Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
On 28 Mar 2013, at 18:58, meekerdb wrote: On 3/28/2013 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: And if we decide the Mars Rover is conscious, can any test prove us wrong? Yes. But it is longer to explain than for comp. Strong AI is refutable in a weaker sense than comp. The refutation here are indirect and based on the acceptance of the classical tgeory of knowledge, that is S4 (not necessarily Theaetetus). Is there an explanation in one of your papers? It is in the second part of sane04 (the machine's interview). I will explain this on FOAR, and I have sketched the explanation here from time to time. But I use the stronger comp, not strong AI. It is sketched in most of my english papers. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
On 28 Mar 2013, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote: On 3/28/2013 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Intelligence, in my opinion is rather easy too. It is a question of abstract thermodynamic, intelligence is when you get enough heat while young, something like that. It is close to courage, and it is what make competence possible. ?? Competence is the most difficult, as they are distributed on transfinite lattice of incomparable degrees. Some can ask for necessary long work, and can have negative feedback on intelligence. That sounds like a quibble. Intelligence is usually just thought of as the the ability to learn competence over a very general domain. That's why I think that intelligence is simple, almost a mental attitude, more akin to courage and humility, than anything else. Competence asks for gift or work, and can often lead to the feeling that we are more intelligent than others, which is the first basic symptom of stupidity. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
2013/3/29 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 28 Mar 2013, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote: On 3/28/2013 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Intelligence, in my opinion is rather easy too. It is a question of abstract thermodynamic, intelligence is when you get enough heat while young, something like that. It is close to courage, and it is what make competence possible. ?? Competence is the most difficult, as they are distributed on transfinite lattice of incomparable degrees. Some can ask for necessary long work, and can have negative feedback on intelligence. That sounds like a quibble. Intelligence is usually just thought of as the the ability to learn competence over a very general domain. That's why I think that intelligence is simple, almost a mental attitude, more akin to courage and humility, than anything else. Competence asks for gift or work, and can often lead to the feeling that we are more intelligent than others, which is the first basic symptom of stupidity. That sounds more and more 1984ish... War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength and now more intelligent is stupid. Quentin Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
On 28 Mar 2013, at 19:01, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 28 Mar 2013, at 16:08, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 26 Mar 2013, at 18:19, meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2013 4:21 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I can explain why if a machine can have experience and enough reflexivity, then the machine can already understand that she cannot justify rationally the presence of its experience. No machine, nor us, can ever see how that could be true. It *is* in the range of the non communicable. If some aliens decide that we are not conscious, we will not find any test to prove them wrong. And if we decide the Mars Rover is conscious, can any test prove us wrong? Yes. But it is longer to explain than for comp. Strong AI is refutable in a weaker sense than comp. The refutation here are indirect and based on the acceptance of the classical tgeory of knowledge, that is S4 (not necessarily Theaetetus). Or if Craig decides an atom is conscious, can any test prove him wrong? A person can be conscious. What would it mean that an atom is conscious? What is an atom? Davies suggests that the threshold for consciousness based on the Lloyd limit is the complexity of the human cell. In which physics? Holographic (Bekenstein bound) physics of 10^120 bits (the Lloyd limit) If he assumes comp, he must derive that physics first, to get a valid consequences. Davies does not assume comp. I thought I did in my paper. BTW I don't see the use of comp in your paper. I certainly discuss physics derived from comp in my paper (http://vixra.org/abs/1303.0194) while leaving out all the math details. ie. CY manifolds-math-mind/physics- matter Could you expand when you have time how I do not use comp? If you study sane04, you should easily be convinced by yourself. It is more like: Numbers = machine's mind-psychology/theology = physics What I do is to place resource limits on comp (10^120 bits for the universe and perhaps 10^1000 for the Metaverse). Is that perhaps what you refer to? Which means that you assume a notion of physical resource at the start, but this can't work. That is what I explain on this list since a long time. Or is it the conjecture that CY manifolds are the comp machine, That might be correct. In that case the CY should be derived from the intelligible matter hypostases. one for the universe and another for the metaverse? Thanks for reading the paper. Unfortunately I am not so knowledgeable in string theory. It is interesting, but assuming it might hide the distinction quanta/qualia. It is still physics, and that's the problem here, somehow. Best, Bruno Richard Now, I can accept that human cells have already some consciousness. Even bacteria. I dunno but I am open to the idea. Bacteria have already full Turing universality, and exploit it in complex genetic regulation control. Comp is open with a strict Moore law: the number of angels (or bit processing) that you can put at the top of a needle might be unbounded. Like Feynman said, there is room in the bottom. But we might have insuperable read and write problems. There might be computer in which we can upload our minds, but never came back. Bruno Which I think is John Clark's point: Consciousness is easy. Intelligence is hard. Consciousness might be more easy than intelligence, and certainly than matter. Consciousness is easy with UDA, when you get the difference between both G and G*, and between Bp, Bp p, Bp Dt, etc. (AUDA). Matter is more difficult. Today we have only the propositional observable. Intelligence, in my opinion is rather easy too. It is a question of abstract thermodynamic, intelligence is when you get enough heat while young, something like that. It is close to courage, and it is what make competence possible. Competence is the most difficult, as they are distributed on transfinite lattice of incomparable degrees. Some can ask for necessary long work, and can have negative feedback on intelligence. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
On 28 Mar 2013, at 20:15, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:41:22 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2013, at 17:53, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:13:09 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2013, at 13:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is if you assume photons bouncing back and forth. unlike a universal number. The fixed point of the two mirrors needs infinities of reflexions, but the machine self-reference needs only two diagonalizations. As I said, you must study those things and convince yourself. It sounds like a dodge to me. Fundamental truths seem like they are always conceptually simple. I can teach someone the principle of binary math in two minutes without them having to learn to build a computer from scratch. You don't have to learn to use Maxwell's equations to be convinced that electromagnetism involves wave properties. ? I can explain diagonalization in two minutes. If this can help. What would help more is to explain how diagonalization contributes to a computation being an experienced awareness rather than an unconscious outcome. Diagonalization shows that a machine can refer to itself in many sense, which are equivalent in god's eyes, but completely different in the machine's eyes, and some of those self-reference verify accepted axioms for knowledge, observable, etc. or a cartoon of a lion talking about itself into some kind of subjective experience for the cartoon, or cartoon-ness, or lion- ness, or talking-ness. Self-reference has no significance unless we assume that the self already has awareness. Hmm... I am open to that assumption, but usually I prefer to add the universality assumption too. If I say 'these words refer to themselves', or rig up a camera to point at a screen displaying the output of Tupper's Self- Referential formula, I still have nothing but a camera, a screen and some meaningless graphics. This assumption pulls qualia out of thin air, ignores the pathetic fallacy completely, and conflates all territories with maps. On the contrary, we get a rich and complex theory of qualia, even a testable one, as we get the quanta too, and so can compare with nature. Please, don't oversimplify something that you have not studied. How can there be a such thing as a theory of qualia? Qualia is precisely that which theory cannot access in any way. Yes, that is one the main axiom for qualia. Not only you have a theory, but you share it with me. How do you know it is a main axiom for qualia? It is not someything I can know. It was just something we are agreeing on, so that your point made my points, and refute the idea that you can use it as a tool for invalidating comp. It's like saying that the important thing about the Moon is that we can't swim there. The fact that I understand that the Moon is not in the ocean doesn't mean I can take credit for figuring out the Moon. To me it shows the confirmation bias of the approach. You are looking at reality from the start as if it were a kind of theory, I bet I can find a theory, indeed. But this does not mean that anything about machine can be made into a theory. so that this detail about qualia being non-theoretical has inflated significance. It is important indeed, but of course it is not use here as an argument for comp, only as showing that you can't use the absence of a theory as an argument against comp, because computer science explains that absence of theory, and the presence of useful meta-theory. If you were a shoemaker, the important thing about diamonds might be that they aren't shoes. Lol. I might find it convenient to invent an entirely new spectrum of colors to keep track of my file folders, but that doesn't mean that this new spectrum can just be 'developed' out of thin air. You must not ask a machine something that you can't do yourself, to compare it to yourself. But if you are saying that a machine can come up with a new format by virtue of its self reference, then that is what I assume Comp says is the origination of color. Qualia obeys laws. Qualia makes laws. Laws are nothing except the interaction of qualia on multiple nested scales. That's much too vague. Vague is ok if it is accurate too. Too vague leads to empty accuracy. It is accurate because we don't understand. Or it could be that we understand that the reality can only be accurately described in vague terms - the reality itself is vague, hence it has flexibility to create the derived experiences of precision. It is exactly the justification of letting people lacking rigor in philosophy, theology, etc. By making the non-understanding intrinsic, you can jutisfy all the possible wishful thinking, and introduce all the arbitrariness you want. Now, if reality is vague, I could likewise use that to doubt even more
Re: Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down.
On 28 Mar 2013, at 20:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:29:19 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Mar 2013, at 13:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: Strong AI may not really want to understand consciousness This is a rhetorical trick. You put intention in the mind of others. You can't do that. You can say something like,: I read some strong AI proponents and they dismiss consciousness, ..., and cite them, but you can't make affirmative statement on a large class of people. That's interesting because it seems like you make statements about large classes of UMs frequently. You say that they have no answers on the deep questions, or that they don't see themselves as machines. What if Strong AI is a program...a meme or spandrel? What if the soul is in the air, and that each time you cut your hair you become a zombie? You are coherent because you search a physical theory of consciousness, and that is indeed incompatible with comp. I don't seek a physical theory of consciousness exactly, I more seek a sensory-motive theory of physics. I will wait for serious progresses. But your argument against comp are invalid, beg the questions, and contains numerous trick like above. Be more careful please. That sounds like another 'magician's dismissal' to me. I beg no more question than comp does. You miss the key point. There is no begging when making clear what you assume. You can assume comp, as you can assume non-comp. But you do something quite different; you pretend that comp is false. So we ask for an argument, and there you beg the question, by using all the time that comp must be false in your argument, and that is begging the question. I have no tricks or invalid arguments that I know of, and I don't see that I am being careless at all. Which means probably that you should learn a bit of argumentation, to be frank. Or just assume your theory and be cautious on the theory of other people. Bruno Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: My estimation of Daniel Dennett continues to improve
On Friday, March 29, 2013 3:43:09 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/3/29 John Clark johnk...@gmail.com javascript: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 1:55 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: I exercise my free will when I make a choice without being coerced. If you alter your path to avoid walking face first into a brick wall has the wall coerced you to do so, or more precisely have the photons that entered your eye indicating the presents of the wall caused you to do so? If you wish to jump over a mountain has gravity coerced you to stay where you are? No, I think coercion is influence by another's will So if somebody else prevents me from doing what I want then I lack free will, No, you just lack the ability to exercise it. Right, or you could say that you have the ability as a private sense, but your ability is frustrated from being realized publicly. Maybe someone else really isn't preventing you from doing what you want, but you just feel insecure and worry that they could. In that case your sensitivity is frustrating your will in a different way, privately undermining it so that the motivation is diminished. Then there's paralysis or locked in syndrome, where your free will could be very strong privately but you have no access to realize the motive affect into motor effect. This, as opposed to being in a coma, where someone could even hold a burning candle under your skin and you will have no sensory affect that feels strong enough alarm you, even though a brain scan shows that you are detecting this painful stimulation. All kinds of variations are common. I brought up the idea of control in another thread - what is self control? What is letting yourself go? Why can Val Kilmer let himself go but everything that Val Kilmer's body and brain are made of cannot choose to relax into entropy voluntarily. Craig but if anything else prevents me I still have it; Same thing, except that even if you would decide freely to pass through a mountain like it was water you wouldn't be able to, on the contrary if you wanted freely to do something but someone coerced you not to, the only thing preventing you from doing it is the other person, not a physicial impossibility. You can't freely decide that a square is a circle. thus we are entirely dependent not on ourselves but on other people for free will I know you like showing how smart you are, but reading that just make you look dumb. Quentin to be meaningful, and on a desert island a man with free will would act and feel exactly like a man without free will. Says who? Some men eat coconuts, some try to catch fish, some jump out of a palm tree hoping to end it all. Free will is intentionally favoring some set of sensory preferences and using them to guide your motives. The intention to favor them is already a motive which is private, but as an animal with voluntary control over some of its muscles, i.e. a nervous system embedded in a muscular-skeletal system, so our relatively private intention is amplified into more public facing motives of our body. It's a two level, two stage realization because of the neural nesting, although from the perspective of the total organism (which means longer units of time relative to cellular and molecular time) all of the levels are united and simultaneous. Perceptual relativity hinges on the localization of frequency rates of experience. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
On Friday, March 29, 2013 6:21:59 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Mar 2013, at 20:15, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, March 28, 2013 10:41:22 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2013, at 17:53, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, March 26, 2013 10:13:09 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2013, at 13:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: It is if you assume photons bouncing back and forth. unlike a universal number. The fixed point of the two mirrors needs infinities of reflexions, but the machine self-reference needs only two diagonalizations. As I said, you must study those things and convince yourself. It sounds like a dodge to me. Fundamental truths seem like they are always conceptually simple. I can teach someone the principle of binary math in two minutes without them having to learn to build a computer from scratch. You don't have to learn to use Maxwell's equations to be convinced that electromagnetism involves wave properties. ? I can explain diagonalization in two minutes. If this can help. What would help more is to explain how diagonalization contributes to a computation being an experienced awareness rather than an unconscious outcome. Diagonalization shows that a machine can refer to itself in many sense, which are equivalent in god's eyes, but completely different in the machine's eyes, and some of those self-reference verify accepted axioms for knowledge, observable, etc. How do you know that it intentionally refers to itself rather than unconsciously reflecting another view of itself? If my car's wheel is out of alignment, the tire tracks might show that the car is pulling to the right and is being constantly corrected. That entire pattern is merely a symptom of the overall machine - the tracks themselves are not referring or inferring any intelligence back to the car, and the car does not use its tracks to realign itself. It is we who do the inferring and referring. or a cartoon of a lion talking about itself into some kind of subjective experience for the cartoon, or cartoon-ness, or lion- ness, or talking-ness. Self-reference has no significance unless we assume that the self already has awareness. Hmm... I am open to that assumption, but usually I prefer to add the universality assumption too. If I say 'these words refer to themselves', or rig up a camera to point at a screen displaying the output of Tupper's Self-Referential formula, I still have nothing but a camera, a screen and some meaningless graphics. This assumption pulls qualia out of thin air, ignores the pathetic fallacy completely, and conflates all territories with maps. On the contrary, we get a rich and complex theory of qualia, even a testable one, as we get the quanta too, and so can compare with nature. Please, don't oversimplify something that you have not studied. How can there be a such thing as a theory of qualia? Qualia is precisely that which theory cannot access in any way. Yes, that is one the main axiom for qualia. Not only you have a theory, but you share it with me. How do you know it is a main axiom for qualia? It is not someything I can know. It was just something we are agreeing on, so that your point made my points, and refute the idea that you can use it as a tool for invalidating comp. I agree that it is an important axiom, but only to discern qualia from quanta. It doesn't explain qualia itself or justify its existence (or insistence) in particular. It's like saying that the important thing about the Moon is that we can't swim there. The fact that I understand that the Moon is not in the ocean doesn't mean I can take credit for figuring out the Moon. To me it shows the confirmation bias of the approach. You are looking at reality from the start as if it were a kind of theory, I bet I can find a theory, indeed. But this does not mean that anything about machine can be made into a theory. Sure, I'm not denying that it is true that we can't swim to the Moon, or that this theory could not be part of a larger theory, but the theory still doesn't produce a theory justifying the Moon. so that this detail about qualia being non-theoretical has inflated significance. It is important indeed, but of course it is not use here as an argument for comp, only as showing that you can't use the absence of a theory as an argument against comp, because computer science explains that absence of theory, and the presence of useful meta-theory. The meta-theory may be useful, but does it call for qualia in particular, rather than just an X which serves the functions of non-communicability? If you were a shoemaker, the important thing about diamonds might be that they aren't shoes. Lol. I might find it convenient to
Re: Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down.
On Friday, March 29, 2013 6:28:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Mar 2013, at 20:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, March 28, 2013 1:29:19 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Mar 2013, at 13:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: Strong AI may not really want to understand consciousness This is a rhetorical trick. You put intention in the mind of others. You can't do that. You can say something like,: I read some strong AI proponents and they dismiss consciousness, ..., and cite them, but you can't make affirmative statement on a large class of people. That's interesting because it seems like you make statements about large classes of UMs frequently. You say that they have no answers on the deep questions, or that they don't see themselves as machines. What if Strong AI is a program...a meme or spandrel? What if the soul is in the air, and that each time you cut your hair you become a zombie? Then people would avoid cutting their hair I would imagine. Unless they were suffering. But seriously, what makes you think that Strong AI is not itself a rogue machine, implanted in minds to satisfy some purely quantitative inevitability? You are coherent because you search a physical theory of consciousness, and that is indeed incompatible with comp. I don't seek a physical theory of consciousness exactly, I more seek a sensory-motive theory of physics. I will wait for serious progresses. But your argument against comp are invalid, beg the questions, and contains numerous trick like above. Be more careful please. That sounds like another 'magician's dismissal' to me. I beg no more question than comp does. You miss the key point. There is no begging when making clear what you assume. You can assume comp, as you can assume non-comp. But you do something quite different; you pretend that comp is false. So we ask for an argument, and there you beg the question, by using all the time that comp must be false in your argument, and that is begging the question. Comp is false not because I want it to be or assume it is, but because I understand that experience through time can be the only fundamental principle, and bodies across space is derived. I have laid out these reasons for this many times - how easy it is to succumb to the pathetic fallacy, how unlikely it is for experience to have any possible utility for arithmetic, how absent any sign of personality is in machines, how we can easily demonstrate information processing without particular qualia arising, etc. These are just off the top of my head. Anywhere you look in reality you can find huge gaping holes in Comp's assumptions if you choose to look, but you aren't going to see them if you are only listening to the echo chamber of Comp itself. Indeed, if we limit ourselves to only mathematical logic to look at mathematical logic, we are not going to notice that the entire universe of presentation is missing. Comp has a presentation problem, and it is not going to go away. I have no tricks or invalid arguments that I know of, and I don't see that I am being careless at all. Which means probably that you should learn a bit of argumentation, to be frank. Or just assume your theory and be cautious on the theory of other people. I'm only interested in uncovering the truth about consciousness. What other people think and do is none of my business. Craig Bruno Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
On Friday, March 29, 2013 5:41:19 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Mar 2013, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote: On 3/28/2013 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Intelligence, in my opinion is rather easy too. It is a question of abstract thermodynamic, intelligence is when you get enough heat while young, something like that. It is close to courage, and it is what make competence possible. ?? Competence is the most difficult, as they are distributed on transfinite lattice of incomparable degrees. Some can ask for necessary long work, and can have negative feedback on intelligence. That sounds like a quibble. Intelligence is usually just thought of as the the ability to learn competence over a very general domain. Intelligence is an ability to learn and become competent, but more importantly to understand and discern. Intelligence is the cognitive-level modality of sensitivity. intelligence (n.) late 14c., faculty of understanding, from Old French intelligence (12c.), from Latin intelligentia, intellegentia understanding, power of discerning; art, skill, taste, from intelligentem (nominative intelligens) discerning, present participle of intelligere to understand, comprehend, from inter- between (see inter-) + legere choose, pick out, read That's why I think that intelligence is simple, almost a mental attitude, more akin to courage and humility, than anything else. Competence asks for gift or work, and can often lead to the feeling that we are more intelligent than others, which is the first basic symptom of stupidity. I don't know that feeling more intelligent than others means you are stupid, maybe just vain. If taken literally, how could anyone become more intelligent than anyone else if as soon as they are intelligent enough to realize it, that made them stupid? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
On 29 Mar 2013, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/3/29 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 28 Mar 2013, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote: On 3/28/2013 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Intelligence, in my opinion is rather easy too. It is a question of abstract thermodynamic, intelligence is when you get enough heat while young, something like that. It is close to courage, and it is what make competence possible. ?? Competence is the most difficult, as they are distributed on transfinite lattice of incomparable degrees. Some can ask for necessary long work, and can have negative feedback on intelligence. That sounds like a quibble. Intelligence is usually just thought of as the the ability to learn competence over a very general domain. That's why I think that intelligence is simple, almost a mental attitude, more akin to courage and humility, than anything else. Competence asks for gift or work, and can often lead to the feeling that we are more intelligent than others, which is the first basic symptom of stupidity. That sounds more and more 1984ish... War is peace. ? Freedom is slavery. ? Ignorance is strength I never said that. I say that awareness of our ignorance is strength. It participates to our intelligence. and now more intelligent is stupid. That's a contradiction and is not what I said. I said that competence, or expertise, can have, and often have, a negative feedback on intelligence. Someone quoted Feynman saying that Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. That's deeply Löbian, if I can say. I distinguish intelligence from competence. Competence can be evaluated, measured, relatively compared, trained, ... but intelligence is like free will and consciousness: it can be hoped for oneself and others, but it is not measurable, and it corresponds to a state of mind. It is more like an attitude, close to modesty but also courage, as it is what makes it possible for persons to recognize their own mistake. I think that intelligence is a protagorean virtue: like consistency it obeys [] x - ~x. Bruno Quentin Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:47:09 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Mar 2013, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/3/29 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be javascript: On 28 Mar 2013, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote: On 3/28/2013 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Intelligence, in my opinion is rather easy too. It is a question of abstract thermodynamic, intelligence is when you get enough heat while young, something like that. It is close to courage, and it is what make competence possible. ?? Competence is the most difficult, as they are distributed on transfinite lattice of incomparable degrees. Some can ask for necessary long work, and can have negative feedback on intelligence. That sounds like a quibble. Intelligence is usually just thought of as the the ability to learn competence over a very general domain. That's why I think that intelligence is simple, almost a mental attitude, more akin to courage and humility, than anything else. Competence asks for gift or work, and can often lead to the feeling that we are more intelligent than others, which is the first basic symptom of stupidity. That sounds more and more 1984ish... War is peace. ? Freedom is slavery. ? Ignorance is strength I never said that. I say that awareness of our ignorance is strength. It participates to our intelligence. That is true only if our intelligence is grounded in something which transcends its own ignorance...otherwise awareness of our own ignorance is just another layer of ignorance. This carries over to simulation - the ability to discern one thing as more real than another is meaningless unless our sense of realism is grounded in something beyond simulation. Patterns don't care about patterns, or to quote Deleuze - “Representation fails to capture the affirmed world of difference. Representation has only a single center, a unique and receding perspective, and in the consequence a false depth. It mediates everything, but mobilizes and moves nothing. Craig and now more intelligent is stupid. That's a contradiction and is not what I said. I said that competence, or expertise, can have, and often have, a negative feedback on intelligence. Someone quoted Feynman saying that *Science* is the belief in the ignorance of *experts*. That's deeply Löbian, if I can say. I distinguish intelligence from competence. Competence can be evaluated, measured, relatively compared, trained, ... but intelligence is like free will and consciousness: it can be hoped for oneself and others, but it is not measurable, and it corresponds to a state of mind. It is more like an attitude, close to modesty but also courage, as it is what makes it possible for persons to recognize their own mistake. I think that intelligence is a protagorean virtue: like consistency it obeys [] x - ~x. Bruno Quentin Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@**googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
2013/3/29 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 29 Mar 2013, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/3/29 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 28 Mar 2013, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote: On 3/28/2013 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Intelligence, in my opinion is rather easy too. It is a question of abstract thermodynamic, intelligence is when you get enough heat while young, something like that. It is close to courage, and it is what make competence possible. ?? Competence is the most difficult, as they are distributed on transfinite lattice of incomparable degrees. Some can ask for necessary long work, and can have negative feedback on intelligence. That sounds like a quibble. Intelligence is usually just thought of as the the ability to learn competence over a very general domain. That's why I think that intelligence is simple, almost a mental attitude, more akin to courage and humility, than anything else. Competence asks for gift or work, and can often lead to the feeling that we are more intelligent than others, which is the first basic symptom of stupidity. That sounds more and more 1984ish... War is peace. ? Freedom is slavery. ? Ignorance is strength I never said that. Never read George Orwell 1984 ? I just said that what you wrote sounds like that. I say that awareness of our ignorance is strength. It participates to our intelligence. and now more intelligent is stupid. That's a contradiction and is not what I said. Well I quote to the feeling that we are more intelligent than others, which is the first basic symptom of stupidity., that means if someone feels he is more intelligent than other he is in fact stupid, if that's not novlang nothing is... Quentin I said that competence, or expertise, can have, and often have, a negative feedback on intelligence. Someone quoted Feynman saying that *Science* is the belief in the ignorance of *experts*. That's deeply Löbian, if I can say. I distinguish intelligence from competence. Competence can be evaluated, measured, relatively compared, trained, ... but intelligence is like free will and consciousness: it can be hoped for oneself and others, but it is not measurable, and it corresponds to a state of mind. It is more like an attitude, close to modesty but also courage, as it is what makes it possible for persons to recognize their own mistake. I think that intelligence is a protagorean virtue: like consistency it obeys [] x - ~x. Bruno Quentin Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~**marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscribe@**googlegroups.comeverything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com . To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/**groups/opt_outhttps://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out . -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
On 29 Mar 2013, at 16:04, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/3/29 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 29 Mar 2013, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/3/29 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 28 Mar 2013, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote: On 3/28/2013 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Intelligence, in my opinion is rather easy too. It is a question of abstract thermodynamic, intelligence is when you get enough heat while young, something like that. It is close to courage, and it is what make competence possible. ?? Competence is the most difficult, as they are distributed on transfinite lattice of incomparable degrees. Some can ask for necessary long work, and can have negative feedback on intelligence. That sounds like a quibble. Intelligence is usually just thought of as the the ability to learn competence over a very general domain. That's why I think that intelligence is simple, almost a mental attitude, more akin to courage and humility, than anything else. Competence asks for gift or work, and can often lead to the feeling that we are more intelligent than others, which is the first basic symptom of stupidity. That sounds more and more 1984ish... War is peace. ? Freedom is slavery. ? Ignorance is strength I never said that. Never read George Orwell 1984 ? I just said that what you wrote sounds like that. I read it and love it. Orwell wrote in there that Freedom is the right to say 2+2=4. A deep assertion which reminded me my father telling me that the humans does not want to hear the truth, most usually. I say that awareness of our ignorance is strength. It participates to our intelligence. and now more intelligent is stupid. That's a contradiction and is not what I said. Well I quote to the feeling that we are more intelligent than others, which is the first basic symptom of stupidity., that means if someone feels he is more intelligent than other he is in fact stupid, if that's not novlang nothing is... No it means that to feel oneself intelligent, and worst, to assert it, is not intelligent. This does not make intelligence contradictory. It means that no machine can really judge its own, or other intelligence. We can know that we are conscious, and we can know and communicate that we are competent, but we cannot know that we are intelligent. Bruno Quentin I said that competence, or expertise, can have, and often have, a negative feedback on intelligence. Someone quoted Feynman saying that Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. That's deeply Löbian, if I can say. I distinguish intelligence from competence. Competence can be evaluated, measured, relatively compared, trained, ... but intelligence is like free will and consciousness: it can be hoped for oneself and others, but it is not measurable, and it corresponds to a state of mind. It is more like an attitude, close to modesty but also courage, as it is what makes it possible for persons to recognize their own mistake. I think that intelligence is a protagorean virtue: like consistency it obeys [] x - ~x. Bruno Quentin Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to
Re: Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down.
The game Arinaa was designed by Omar Syed to be difficult for computers to solve, he invented it to spur the improvement of artificial intelligence software and so offered a $10,000 prize to the inventor of a software program that could defeat any human player; however there were some restrictions on the offer. Syed believes that even now a supercomputer might be able to defeat any human so he insists that the program be run on inexpensive off the shelf components. Also the $10,000 prize offer is only good until 2020 because Syed figures that after that even a cheap home computer will have supercomputer ability and so writing a champion Arinaaprogram wouldn't be much of a challenge. None of this indicates a inherent weakness of computers to me, in fact just the opposite. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
A Collection of My Papers on Leibniz, Mind, Synchronicity, and so forth
For those wishing to break free from materialism, there is a collection of My Papers on Leibniz, Mind, Synchronicity, and so forth on http://team.academia.edu/RogerClough Dr. Roger Clough NIST (ret.) 3/29/2013 Coincidences are God's way of remaining anonymous. - Albert Einstein -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
On 29 Mar 2013, at 16:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:47:09 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Mar 2013, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/3/29 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be On 28 Mar 2013, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote: On 3/28/2013 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Intelligence, in my opinion is rather easy too. It is a question of abstract thermodynamic, intelligence is when you get enough heat while young, something like that. It is close to courage, and it is what make competence possible. ?? Competence is the most difficult, as they are distributed on transfinite lattice of incomparable degrees. Some can ask for necessary long work, and can have negative feedback on intelligence. That sounds like a quibble. Intelligence is usually just thought of as the the ability to learn competence over a very general domain. That's why I think that intelligence is simple, almost a mental attitude, more akin to courage and humility, than anything else. Competence asks for gift or work, and can often lead to the feeling that we are more intelligent than others, which is the first basic symptom of stupidity. That sounds more and more 1984ish... War is peace. ? Freedom is slavery. ? Ignorance is strength I never said that. I say that awareness of our ignorance is strength. It participates to our intelligence. That is true only if our intelligence is grounded in something which transcends its own ignorance... That's what the Löbian machines do, even just by looking inward. That's computer science. otherwise awareness of our own ignorance is just another layer of ignorance. This carries over to simulation - the ability to discern one thing as more real than another is meaningless unless our sense of realism is grounded in something beyond simulation. Right. The physical reality, with comp, is not simulable. Nor consciousness. But machines can makes possible for some person to manifest themselves with some other person, with some non negligible probability. Patterns don't care about patterns, or to quote Deleuze - “Representation fails to capture the affirmed world of difference. Representation has only a single center, a unique and receding perspective, and in the consequence a false depth. It mediates everything, but mobilizes and moves nothing. That makes sense in comp when describing the machine first person perspective. In some sense we might argue that the first person associated to a machine, is not really a machine, after all, nor anything describable in any 3p way. And that is what makes the first person immune for diagonalization, making it possible that [] x - x. [] is not a number. Provably so with []p = Bp p. Comp is not so much I am a machine that I (whatever I am) can survive locally with normal probability a digital brain/body transplant. What is saved in the process is an immaterial connection between some number, some environments or consistent computational- continuations, and an infinity of universal numbers. We are not machines, Craig, we borrow machines (arithmetical relations). We are living on the boundaries between the computable and the non computable. Bruno Craig and now more intelligent is stupid. That's a contradiction and is not what I said. I said that competence, or expertise, can have, and often have, a negative feedback on intelligence. Someone quoted Feynman saying that Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. That's deeply Löbian, if I can say. I distinguish intelligence from competence. Competence can be evaluated, measured, relatively compared, trained, ... but intelligence is like free will and consciousness: it can be hoped for oneself and others, but it is not measurable, and it corresponds to a state of mind. It is more like an attitude, close to modesty but also courage, as it is what makes it possible for persons to recognize their own mistake. I think that intelligence is a protagorean virtue: like consistency it obeys [] x - ~x. Bruno Quentin Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down.
On Friday, March 29, 2013 1:10:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: The game Arinaa was designed by Omar Syed to be difficult for computers to solve, he invented it to spur the improvement of artificial intelligence software and so offered a $10,000 prize to the inventor of a software program that could defeat any human player; however there were some restrictions on the offer. Syed believes that even now a supercomputer might be able to defeat any human so he insists that the program be run on inexpensive off the shelf components. Also the $10,000 prize offer is only good until 2020 because Syed figures that after that even a cheap home computer will have supercomputer ability and so writing a champion Arinaaprogram wouldn't be much of a challenge. None of this indicates a inherent weakness of computers to me, in fact just the opposite. It's not about computers being 'weak', just that computation is different from consciousness, or more to the point, it is the opposite of consciousness. Since any game is inherently pre-defined from quantitative axioms, it is not surprising to me that there would be no game which a computer could not outperform a human being. So what though? Computers can play by the rules, but people can cheat. People can make new rules or ignore them. The can pull the plug on computers, or drop junkyard magnets on top of them if they want to. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down.
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: computation is different from consciousness, or more to the point, it is the opposite of consciousness. Did you learn that from astrology or numerology or by examining the entrails of a chicken? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Any human who has played a bit of Arimaa can beat a computer hands down.
On Friday, March 29, 2013 8:46:34 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: computation is different from consciousness, or more to the point, it is the opposite of consciousness. Did you learn that from astrology or numerology or by examining the entrails of a chicken? No, I learned it from listening to intellectual cowards parrot the prejudices of their betters. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: 'Brain Waves' Challenge Area-Specific View of Brain Activity
On Friday, March 29, 2013 1:59:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Mar 2013, at 16:02, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, March 29, 2013 10:47:09 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Mar 2013, at 10:44, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2013/3/29 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be On 28 Mar 2013, at 18:59, meekerdb wrote: On 3/28/2013 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Intelligence, in my opinion is rather easy too. It is a question of abstract thermodynamic, intelligence is when you get enough heat while young, something like that. It is close to courage, and it is what make competence possible. ?? Competence is the most difficult, as they are distributed on transfinite lattice of incomparable degrees. Some can ask for necessary long work, and can have negative feedback on intelligence. That sounds like a quibble. Intelligence is usually just thought of as the the ability to learn competence over a very general domain. That's why I think that intelligence is simple, almost a mental attitude, more akin to courage and humility, than anything else. Competence asks for gift or work, and can often lead to the feeling that we are more intelligent than others, which is the first basic symptom of stupidity. That sounds more and more 1984ish... War is peace. ? Freedom is slavery. ? Ignorance is strength I never said that. I say that awareness of our ignorance is strength. It participates to our intelligence. That is true only if our intelligence is grounded in something which transcends its own ignorance... That's what the Löbian machines do, even just by looking inward. That's computer science. They question their ignorance or the question their certainty? otherwise awareness of our own ignorance is just another layer of ignorance. This carries over to simulation - the ability to discern one thing as more real than another is meaningless unless our sense of realism is grounded in something beyond simulation. Right. The physical reality, with comp, is not simulable. Nor consciousness. Then what are we saying yes to the doctor for? But machines can makes possible for some person to manifest themselves with some other person, with some non negligible probability. ? Patterns don't care about patterns, or to quote Deleuze - “Representation fails to capture the affirmed world of difference. Representation has only a single center, a unique and receding perspective, and in the consequence a false depth. It mediates everything, but mobilizes and moves nothing. That makes sense in comp when describing the machine first person perspective. How is it different in a third person perspective? How do computations discern between hypothesis and mobilization, or more importantly, how do they move anything? In some sense we might argue that the first person associated to a machine, is not really a machine, after all, nor anything describable in any 3p way. Which invites the question, in what way can comp claim to address consciousness? How does the 1p interface with the 3p? And that is what makes the first person immune for diagonalization, making it possible that [] x - x. [] is not a number. Provably so with []p = Bp p. What makes the first person feel? Comp is not so much I am a machine that I (whatever I am) can survive locally with normal probability a digital brain/body transplant. What is saved in the process is an immaterial connection between some number, some environments or consistent computational-continuations, and an infinity of universal numbers. If we don't know what I is, then we really can't pretend to know whether it is automatically transferred from location to location simply by an affinity of signs and functions. We are not machines, Craig, we borrow machines (arithmetical relations). We are living on the boundaries between the computable and the non computable. I can agree with that, but I go further to say that what machines are is actually the poorest possible reflection of our nature. Craig Bruno -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: My estimation of Daniel Dennett continues to improve
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 3:43 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: So if somebody else prevents me from doing what I want then I lack free will, No, you just lack the ability to exercise it. In other words you can't do what you want to do. So tell me again what the free will noise means. if you would decide freely to pass through a mountain like it was water you wouldn't be able to, on the contrary if you wanted freely to do something but someone coerced you not to, the only thing preventing you from doing it is the other person I don't see how it matters if its a person or a thing that interferes with me, either way my desires are thwarted. Coerced means a force was used to prevent me from doing what I want to do, and it doesn't matter if its another person or gravity I still can't do it. So tell me again what the free will noise means. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: My estimation of Daniel Dennett continues to improve
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Free will is intentionally favoring some set of sensory preferences So I have free will if I have intentionality and I have intentionality if I have free will. Did you learn that from astrology or numerology or by examining the entrails of a chicken? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
