Computational Secondness 1 (formerly Computational Autopoetics 1)
Hi Russell Standish A self-organizing system is not what I proposed because in such a system it is the output (Thirdness) that organizes itself. And autopoetics is also apparently a misleading term. I was seduced by its academic associations. Instead, I see now that what I am proposing is Computational Secondness. This would be a Peirce-type epistemological machine, where Firstness = the raw input = perception, consciousness Secondness= that which creates order out of the Firstness (the living, intelligent part) Thirdness = the structured or ordered output, which may be alive or not be alive. Intelligence in my machine is pure Secondness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 17:27:50 Subject: Re: Computational Autopoetics 1 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Computational Autopoetics is a term I just coined to denote applying basic concepts of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free to do it more justice than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been exploited, but I have seen no indication of that. The idea is this: that we borrow a basic characteristic of autopoetics, namely that life is essentially not a thing but the act of creation. This means that we define life as the creative act of generating structure from some input data. By this pramatic definition, it is not necessarily the structure that is produced that is alive, but life consists of the act of creating structure from assumedly structureless input data. Life is not a creation, but instead is the act of creation. So any self-organised system should be called alive then? Sand dunes, huricanes, stars, galaxies. Hey, we've just found ET! Actually, I was just reading an interview with my old mate Charley Lineweaver in New Scientist, and he was saying the same thing :). If life is such a creative act rather than a creation, then it seems to fit what I have been postulating as the basic inseparable ingredients of life: intelligence and free will. I don't believe intelligence is required for creativity. Biological evolution is undeniably creative. ... Rest deleted, because I cannot follow you there. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 17:27:50 Subject: Re: Computational Autopoetics 1 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Computational Autopoetics is a term I just coined to denote applying basic concepts of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free to do it more justice than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been exploited, but I have seen no indication of that. The idea is this: that we borrow a basic characteristic of autopoetics, namely that life is essentially not a thing but the act of creation. This means that we define life as the creative act of generating structure from some input data. By this pramatic definition, it is not necessarily the structure that is produced that is alive, but life consists of the act of creating structure from assumedly structureless input data. Life is not a creation, but instead is the act of creation. So any self-organised system should be called alive then? Sand dunes, huricanes, stars, galaxies. Hey, we've just found ET! Actually, I was just reading an interview with my old mate Charley Lineweaver in New Scientist, and he was saying the same thing :). If life is such a creative act rather than a creation, then it seems to fit what I have been postulating as the basic inseparable ingredients of life: intelligence and free will. I don't believe intelligence is required for creativity. Biological evolution is undeniably creative. ... Rest deleted, because I cannot follow you there. --
CS 2-- Platonic intelliegence or choice in Computational Secondness
CS 2-- Platonic choice in Computational Secondness I have frequently claimed that intelligence is simply free will choice. This is used to avoid a physicalistic or mechanical form of choice. Peirce's categories are not mechanical transformations, but transformations such as the mind would perform epistemologically. Similarly, in Computational Secondness the choices are made as the mind would make them, not mechanically or chemically and involving no forces, but idealistically, through reason and ideas-- as platonic or idealistic transformations. There is a discussion of causation in from the standpoint of Idealism at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#Idealism_in_the_philosophy_of_science Leibniz's philosophy is based on a version of this. I have not worked this out in detail, but the choices in epistemology are cooperative, not mechanical, as A hits B into C, and performed not with forces but with reason. In other words, computationally. My understanding is that Firstness (I) = the input state Secondness (II) = intelligent choice (transformation) by the All, comparing I with III Thirdness (III) the structured output. Subject: Computational Secondness 1 (formerly Computational Autopoetics 1) Hi Russell Standish A self-organizing system is not what I proposed because in such a system it is the output (Thirdness) that organizes itself. And autopoetics is also apparently a misleading term. I was seduced by its academic associations. Instead, I see now that what I am proposing is Computational Secondness. This would be a Peirce-type epistemological machine, where Firstness = the raw input = perception, consciousness Secondness= that which creates order out of the Firstness (the living, intelligent part) Thirdness = the structured or ordered output, which may be alive or not be alive. Intelligence in my machine is pure Secondness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 17:27:50 Subject: Re: Computational Autopoetics 1 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Computational Autopoetics is a term I just coined to denote applying basic concepts of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free to do it more justice than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been exploited, but I have seen no indication of that. The idea is this: that we borrow a basic characteristic of autopoetics, namely that life is essentially not a thing but the act of creation. This means that we define life as the creative act of generating structure from some input data. By this pramatic definition, it is not necessarily the structure that is produced that is alive, but life consists of the act of creating structure from assumedly structureless input data. Life is not a creation, but instead is the act of creation. So any self-organised system should be called alive then? Sand dunes, huricanes, stars, galaxies. Hey, we've just found ET! Actually, I was just reading an interview with my old mate Charley Lineweaver in New Scientist, and he was saying the same thing :). If life is such a creative act rather than a creation, then it seems to fit what I have been postulating as the basic inseparable ingredients of life: intelligence and free will. I don't believe intelligence is required for creativity. Biological evolution is undeniably creative. .. Rest deleted, because I cannot follow you there. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 17:27:50 Subject: Re: Computational Autopoetics 1 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Computational Autopoetics is a term I just coined to denote applying basic concepts of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free to do it more justice than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been exploited, but I
Re: Re: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as ifratherthanis
Hi Craig Weinberg After looking at how computers make choices-- whether they are free or whatever-- I now see that my previous position that computers have no intelligence was not exactly right, because they do have intelligence, but it is different from ours. It is not free exactly but free to act as long as it obeys reason. I'm still trying to figure this out. The choice is made cooperatively, by three parties, platonically, in secondness by the All (reason) comparing thirdness with firstness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-13, 19:16:35 Subject: Re: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as ifratherthanis On Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:59:50 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: ROGER: But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have to be programmed to do so. which means that its intelligence would be that of the programmer. This is always the case. Computers cannot make free choices on arbitray problems. So they have no intelligence. But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers and various other aspects of the environment. So the intelligence of the human is really the intelligence of his programmers. This assumes some kind if tabula rasa era toy model of human development. As you can see from the differences between conjoined twins, who have the same nature and nurture, the same environment, that they are not the same people and do not necessarily have the same kinds of intelligences. Human beings are not programmed, they have to willingly participate in their own lives, they have to direct their attention to discover their own personal preferences. Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0lZGKq9qpKQJ. 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. -- 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.
scientific idealism
Hi Craig Weinberg I think that comp is a form of scientific idealism. I don't know exactly what that means, but there are clues at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#Idealism_in_the_philosophy_of_science Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-13, 20:13:17 Subject: Re: Continuous Game of Life On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:05:26 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Since we know that our consciousness is exquisitely sensitive to particular masses of specific chemicals, yet relatively tolerant of other kinds of chemical changes, it suggests that we should strongly suspect that COMP is a fantasy. That proves nothing. Any machine will be sensitive to small physical changes of one kind and tolerant of other changes. If you introduce a little bit of saline into the brain nothing will happen, if you introduce inside an integrated circuit it will destroy it. But if you introduce digital saline into a program, even if there is an effect that we can imagine is destruction, we can just restore from a backup. No actual destruction has taken place. The question of COMP deals not with physical computing devices versus biological organisms, but logic which is independent of all forms of matter, energy, space, and time. Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/ieYmJNFW_dUJ. 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. -- 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: Re: Re: Yes, Doctor!
Hi John Clark Contempt prior to investigation is not a scientific attitude. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-13, 13:40:06 Subject: Re: Re: Yes, Doctor! On Sat, Oct 13, 2012Roger Clough wrote: This is supposed to be a scientific discussion. Yes, so why are you talking about? NDEs and UFOs? If I was interested in that crap I wouldn't read a scientific journal or go to the Everything List, I'd just pick up a copy of the National Enquirer at my local supermarket, that way I'd also get the astrology column and I could read about the diet tips of the movie stars. ? 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. -- 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: Re: autopoesis
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I agree. I was wrong about autopoesis. It is a mind-boggling definition of life, maybe not even that. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 09:26:19 Subject: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Autopoesis is a useful definition for life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis Autopoiesis (from Greek a?to- (auto-), meaning self, and p???s?? (poiesis), meaning creation, production) literally means self-creation and expresses a fundamental dialectic among structure, mechanism and function. The term was introduced in 1972 by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela: An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1] [...] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection.[2] This seems to me more a description for machines/hallucinations that lack flexibility; such as how media, politics, and market are framed in public discourse. Like Luhmann said they tend to be operationally closed. The statement? above continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them stands counter to transformations which would indeed change (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1], specifically the concreteness of the unity and the discreetness of its domain is undermined by transformation. The original Greek definition, does ring a bell for creative processes and dreaming however, but in an operationally less bounded sense. m ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: Re: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as ifratherthanis
Hi Stathis Papaioannou I think heredity also plays a role. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-13, 18:59:19 Subject: Re: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as ifratherthanis On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: ROGER: But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have to be programmed to do so. which means that its intelligence would be that of the programmer. This is always the case. Computers cannot make free choices on arbitray problems. So they have no intelligence. But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers and various other aspects of the environment. So the intelligence of the human is really the intelligence of his programmers. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. -- 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: Re: autopoesis
Hi Roger, I'm interested in the thought process that led you to reject autopoeisis. I was intrigued by your recent post about life that defined it as the process of creation, rather than the object of it. Personally I think autopoeisis is an important concept, one of the best yet put forward towards the goal of defining life. I think there is a lot of potential in the idea in terms of applying it beyond the biological domain. As it only deals with relations among a network of processes, it does not assume the physical. At the very least is is indispensable as a framework for understanding autonomy. Best, Terren On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I agree. I was wrong about autopoesis. It is a mind-boggling definition of life, maybe not even that. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 09:26:19 Subject: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Autopoesis is a useful definition for life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis Autopoiesis (from Greek a?to- (auto-), meaning self, and p???s?? (poiesis), meaning creation, production) literally means self-creation and expresses a fundamental dialectic among structure, mechanism and function. The term was introduced in 1972 by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela: An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1] [...] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection.[2] This seems to me more a description for machines/hallucinations that lack flexibility; such as how media, politics, and market are framed in public discourse. Like Luhmann said they tend to be operationally closed. The statement? above continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them stands counter to transformations which would indeed change (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1], specifically the concreteness of the unity and the discreetness of its domain is undermined by transformation. The original Greek definition, does ring a bell for creative processes and dreaming however, but in an operationally less bounded sense. m ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- 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: Re: Re: autopoesis
Hi Terren Suydam You needn't agree with me. I respect that. It wasn't really a thought process, I just couldn't find anything to hold on to, something that works, and I am a pragmatist. Hence my use of the term mind-boggling. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Terren Suydam Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-15, 11:23:43 Subject: Re: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, I'm interested in the thought process that led you to reject autopoeisis. I was intrigued by your recent post about life that defined it as the process of creation, rather than the object of it. Personally I think autopoeisis is an important concept, one of the best yet put forward towards the goal of defining life. I think there is a lot of potential in the idea in terms of applying it beyond the biological domain. As it only deals with relations among a network of processes, it does not assume the physical. At the very least is is indispensable as a framework for understanding autonomy. Best, Terren On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I agree. I was wrong about autopoesis. It is a mind-boggling definition of life, maybe not even that. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 09:26:19 Subject: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Autopoesis is a useful definition for life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis Autopoiesis (from Greek a?to- (auto-), meaning self, and p???s?? (poiesis), meaning creation, production) literally means self-creation and expresses a fundamental dialectic among structure, mechanism and function. The term was introduced in 1972 by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela: An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1] [...] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection.[2] This seems to me more a description for machines/hallucinations that lack flexibility; such as how media, politics, and market are framed in public discourse. Like Luhmann said they tend to be operationally closed. The statement? above continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them stands counter to transformations which would indeed change (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1], specifically the concreteness of the unity and the discreetness of its domain is undermined by transformation. The original Greek definition, does ring a bell for creative processes and dreaming however, but in an operationally less bounded sense. m ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- 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. -- 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. -- 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. -- You received this message
Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if ratherthanis
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Just because it looks to us that the computer is following rules doesn't mean that it is. So now you don't like computers because they don't follow rules, before you didn't like computers because they did follow rules. We should not assume that suddenly a disembodied conscious agent appears somewhere just because we are impressed with the sophistication of a particular reflex action. We weren't talking about consciousness we were talking about intelligence, but I can understand why you'd want to change the subject because consciousness speculation is so easy and intelligence speculation is so hard. Reflexes can be as complicated as we want to make them, it doesn't turn them into voluntary actions. Just like everything else reflexes and voluntary actions happen for a reason or they do not happen for a reason. The computer still has no choices. Just like everything else a computer chooses X and not Y for a reason or a computer chooses X and not Y for no reason. It can't throw a match because it doesn't want to hurt someone's feelings. Not true. Winning the game might not even be the computer's goal, its goal might be to cheer up the human. And the computer can certainly include the emotional state of it's human opponent in its decision making process if it had a database about how to deduce human emotions from human behavior. True, the computer might make the wrong connection between behavior and emotion, but the humans might be wrong about that too; in fact we know for a fact that sometimes they are, sometimes people misread people. What makes intelligence is the ability to step out of the system, to transcend the rules entirely or understand them in a new context. Computers don't do that. Hey Craig, no matter how hard you try to spin it, no matter how bad a loser you are, the fact remains that you just got your ass handed to you by a computer in that game of Chess you had with it, and again at checkers, and in that equation solving game, and at Jeopardy. I don't care if you or the computer transcended the rules or didn't transcend the rules because it doesn't change the fact that the computer won and YOU LOST! I remember when I was in grade school playing softball at recess the losing team ALWAYS accused the winning team of cheating, it was tradition. Adults aren't supposed to do that sort of whining, but often they do. 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: Continuous Game of Life
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Since we know that our consciousness You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know about your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not then you don't even know that. is exquisitely sensitive to particular masses of specific chemicals, yet relatively tolerant of other kinds of chemical changes, And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not sensitive at all to other voltages that don't make the threshold. it suggests that we should strongly suspect that COMP is a fantasy. And so the computer strongly suspects that biological consciousness is a fantasy. 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: Stephen Hawking: Philosophy is Dead
Thanks for a detailed inquisition upon my post. It did not convince me. #1: you postulate to ACCEPT your condition to begin with. I don't. (once you agree). #2: Sorry for 'the inside': I meant 'of the change', - while you meant - of myself. #3: Arithmetical reality is a figment, just like the physical. I don't agree in adding and substracting as fundamental in nature's doings: it may be fundamental in HUMAN thinking. #4: Your arguments seem to be from the INSIDE of the box - just like those for other religions - no addition form the outside which comes only afterwards (once you agreed). #5: Agreeing - turning into 'disagreeing' once you change your belief in a theory? I think a theory is not the BASIS ; it is the upper mount sitting ON the basis. #6: I can always imagine other theories and that they may be correct - so you can ALWAYS disagree? #7: To progress in ONE theory is not the goal. To progress in the least controversial one may be. #8: Is Universal Machine COMPUTING, or COMPUTABLE? I thought the first one. John M On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 09 Aug 2012, at 23:48, John Mikes wrote: Let me try to shorten the maze and copy only whatever I want to reflect to. Sorry if it causes hardship - JM - On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Aug 2012, at 23:00, John Mikes wrote: On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Aug 2012, at 00:18, John Mikes wrote: how can a machine (Loebian?) be *curious? or unsatisfied?* Universal machine are confronted with many problems The Löbian machine knows that she is universal, and so can grasp the preceding paragraph, and get in that way even much more questions, and she can discover even more sharply her abyssal ignorance. Löbianity is the step where the universal machine knows that whatever she could know more, that will only make her more ignorant with respect to the unknown. Yet, the machine at that stage can also intuit more and more the reason and necessity of that ignorance, and with comp, study the approximate mathematical description of parts of it. JM: looks to me that Univ. Mach. is a fictional charater like Alice in Wunderland, equipped with whatever you need to make it work. Like (my) infinite complexity. The difference is that once you agree on addition and multiplication, you can prove the existence of universal machine, and you can bet that you can implement them in the physical reality, as our concrete physical personal computer, and cells, brain etc, illustrate. *JM: don't you see the weak point in your * *once you agree?* *I don't know what to agree in (agnosticism) so NO PROOF* *- What our 'cells, brain etc. illustrate' is (our?) figment. * OK. I use agree with a weaker sense than you. Agreeing with x, does not mean that we believe x is true, but that we conjecture it when lacking other explanation or axiom, or for any other motivation. Agreeing only means, in science, that we are willing to share some hypothesis, for some time. In science we only make clear some local momentary *belief*. We never pretend something being true (only pseudo-scientist, or pseudo-religious people do that). BM: I think that change is an experience from inside. It follows, I think, from the hypothesis that we might survive through a computer emulation (my working hypothesis). *JM: If I watch you to put on weight, I am not inside you.* OK, but I don't see the point. And then there is nothing a universal machine can't be more in love than ... another universal machine. And then the tendency to reproduce and multiply, in many directions, that they inherit from the numbers and which leads to even more complexity and life, I would say. The arithmetical reality is full of life, populated by many sorts of universal numbers, with many possible sort of relations, and this put a sort of mess in the antic Platonia, and leads to transfinite unboundable complexity indeed. Bruno *JM: I don't want to bore you by where did that obscure LIFE come from? What is it? and how do you know what a universal (machine? number?) thinks/feels/wants/kisses? * *because you are ONE? OK, but not the only kind that may be, - I suppose. Do you deny that there may be other kinds of universal anythings? what do THEY love most? * I can always imagine other theories. And that they may be correct. But we will not progress in one theory, if at each line of our reasoning we propose a different theory. Then, if we are machine, it can be explained why there is only one kind of universal computable thing. Of course there will be many universal non computable thing, like a universal machine + one oracle. This is well known. Arithmetical truth is itself, in some sense, a universal (and non computable) entity. ...But observable is an
Re: Continuous Game of Life
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: I think he [Chambers] goes wrong by assuming a priori that consciousness is functional, I've asked you this question dozens of times but you have never coherently answered it: If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so how and why did Evolution produce it? The fact that you have no answer to this means your ideas are fatally flawed. that personal consciousness is an assembly of sub-personal parts which can be isolated and reproduced based on exterior behavior. I don't assume that at all. And I've asked you another question that you also have no answer for: If we can deduce nothing about consciousness from behavior then why do you believe that your fellow human beings are conscious when they are behaving as if they are awake, and why do you believe that they are not conscious when they are sleeping or undergoing anesthesia or behaving as if they were dead and rotting in the ground? 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.
The surprise theory of everything-New Scientist cover article
The surprise theory of everything 15 October 2012 by Vlatko Vedral Magazine issue 2886. Subscribe and save For similar stories, visit the Quantum World Topic Guide Forget quantum physics, forget relativity. Inklings of an ultimate theory might emerge from an unexpected place AS REVOLUTIONS go, its origins were haphazard. It was, according to the ringleader Max Planck, an act of desperation. In 1900, he proposed the idea that energy comes in discrete chunks, or quanta, simply because the smooth delineations of classical physics could not explain the spectrum of energy re-radiated by an absorbing body. Yet rarely was a revolution so absolute. Within a decade or so, the cast-iron laws that had underpinned physics since Newton's day were swept away. Classical certainty ceded its stewardship of reality to the probabilistic rule of quantum mechanics, even as the parallel revolution of Einstein's relativity displaced our cherished, absolute notions of space and time. This was complete regime change. Except for one thing. A single relict of the old order remained, one that neither Planck nor Einstein nor any of their contemporaries had the will or means to remove. The British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington summed up the situation in 1915. If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation, he wrote. In this essay, I will explore the fascinating question of why, since their origins in the early 19th century, the laws of thermodynamics have proved so formidably robust. The journey traces the deep connections that were discovered in the 20th century between thermodynamics and information theory - connections that allow us to trace intimate links between thermodynamics and not only quantum theory but also, more speculatively, relativity. Ultimately, I will argue, those links show us how thermodynamics in the 21st century can guide us towards a theory that will supersede them both. In its origins, thermodynamics is a theory about heat: how it flows and what it can be made to do (see diagram). The French engineer Sadi Carnot formulated the second law in 1824 to characterise the mundane fact that the steam engines then powering the industrial revolution could never be perfectly efficient. Some of the heat you pumped into them always flowed into the cooler environment, rather than staying in the engine to do useful work. That is an expression of a more general rule: unless you do something to stop it, heat will naturally flow from hotter places to cooler places to even up any temperature differences it finds. The same principle explains why keeping the refrigerator in your kitchen cold means pumping energy into it; only that will keep warmth from the surroundings at bay. A few decades after Carnot, the German physicist Rudolph Clausius explained such phenomena in terms of a quantity characterising disorder that he called entropy. In this picture, the universe works on the back of processes that increase entropy - for example dissipating heat from places where it is concentrated, and therefore more ordered, to cooler areas, where it is not. That predicts a grim fate for the universe itself. Once all heat is maximally dissipated, no useful process can happen in it any more: it dies a heat death. A perplexing question is raised at the other end of cosmic history, too. If nature always favours states of high entropy, how and why did the universe start in a state that seems to have been of comparatively low entropy? At present we have no answer, and later I will mention an intriguing alternative view. Perhaps because of such undesirable consequences, the legitimacy of the second law was for a long time questioned. The charge was formulated with the most striking clarity by the British physicist James Clerk Maxwell in 1867. He was satisfied that inanimate matter presented no difficulty for the second law. In an isolated system, heat always passes from the hotter to the cooler, and a neat clump of dye molecules readily dissolves in water and disperses randomly, never the other way round. Disorder as embodied by entropy does always increase. Maxwell's problem was with life. Living things have intentionality: they deliberately do things to other things to make life easier for themselves. Conceivably, they might try to reduce the entropy of their surroundings and thereby violate the second law. Information is power Such a possibility is highly disturbing to physicists. Either something is a universal law or it is merely a cover for something deeper. Yet it was only in the late 1970s that Maxwell's entropy-fiddling demon was laid to rest. Its slayer was the US physicist Charles Bennett, who built on work by his colleague at IBM, Rolf Landauer, using the theory of information developed a few decades earlier by Claude Shannon. An intelligent being can certainly rearrange things to lower the entropy of its
Re: Continuous Game of Life
On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:14:55 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Since we know that our consciousness You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know about your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not then you don't even know that. If that were true, then you don't know diddly squat about what I know. You can't have it both ways. Either it is possible that we know things or it is not. You can't claim to be omniscient about my ignorance. is exquisitely sensitive to particular masses of specific chemicals, yet relatively tolerant of other kinds of chemical changes, And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not sensitive at all to other voltages that don't make the threshold. Let's see how computer fares under a giant junkyard magnet. it suggests that we should strongly suspect that COMP is a fantasy. And so the computer strongly suspects that biological consciousness is a fantasy. Maybe the doorknob thinks that hands aren't alive too? Maybe you can talk yourself into believing that sophistry, but I'm not buying it. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/LqwEz7BiPGQJ. 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: Continuous Game of Life
On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:38:30 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: I think he [Chambers] goes wrong by assuming a priori that consciousness is functional, I've asked you this question dozens of times but you have never coherently answered it: If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so how and why did Evolution produce it? Evolution did not produce consciousness. Consciousness produced evolution. Not human consciousness, but sense. I have said this repeatedly. The fact that you have no answer to this means your ideas are fatally flawed. I keep answering it. You keep putting your fingers in your ears. that personal consciousness is an assembly of sub-personal parts which can be isolated and reproduced based on exterior behavior. I don't assume that at all. And I've asked you another question that you also have no answer for: If we can deduce nothing about consciousness from behavior then why do you believe that your fellow human beings are conscious when they are behaving as if they are awake, and why do you believe that they are not conscious when they are sleeping or undergoing anesthesia or behaving as if they were dead and rotting in the ground? We can deduce a great deal about the consciousness of things which are similar to ourselves. The more distant and unrelated a phenomenon is to ourselves, the less certain we can be about what the experience associated with it might be. It's not a question of conscious vs unconscious, it is a question of the range of qualities of consciousness. Humans have a broad range. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/eyWhpUlcJFYJ. 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: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if ratherthanis
On Monday, October 15, 2012 11:49:52 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Just because it looks to us that the computer is following rules doesn't mean that it is. So now you don't like computers because they don't follow rules, before you didn't like computers because they did follow rules. Did I ever say that I thought computers followed rules? Computers are unconscious. They don't follow anything. The parts that computers are made of are ruled by physical states, but I would not say that they follow any rules either. We should not assume that suddenly a disembodied conscious agent appears somewhere just because we are impressed with the sophistication of a particular reflex action. We weren't talking about consciousness we were talking about intelligence, but I can understand why you'd want to change the subject because consciousness speculation is so easy and intelligence speculation is so hard. What exactly do you think that intelligence is? Reflexes can be as complicated as we want to make them, it doesn't turn them into voluntary actions. Just like everything else reflexes and voluntary actions happen for a reason or they do not happen for a reason. To exercise voluntary control is to create your own reason. There are sub-personal and super-personal reasons to create a reason, but they are not sufficient to account for the next step of the creation of a new reason on the personal level. The computer still has no choices. Just like everything else a computer chooses X and not Y for a reason or a computer chooses X and not Y for no reason. The computer doesn't choose anything. A function is executed, that is all. It can't throw a match because it doesn't want to hurt someone's feelings. Not true. Winning the game might not even be the computer's goal, its goal might be to cheer up the human. ? And the computer can certainly include the emotional state of it's human opponent in its decision making process if it had a database about how to deduce human emotions from human behavior. So now you are saying that we can deduce consciousness from behavior? True, the computer might make the wrong connection between behavior and emotion, but the humans might be wrong about that too; in fact we know for a fact that sometimes they are, sometimes people misread people. What makes intelligence is the ability to step out of the system, to transcend the rules entirely or understand them in a new context. Computers don't do that. Hey Craig, no matter how hard you try to spin it, no matter how bad a loser you are, the fact remains that you just got your ass handed to you by a computer in that game of Chess you had with it, and again at checkers, and in that equation solving game, and at Jeopardy. I don't care if you or the computer transcended the rules or didn't transcend the rules because it doesn't change the fact that the computer won and YOU LOST! Who cares? I fail to see why that makes any difference at all. A telephone pole is much taller than you - therefore it is a genius at being tall and YOU ARE A HUGE LOSER and VERY SHORT. I remember when I was in grade school playing softball at recess the losing team ALWAYS accused the winning team of cheating, it was tradition. Adults aren't supposed to do that sort of whining, but often they do. Adults are supposed to have outgrown seeing the world in terms of winning. Do you imagine that consciousness is a game? Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/imuH4lND9sUJ. 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: Continuous Game of Life
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know about your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not then you don't even know that. If that were true, then you don't know diddly squat about what I know. Not true, I know you don't have a proof of the Goldbach Conjecture. Well OK, I don't know that with absolute certainty, maybe you have a proof but are keeping it secret for some strange reason, but my knowledge is more than diddly squat because I very strongly suspect you have no such proof and I'm probably right. But I do know for certain that you don't have a valid proof that 2+2=5 or a way to directly detect consciousness in any mind other than your own. You can't have it both ways. Either it is possible that we know things or it is not. That is most certainly true, it is possible to know things, it's just not possible to know all things. You can't claim to be omniscient about my ignorance. It's almost as if you're claiming your ignorance is vast, well I admit I am not omniscient about your ignorance, no doubt you are ignorant about things that I don't know you are ignorant of. Let's see how computer fares under a giant junkyard magnet. Let's see how you fare in a junkyard car crusher. 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: Are we part of a vast, living and 3D holographic simulation
On 10/15/2012 7:33 AM, John Clark wrote: Nick Bostrum, a philosopher at Oxford University wrote an interesting paper on this subject: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html The following is from the abstract: This paper argues that /at least one/ of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. I'd guess they are in order of decreasing probability. Brent -- 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: Continuous Game of Life
On Monday, October 15, 2012 1:02:05 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know about your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not then you don't even know that. If that were true, then you don't know diddly squat about what I know. Not true, I know you don't have a proof of the Goldbach Conjecture. Well OK, I don't know that with absolute certainty, maybe you have a proof but are keeping it secret for some strange reason, but my knowledge is more than diddly squat because I very strongly suspect you have no such proof and I'm probably right. But I do know for certain that you don't have a valid proof that 2+2=5 or a way to directly detect consciousness in any mind other than your own. Then you are claiming to know about our consciousness instead of just your own. If you can do that, why can't I? The difference is that I don't put some artificial constraint on what you can or can't know. I let consciousness be what it actually is, rather than what it needs to be to fit into my inherited worldview. You can't have it both ways. Either it is possible that we know things or it is not. That is most certainly true, it is possible to know things, it's just not possible to know all things. You can't claim to be omniscient about my ignorance. It's almost as if you're claiming your ignorance is vast, well I admit I am not omniscient about your ignorance, no doubt you are ignorant about things that I don't know you are ignorant of. Whatever you can know about what I know, I can also know about what you know. Let's see how computer fares under a giant junkyard magnet. Let's see how you fare in a junkyard car crusher. translation - I concede, I have no argument. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/0xKeCfAsPYIJ. 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: Continuous Game of Life
On 10/15/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I think he [Chambers] goes wrong by assuming a priori that consciousness is functional, I've asked you this question dozens of times but you have never coherently answered it: If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see it, so how and why did Evolution produce it? The fact that you have no answer to this means your ideas are fatally flawed. I don't see this as a *fatal* flaw. Evolution, as you've noted, is not a paradigm of efficient design. Consciousness might just be a side-effect of using some brain language modules as filters for remembering more important events, while forgetting most of them. This would comport with Julian Jaynes idea of the origin of consciousness. Bretn -- 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: Continuous Game of Life
On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not sensitive at all to other voltages that don't make the threshold. Let's see how computer fares under a giant junkyard magnet. Probably better than you will fare plugged into a 120V outlet. :-) Brent -- 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: Continuous Game of Life
On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not sensitive at all to other voltages that don't make the threshold. Let's see how computer fares under a giant junkyard magnet. Probably better than you will fare plugged into a 120V outlet. :-) Let's see who fares better in a swimming pool. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/WPSFYAtH45cJ. 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: Continuous Game of Life
On 10/15/2012 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not sensitive at all to other voltages that don't make the threshold. Let's see how computer fares under a giant junkyard magnet. Probably better than you will fare plugged into a 120V outlet. :-) Let's see who fares better in a swimming pool. I'll accept that as an admission that you've run out of cogent arguments. Brent -- 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: Continuous Game of Life
On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:09:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/15/2012 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not sensitive at all to other voltages that don't make the threshold. Let's see how computer fares under a giant junkyard magnet. Probably better than you will fare plugged into a 120V outlet. :-) Let's see who fares better in a swimming pool. I'll accept that as an admission that you've run out of cogent arguments. No, I'm just making the point that human beings have a much more robust and complex relation to physical conditions. Computers reveal their rigidity and lack of sentience in their relatively uniform relation to temperature, chemicals, etc. Craig Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gqArPAaAkf0J. 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: Are we part of a vast, living and 3D holographic simulation
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/15/2012 7:33 AM, John Clark wrote: Nick Bostrum, a philosopher at Oxford University wrote an interesting paper on this subject: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html The following is from the abstract: This paper argues that *at least one* of the following propositions is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer simulation. I'd guess they are in order of decreasing probability. I think there is an analogous heaven argument. If there is a thing as heaven, where you live forever and can remember moments of your previous life with perfect clarity, then you almost certainly are already in heaven and right now is one of your numerous recollections rather than the original experience. Regardless of what the probabilities for the simulation hypothesis is, its possibility means these other extensions/continuations exist, and it they may become probable in certain situations (e.g., near certain death). Jason -- 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: Re: Re: autopoesis
Whilst I agree with Terren that autopoesis is an important part of what it is to be alive, it is not a very practical thing to measure. I wouldn't know if my artificial life simulations were autopoetic or not, except where the concept has been explicitly designed in (eg see Barry McMullin's aritificial chemistry work). Actually, its a refreshing change to have some (a-)life topics being discussed on this list. Cheers On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 11:45:47AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Terren Suydam You needn't agree with me. I respect that. It wasn't really a thought process, I just couldn't find anything to hold on to, something that works, and I am a pragmatist. Hence my use of the term mind-boggling. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Terren Suydam Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-15, 11:23:43 Subject: Re: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, I'm interested in the thought process that led you to reject autopoeisis. I was intrigued by your recent post about life that defined it as the process of creation, rather than the object of it. Personally I think autopoeisis is an important concept, one of the best yet put forward towards the goal of defining life. I think there is a lot of potential in the idea in terms of applying it beyond the biological domain. As it only deals with relations among a network of processes, it does not assume the physical. At the very least is is indispensable as a framework for understanding autonomy. Best, Terren On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 10:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy I agree. I was wrong about autopoesis. It is a mind-boggling definition of life, maybe not even that. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 09:26:19 Subject: Re: autopoesis Hi Roger, On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Autopoesis is a useful definition for life. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autopoiesis Autopoiesis (from Greek a?to- (auto-), meaning self, and p???s?? (poiesis), meaning creation, production) literally means self-creation and expresses a fundamental dialectic among structure, mechanism and function. The term was introduced in 1972 by Chilean biologists Humberto Maturana and Francisco Varela: An autopoietic machine is a machine organized (defined as a unity) as a network of processes of production (transformation and destruction) of components which: (i) through their interactions and transformations continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them; and (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1] [...] the space defined by an autopoietic system is self-contained and cannot be described by using dimensions that define another space. When we refer to our interactions with a concrete autopoietic system, however, we project this system on the space of our manipulations and make a description of this projection.[2] This seems to me more a description for machines/hallucinations that lack flexibility; such as how media, politics, and market are framed in public discourse. Like Luhmann said they tend to be operationally closed. The statement? above continuously regenerate and realize the network of processes (relations) that produced them stands counter to transformations which would indeed change (ii) constitute it (the machine) as a concrete unity in space in which they (the components) exist by specifying the topological domain of its realization as such a network.[1], specifically the concreteness of the unity and the discreetness of its domain is undermined by transformation. The original Greek definition, does ring a bell for creative processes and dreaming however, but in an operationally less bounded sense. m ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/14/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- 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. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Computational Secondness 1 (formerly Computational Autopoetics 1)
I'm more than happy for you to explore this, and report back when you can explain it in terms other than the Peircean trinity. I never found the Peircean classification to shed light or insight into anything. YMMV though, of course! I'm curious to know why you think autopoetic is misleading. My criticism of it was more along the lines that it has never shown itself to be useful in practice, not that the concept itself is confused. Cheers On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 09:22:12AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Russell Standish A self-organizing system is not what I proposed because in such a system it is the output (Thirdness) that organizes itself. And autopoetics is also apparently a misleading term. I was seduced by its academic associations. Instead, I see now that what I am proposing is Computational Secondness. This would be a Peirce-type epistemological machine, where Firstness = the raw input = perception, consciousness Secondness= that which creates order out of the Firstness (the living, intelligent part) Thirdness = the structured or ordered output, which may be alive or not be alive. Intelligence in my machine is pure Secondness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 17:27:50 Subject: Re: Computational Autopoetics 1 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Computational Autopoetics is a term I just coined to denote applying basic concepts of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free to do it more justice than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been exploited, but I have seen no indication of that. The idea is this: that we borrow a basic characteristic of autopoetics, namely that life is essentially not a thing but the act of creation. This means that we define life as the creative act of generating structure from some input data. By this pramatic definition, it is not necessarily the structure that is produced that is alive, but life consists of the act of creating structure from assumedly structureless input data. Life is not a creation, but instead is the act of creation. So any self-organised system should be called alive then? Sand dunes, huricanes, stars, galaxies. Hey, we've just found ET! Actually, I was just reading an interview with my old mate Charley Lineweaver in New Scientist, and he was saying the same thing :). If life is such a creative act rather than a creation, then it seems to fit what I have been postulating as the basic inseparable ingredients of life: intelligence and free will. I don't believe intelligence is required for creativity. Biological evolution is undeniably creative. ... Rest deleted, because I cannot follow you there. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- 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. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-14, 17:27:50 Subject: Re: Computational Autopoetics 1 On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Computational Autopoetics is a term I just coined to denote applying basic concepts of autopoetics to the field of comp. You mathematicians are free to do it more justice than I can. I cannot guarantee that the idea hasn't already been exploited, but I have seen no indication of that. The idea is this: that we borrow a basic characteristic of autopoetics, namely that life is essentially not a thing but the act of creation. This means that we define life as the creative act of generating structure from some input data. By this pramatic definition, it is not necessarily the structure that is produced that is alive, but life consists of the act of creating structure from assumedly structureless input data. Life is not a creation, but instead is the act of creation. So any self-organised
