursive enumeration is a cognitive experience, but intelligence is
not merely a consequence of recursive enumeration, it is a qualitative
enhancement of motive. Contrary to sense, motive is not
departmentalized into different channels, it is the same {want wish
try do} output dynamic across all sense channels that we as
human beings have access to. A machine enacted through inanimate,
inorganic materials which are presumed incapable of qualities like
wanting and wishing (generally associated with human or other animal
awareness), are confined to Trivial Intelligence capacities rooted in
simple {try - do} level outputs. Electronic computers cannot develop
true Intelligence because they lack the quality of motive output.
Human Consciousness = Awareness and Integration of multiple human
sense channels as a personal self, ranging from trivial awareness as a
physical body in a material world, to esoteric intelligence as an
identity in a cosmological narrative, with many inertial frames of
perception in between (as living organism, animal, mammal, human,
member of a society or other affiliation, etc).
Machine or Trivial Consciousness = A self-referential program, machine
(Turing Machine), operating system, or computational modeling or
monitoring of computation. Confined to a single sensorimotive channel
(recursive enumeration pattern matching) in which sense and motive are
undifferentiated. The material hardware of a computer may be trying to
complete it’s natural circuits which have been hijacked by human
agendas, but the program or Operating System cannot even ‘try’ to do.
It is like Yoda - it can only do or not do. Deep Blue is programmed to
satisfy the logic of winning chess, but it has no sense of personal
self to invest in any teleological object. It simply executes the most
quantitatively efficient strategy without hesitation or effort. To win
at chess costs it nothing. It doesn’t care or get tired, or know the
significance of the game. It’s not playing chess, it’s just executing
runtime.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Computing Spacetime
On 20 Jan 2012, at 07:17, Joseph Knight wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Stephen, Ronald, The paper is very interesting, on physics, but succumbs directly from the argument that any digital physics is bound to be unsuccessful on the mind-body problem by being still physicalist. The body problem is a problem of computer science, that is arithmetic, once we bet that observer are Turing emulable, as they should if the physics is digital. If the universe is a computation, then comp is true. But comp implies that the universe cannot be a computation (by UDA). Could you explain this a little bit? I didn't get that from my reading of the UDA I am busy today, and will explain this asap. Normally this should be easy, and it probably means that you are not taking the hypothesis (comp), or some UDA steps literally enough. Note also that I meant comp implies that the physical universe cannot be necessarily a computation. Thanks for your patience. I prefer to answer at ease, instead of being too short or unclear. Bruno So the universe is a computation implies that the universe is not a computation. So the universe is not a computation, whatever it can be. This defeat Finkelstein, Schmidhuber, Fredkin, and all attempts to conceive the physical universe as a computation, or output of a computation. This does not mean that the paper does not have interesting ideas on the unification of known forces in physics, and that quantum graphity might be a good idea, but if correct, such idea have to be recovered from the (more ambitious) attempt to get a unification of both qualia and quanta (consciousness and matter). The authors have still not integrate the mind-body problem. We are still much in advance on this list :) Bruno On 18 Jan 2012, at 14:53, ronaldheld wrote: I found this at arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2012. Any comments? I have just started to read it., Ronald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Joseph Knight -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Information: a basic physical quantity or rather emergence/supervenience phenomenon
On Jan 19, 5:40 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 1/19/2012 2:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: How is one any form of information more or less likely to be causally effective than any other form? Would you rather have an instruction manual in English or Urdu? Since I tend to put instruction manuals in a drawer and never look at them, I would rather have the Urdu one as a novelty. What difference does it make what I would rather have though? Both the English and Urdu manuals are equally informative or non-informative objectively (assuming they are equivalent translations), and neither of them are causally effective without a subjective interpreter who is causally effective. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Intelligence and consciousness
On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: How do you know that rocks fail the Turing Test? That question most certainly does not pass the Turing Test and for the same reason that the ancient ELIZA psychiatry program that you mentioned did not; it very soon became obvious how it worked, it took the input X and feed it back in a very limited number of ways, such as tell me more about X or have you always felt X or how do you know X. Such simple behavior is not a sign of intelligence and will not fool anybody for long. Another example of this sort is: Why don't you think I am locked up in a mental institution? If I've made a error about that I apologize. Have you administered such a test to rocks yourself or heard of anyone ever actually doing that? I understand what you mean, but it's sophistry. It's not sophistry to ask yourself why you believe what you believe. I agree that the idea that rocks are conscious is ridiculous but unlike you I have asked myself exactly why it's ridiculous and I have a answer; it's ridiculous because no rock I have ever observed, and I've seen quite a few, behaves as if it's intelligent. It's not deterministic if we are the ones doing the determining. Then you did it because you wanted to do it and that want is a perfectly legitimate reason. And you wanted to do it because that's the way your brain is wired, and there is a reason your brain is wired that way (heredity and environment) OR there is no reason your brain is wired that way. Of my own free will, I consciously decide 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 constructed. 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. If you define the universe as deterministic from the beginning, then [...] I most certainly do not! We know the universe is NOT deterministic but we also know that everything, absolutely positively everything, happens for a reason OR it does not happen for a reason. If you don't force the universe into a category like that, then you can see the wide spectrum of variation between absolute determinism and libertarian free will. I know what the ASCII string libertarian means, in fact I am one. I think that in general people should be allowed to do what they want to do more often than they are allowed today; so I know what will means but I don't know what the ASCII string free will means and neither do you. Evolution has nothing to say about consciousness. Don't be ridiculous. You are conscious (I'm pretty sure) and Evolution produced you, neither you or anybody else has suggested a way it could select for such a thing directly so consciousness MUST be a byproduct of something else that it CAN select for. Now maybe that something else is the big toe on your left foot and only people with a toe the size and shape as yours is conscious, but I think it's far more likely that the something else is intelligence. And yes I know, you will say the idea that your big toe is related to consciousness is ridiculous as indeed it is, but asking yourself why it is ridiculous is far from ridiculous. Why does size decrease magnificence? Is this question really necessary? Decrease Shakespeare's life work until all you have is the letter P, the letter P is not a work of genius and it is not magnificence. I confess that sometimes I get the feeling that I'm debating with ELIZA. Huh? because you think that you can see intelligence and not consciousness Is that point even debatable? that means that intelligence creates consciousness? Exactly, Does that mean that ultraviolet light creates color too? No. But you don't know that consciousness is the prerequisite for each and every incidence of intelligence, now do you? I've asked this before but you did not answer, we have never met so do you think I'm conscious? Evolution does not select for intelligence. It selects for survival and reproduction alone. Yes, and everything else being equal a intelligent animal will survive better and have more offspring than a stupid one, but Evolution does not give a damn if its conscious or not. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: Consciousness Easy, Zombies Hard
On 20 Jan 2012, at 02:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 19, 11:33 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 17 Jan 2012, at 21:20, Craig Weinberg wrote: My point is that a Turing machine is not even truly universal, let alone infinite. A universal Turing machine is, by definition a machine, and machine are by definition finite. The infinite tape plays a role of possible extending environment, and is not part of the universal machine, despite a widespread error (perhaps due to a pedagogical error of Turing). What machine makes the infinite tape? Eventually the numbers themselves. It is simpler than the universal unitary rotation of the physicist, but if you want an infinite tape, you need to postulate at least once infinite thing. At the meta-level, or in the epistemology, or in the ontology. That error comfort me in talking about universal numbers, and defining them by the relation phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y).u is the universal machine, x is a program and y is a data. phi refer to some other universal number made implicit (in my context it is explicited by elementary arithmetic). So a universal machine's universal number made implicit from data in a program = a program's universal number from data. I don't understand what it means. A number (code, body) transforms itself into a function relatively to a universal number. u is a computer. Phi_u is the universal function computed by u. If you a program x and a data y to the computer u, it will simulate x on the input y, and will output phi_x(y). u does that for all program x, and so is a universal simulator. It's an object oriented syntax that is limited to particular kinds of functions, none of which include biological awareness (which might make sense since biology is almost entirely fluid-solution based.) This worth than the notion of primitive matter. It is mystification of primitive matter. It's not an assertion of mysticism, it's just a plain old generalization of ordinary observations. Programs don't get excited or tired, they don't get sick and die, they don't catch a cold, etc. They share none of the differences which make biology different from physics. I know that you believe in non-comp. Do asteroids and planets exist out there even if no one perceives them? They don't need humans to perceive them to exist, but my view is that gravity is evidence that all physical objects perceive each other. Not in a biological sense of feeling, seeing, or knowing, but in the most primitive forms of collision detection, accumulation, attraction to mass, etc. I can agree with that. This is in the spirit of Everett, which treat observation as interaction. But there is no reason to associate primitive qualia and private sensation from that. It lacks the retrieving memory and self-reference. Doesn't an asteroid maintain it's identity through it's trajectory? I can agree with this. Can't the traces of it's collisions be traced forensically by examining it. Yes. Memory and self reference have to come from somewhere, why not there? Because self-reference needs a non trivial programming loop (whose existence is assured by computer science theorem like Kleene second recursion theorem). there are no evidence that such program is at play in an asteroid above your substitution level. Below your substitution level, the asteroids implement all computations, but this is relevant only to your observation, not to the asteroid. Don't forget, without human consciousness going as a comparison, we can't assume that the experience of raw matter is ephemeral like ours is. It may not be memory which is the invention of biology, but forgetting. Profound remark, and I agree. But subjective memory is an attribute of a subject, and there are no evidence the asteroid is a subject, at least related in the sense of having private experiences. It lacks too much ability in self-representation, made possible by complex cooperation between cells in living systems, and programs in computers. Machines have no feeling. What I say three times is true. What I say three times is true. What I say three times is true. (Lewis Carroll, The Hunting of the Snark). I really don't find it a controversial statement. http://thesaurus.com/browse/mechanical mechanical [muh-kan-i-kuhl] Part of Speech: adjective Definition: done by machine; machinelike Synonyms: automated, automatic, cold, cursory, *emotionless*, fixed, habitual, impersonal, instinctive, involuntary, laborsaving, *lifeless*, machine-driven, matter-of-fact, monotonous, perfunctory, programmed, routine, *spiritless*, standardized, stereotyped, unchanging, **unconscious, unfeeling, unthinking**, useful Antonyms: by hand, **conscious, feeling**, manual This is not evidence that machines are incapable of feeling but it indicates broad commonsense support for my interpretation. Of course
Re: Consciousness Easy, Zombies Hard
On 20.01.2012 02:34 Jason Resch said the following: On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 7:33 AM, Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Jan 19, 4:56 am, Bruno Marchalmarc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Yes. Craig argue that machine cannot thinks by pointing on its fridge. Are you afraid to burn coal in your stove out of concern that the material will sense being burned? Yes. Craig's theory is a bit frightening with respect of this. But of course that is not an argument. Craig might accuse you of wishful thinking. This is the same thing you accuse me of. I have never said that coal is more alive than silicon, I don't even say that dead organisms are more alive than silicon. I only say that to really act *exactly* like a living thing, you need to feel like a living thing, and to feel like a living thing you actually be a living organism, which seems to entail cells made of carbohydrates, amino acids, and water. Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen, and Nitrogen. Not Silicon or Germanium. Make a computer out of carbs, aminos, and water and see what happens to your ability to control it as a Turing machine. Some have argued that cars are alive. They evolve, consume, move, reproduce and so on. While they are dependent on humans for reproduction, we too depend on a a very specific environment to reproduce. Much like viruses. http://www.ted.com/talks/lee_cronin_making_matter_come_alive.html Jason A nice video. Thanks for a link. Yet, it is unclear to me what is evolvable matter. In the lecture, the lector has several times said cells compete and indeed he needs a competition to come to evolution. However, in my view a cells competes is close to a cell perceives and what this exactly means is for me a puzzle. Let us think about this along the next series: A rock – a ballcock in a toilet – an automatic door – a self-driving car - a cell. When competition comes into play? Does a self-driving car already competes? Does a ballcock competes? What does it actually mean a cells competes? Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Intelligence and consciousness
On 20.01.2012 18:21 John Clark said the following: On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 Craig Weinbergwhatsons...@gmail.com wrote: ... If you define the universe as deterministic from the beginning, then [...] I most certainly do not! We know the universe is NOT deterministic but we also know that everything, absolutely positively everything, happens for a reason OR it does not happen for a reason. What about Big Bang? It has also happened for a reason? Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Intelligence and consciousness
On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: What about Big Bang? What about Big Bang? It has also happened for a reason? I have no idea, but I do know it happened for a reason or it did not happen for a reason. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Intelligence and consciousness
On Jan 20, 12:21 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: How do you know that rocks fail the Turing Test? That question most certainly does not pass the Turing Test and for the same reason that the ancient ELIZA psychiatry program that you mentioned did not; it very soon became obvious how it worked, it took the input X and feed it back in a very limited number of ways, such as tell me more about X or have you always felt X or how do you know X. Such simple behavior is not a sign of intelligence and will not fool anybody for long. Another example of this sort is: Why don't you think I am locked up in a mental institution? Like you, I am provoking you to ask yourself why you believe what you believe. I'm not intentionally feeding you back your own language, I'm pointing out that we can derive assumptions of sentience from sources other than a formal test of logic. Just as we don't need to fill out a questionnaire to determine whether pain hurts, our definition of intelligence is exclusive of ordinary inanimate objects from the beginning. If I've made a error about that I apologize. Heh. My asylum is on the inside o_0 Have you administered such a test to rocks yourself or heard of anyone ever actually doing that? I understand what you mean, but it's sophistry. It's not sophistry to ask yourself why you believe what you believe. I agree that the idea that rocks are conscious is ridiculous but unlike you I have asked myself exactly why it's ridiculous and I have a answer; it's ridiculous because no rock I have ever observed, and I've seen quite a few, behaves as if it's intelligent. I don't think that you have really asked yourself, you've just made a logical supposition of why it must be the case. If you really ask yourself, you will find that the word intelligence never included the possibility of inanimate objects in the first place. It's much simpler than having observed the non-intelligence of rocks, it's understanding that there is no reason why anyone would need to observe rocks for intelligence because our sense of what inanimate objects are all about does not include intelligence. You don't have to observe that this sentence is written in English, your sense of what the characters are already does that for you. Your observation *that* this is in English or Latin does not give you any ability to read it, it is your capacity to make sense out of - to read the text itself. It's not deterministic if we are the ones doing the determining. Then you did it because you wanted to do it and that want is a perfectly legitimate reason. And you wanted to do it because that's the way your brain is wired, and there is a reason your brain is wired that way (heredity and environment) OR there is no reason your brain is wired that way. OR your your brain is wired to support *your* personal agenda and to reconcile it with the various other hereditary and environmental agendas going on. It's heredity, environment, and choice. They feed back on each other. Your choices can influence your environment and vice versa. Your choice of environment can activate or suppress genetic expression and heredity can influence your choices. Of my own free will, I consciously decide to go to a restaurant. Why? Because I want to. Why ? Because I want to eat. No. You don't decide to go to 'a restaurant', you decide to go to a particular restaurant that you prefer. You are not genetically predisposed to eat sushi over steak. Identical twins are not limited to the same repertoire of restaurants. 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. Of course there are many influences that go into your decision of which restaurant, including convenience, habit, and positive associations with the experience of eating there, but also financial consideration, time and travel constraints, breadth of exposure to culinary variety, implicit memory of family dining experiences, susceptibility to advertising, etc. Being hungry is only part of the mix of sense channels and it does not result inevitably in a restaurant visit. Just because you can't go forever without eating doesn't mean that you can't postpone your response to hunger. You still have some choice as to how to represent all of the agendas and motives that influence you. It can be overridden by compulsion and addiction of course, but that doesn't mean that all of our thoughts and actions are compulsory. Why? Because I don't like pain. Why? Because that's the way my brain is constructed. 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
Re: Intelligence and consciousness
On 20.01.2012 21:28 John Clark said the following: On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote: What about Big Bang? What about Big Bang? It has also happened for a reason? I have no idea, but I do know it happened for a reason or it did not happen for a reason. John K Clark Well, then you have an infinite progression, as then you have to find a reason for that reason and so on. I guess that this contradicts with the whole idea of the Big Bang. Or you do not believe in the Big Bang? Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: The Computing Spacetime
On 20 Jan 2012, at 07:17, Joseph Knight wrote: On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Stephen, Ronald, The paper is very interesting, on physics, but succumbs directly from the argument that any digital physics is bound to be unsuccessful on the mind-body problem by being still physicalist. The body problem is a problem of computer science, that is arithmetic, once we bet that observer are Turing emulable, as they should if the physics is digital. If the universe is a computation, then comp is true. But comp implies that the universe cannot be a computation (by UDA). Could you explain this a little bit? I didn't get that from my reading of the UDA I suppose you grasped well the sixth first steps. Consider yourself in front of a running UD, and the protocol is that it will never stop. Suppose you drop a pen. To predict what you will feel is determined by *all* computations in the UD's work going through your states. So to predict exactly what you will feel, you cannot use one computation, but an infinity of them. This is a priori non computable. Even if it is computable (like if ONE computation multiplies so much that it get a measure near one), we know that there are other computations, so, this can only be 1 - epsilon, and the exact decimal will still need an infinite computation, even if much shorter computation provides excellent approximations. But in principle, your exact future, even the physical first person sharable, is not given by one computation, but, below your substitution level, all of them. You can't compute that. And he phyical laws are just describing your normal histories, and the nomality can only come on the winning computations in the limit. Phycics might remain arithmetical, but certainly well above Sigma_1 (the computable). Tell me if this helps. Bruno So the universe is a computation implies that the universe is not a computation. So the universe is not a computation, whatever it can be. This defeat Finkelstein, Schmidhuber, Fredkin, and all attempts to conceive the physical universe as a computation, or output of a computation. This does not mean that the paper does not have interesting ideas on the unification of known forces in physics, and that quantum graphity might be a good idea, but if correct, such idea have to be recovered from the (more ambitious) attempt to get a unification of both qualia and quanta (consciousness and matter). The authors have still not integrate the mind-body problem. We are still much in advance on this list :) Bruno On 18 Jan 2012, at 14:53, ronaldheld wrote: I found this at arXiv:1201.3398v1 [gr-qc] 17 Jan 2012. Any comments? I have just started to read it., Ronald -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- Joseph Knight -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Intelligence and consciousness
On Jan 20, 3:28 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: What about Big Bang? It has also happened for a reason? I have no idea, but I do know it happened for a reason or it did not happen for a reason. Why can't reason have happened because of the Big Bang instead of the other way around? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Consciousness Easy, Zombies Hard
On Jan 20, 2:03 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Jan 2012, at 02:34, Craig Weinberg wrote: What machine makes the infinite tape? Eventually the numbers themselves. It is simpler than the universal unitary rotation of the physicist, but if you want an infinite tape, you need to postulate at least once infinite thing. At the meta-level, or in the epistemology, or in the ontology. Why do numbers make machines or tapes? Do the want to? Do they have a choice? That error comfort me in talking about universal numbers, and defining them by the relation phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y). u is the universal machine, x is a program and y is a data. phi refer to some other universal number made implicit (in my context it is explicited by elementary arithmetic). So a universal machine's universal number made implicit from data in a program = a program's universal number from data. I don't understand what it means. A number (code, body) transforms itself into a function relatively to a universal number. u is a computer. Phi_u is the universal function computed by u. If you a program x and a data y to the computer u, it will simulate x on the input y, and will output phi_x(y). u does that for all program x, and so is a universal simulator. It sounds like you are saying that what makes a machine universal is if it computes any given program the same way as every other universal machine. I don't have a problem with that. By that definition though, it still appears to me that consciousness, being both idiosyncratically unique to each individual and each moment and sharable through common sense and experience is the opposite of a universal and the opposite of a machine. It's an object oriented syntax that is limited to particular kinds of functions, none of which include biological awareness (which might make sense since biology is almost entirely fluid-solution based.) This worth than the notion of primitive matter. It is mystification of primitive matter. It's not an assertion of mysticism, it's just a plain old generalization of ordinary observations. Programs don't get excited or tired, they don't get sick and die, they don't catch a cold, etc. They share none of the differences which make biology different from physics. I know that you believe in non-comp. Is that supposed to invalidate the observations? Programs do get tired? They do catch colds? Do asteroids and planets exist out there even if no one perceives them? They don't need humans to perceive them to exist, but my view is that gravity is evidence that all physical objects perceive each other. Not in a biological sense of feeling, seeing, or knowing, but in the most primitive forms of collision detection, accumulation, attraction to mass, etc. I can agree with that. This is in the spirit of Everett, which treat observation as interaction. But there is no reason to associate primitive qualia and private sensation from that. It lacks the retrieving memory and self-reference. Doesn't an asteroid maintain it's identity through it's trajectory? I can agree with this. Can't the traces of it's collisions be traced forensically by examining it. Yes. Memory and self reference have to come from somewhere, why not there? Because self-reference needs a non trivial programming loop (whose existence is assured by computer science theorem like Kleene second recursion theorem). I know that you believe in comp. I propose another possibility. Imagine a universe where things can become what they actually are without running a program. Running a program supervenes not only on sequential recursion but on a whole universe of logical consequence, ideas of representation, memory, continuous temporal execution, etc. What if those things are aspects of particular experience and not universal primitives? What if the entire cosmos is a monad; a boundless and implicit firmament through which objects and experiences are diffracted? The primordial dynamic is not mechanism but stillness and stasis, like a spectrum to a prism. Anchored in that stable unity, matter is the more direct representation of this singularity (ie the many alchemical references to 'stone'). The subjective correlate would be silent and dark void as well as solar fusion and stellar profusion. This is realism. A prism is not a machine, it is an object which reveals the essential coherence of visual qualia. Machines are the second tier of sensemaking. A dedication of what already exists to a specific function which arises from the consequence of it's existence rather than as the cause of it. there are no evidence that such program is at play in an asteroid above your substitution level. Below your substitution level, the asteroids implement all computations, but this is relevant only to your observation, not to the asteroid. Assuming comp. I don't. Don't forget,
Re: Intelligence and consciousness
On 1/20/2012 12:47 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 20.01.2012 21:28 John Clark said the following: On Fri, Jan 20, 2012 Evgenii Rudnyiuse...@rudnyi.ru wrote: What about Big Bang? What about Big Bang? It has also happened for a reason? I have no idea, but I do know it happened for a reason or it did not happen for a reason. John K Clark Well, then you have an infinite progression, as then you have to find a reason for that reason and so on. I guess that this contradicts with the whole idea of the Big Bang. Or you do not believe in the Big Bang? The idea of the Big Bang is that the visible universe evolved to its present state from a state of extreme density and temperature. It is independent of whether there was a previous state, as in the models of Andre Vilenkin or those of Sean Carroll, or not as in the Hartle-Hawking model. Brent Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
