Re: Improving The Hard Problem
On 20 Apr 2013, at 13:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2013 11:46:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Apr 2013, at 13:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Qualia are generated,
With comp the qualia are not generated. They are arithmetical truth
seen from some point of view. They cannot even been defined, but it
can be shown that they obeys to some laws (including the maws of not
being definable).
but only by other qualia. By pointing out that qualia can have no
possible function, I am clarifying that in a universe defined
purely by function, that qualia cannot be possible.
This does not follow. Qualia might be epiphenomenal.
Whether qualia is epiphenomenal or not is up to the participant.
That is their role from 3p perspective, to select which sensory
affect they prefer or allow to influence their motive output, and
thus contribute to public realism. Free will is the active modality
of qualia, turning superpositioned epiphenomena into
thermodynamically committed phenomena.
But this does not follow for another reason: qualia have a function/
role, although in the intensional (program related) sense, and not
really in the usual extensional one (set of input-outputs). So it is
preferable to refer to computation instead of function, which is an
ambiguous term in computer science.
What role could qualia have to a program that would not be
accomplished by other quantitative means? Any number, for example,
can be used as a precise and absolutely unique identifier - why
would a colorful name be used instead of that? If we don't add in
high level names for our own benefit, by default strings like SIDs
and GUIDs are easier to use.
What this means is that the universe cannot be defined purely by
function. It cannot be a motor, machine, computer, zombie, or set
of all arithmetic truths.
This is vague. I can agree (in comp) and disagree (in comp).
If 'universe' denotes the big whole, by definition it has no input
nor output, and so is equivalent with the unique function from
nothing to nothing. The empty function = { }.
That's only if you assume a number system based on a null default. I
am using the totality as a default. The universe is the set of all
inputs and outputs; every significant function (not every function,
since the universe is not a nonsense generator of accidental sense
like UD, but an elitist aesthetic agenda which chooses which
functions to formally pay attention to/materialize and which to
leave as theoretical potentials).
So universe is already an intensional term, and should be handled
with intensional tools, like computer science, modal logic, etc.
Then assuming comp, we can explain how the physical universe
appearance is given by internal modalities, some locally sharable
(quanta), and some not locally sharable (qualia).
These tools are only useful to organize aesthetic phenomena which
already exist (insist). No logic or Doxastic framework can ever
account for qualia. Who cares if we know all of the things that
satisfy some relation to the experience of seeing red? That doesn't
let the blind see red.
We cannot know all the things that satisfy some relation of seeing
red, oeven of comuting x+y. Machines prove this or similar in their
own qualia theory, with some reasonable axiomatic of qualia.
You systematically talk about the machine we thought we knew before
the advent of the universal machine. You just confirms systematically
that you have not taken the time to study computer science.
Develop your theory, and then compare it to comp, if you want, but
then study it.
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: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 20 Apr 2013, at 13:51, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 4:15:17 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2013, at 19:52, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:59:34 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2013, at 22:05, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 1:29:29 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: On 4/18/2013 8:15 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 meekerdb meek...@verizon.net wrote: It's been proposed that the susceptibility to mutation is itself a characteristic subject to natural selection. If a animal is undergoing stress (too hot, too cold, too thirsty, too hungry whatever) that means there is something about it that is not well adapted to its environment; I can imagine a gene that in times of stress would switch on and produce a chemical that increases the rate of random mutation in the genes of the offspring of that stressed animal. Most of the offspring would have mutated in the wrong direction and die but they would have probably died anyway because they would have been as poorly adapted as there parent was, but if the mutational effect was not too strong (even if it's in the right direction you can change things too far) it could increase the likelihood that at least one of its children would be better adapted than its parent. However I maintain that such a stress induced mutation producing gene has had no significant effect on the history of life, at least not in animals that reproduce sexually. That's a kind of Lamarckian adjustment of mutability. What I was referring to is simple Darwinian adjustment of mutability. There are error correcting mechanisms for DNA reproduction. Suppose they worked perfectly: then there would never be any genetic variation and when the evironment changed the species would go extinct. But if they had a slight error rate then there would develop a range of genetic diversity that might, under environmental change, result in survivors or even new species. So on strictly Darwinian theory the DNA error correction may be selected to be less than perfect. How does a deterministic universe invent something which is intentionally less than perfect? I'm not saying that it couldn't, or didn't, but why would there really even be any possibility of volatility built into physics in the first place? What, in a deterministic universe, constitutes an 'error'? A deterministic reality might be unable to make an error at the bottom level, but if it can emulate high level complex processes, like running some complex software, and such software can make an error with respect to the goal (like survive). Look at some youtube crash investigation showing why today some plane crash are due to computer errors. The error can have multiple origin, hardware or software. Likewise it is reasonable for a biologist to say that when a DNA polymerase introduces an unwanted supplementary nucleotide, it is making an error. In fact living cells contains a lot of error correction code to handle such cases, with 'error' taken in a sense similar to the one used in computer science. This illustrates that some errorless low-level can support higher level errors. Bruno It seems like you are bringing in empirical evidence of errors in the real world and using that to justify the expectation that at some point between low-level and high-level, this 'error' potential emerges as a condition of complexity. OK. What I am asking for though is precisely that this point be explained by theory. What is the theory of the emergence of the first error? It is when god put the tree of knowledge in the garden :) More seriously, it is when universal machine/number begins to refer and self-refer. That ability makes it possible to accelerate the computations relatively to each other, but entails the possiblity of error. Why does it entail that possibility, i.e. how does 'error' become a possibility? Not-provable False implies consistent (provable false). Second incompleteness theorem of Gödel. If a machine is consistent, then it is consistent for that machine that she is inconsistent. Notably (but need to be handle with care). The deep reason is already contained in Gödel's second incompleteness: if I am consistent then it is consistent that I am inconsistent (Dt - ~BDt). Simple but rich correct theories can be come inconsistent, or consistent but unsound. Not satisfying. A paradox does not automatically conjure a phenomena where determinism arbitrarily fails on a infrequent but quasi- inevitable basis. It is not a paradox. It is a theorem of arithmetic. Bruno Craig Bruno Craig Craig Brent Such a stress-mutation gene has never been found in a sexual animal and it's easy to see why. In sex all the genes are not inherited in one big package but are shuffled around with the genes of
Re: The Uses of a Screwdriver Cannot be Listed Algorithmically
On 20 Apr 2013, at 21:38, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: I am reading now Beyond Mechanism: Putting Life back into Biology. In Foreword: Evolution beyond Newton, Darwin, and Entailing Law, Stuart A. Kauffman writes: p. 9 Here is the first 'strange' step. Can you name all the uses of a screwdriver, alone, or with other objects or process? Well, screw in a a screw, open a paint can, wedge open a door, wedge closed a door, scrape putty off a window, stab an assailant, be an objet d'art, tied to a stick a fish spear, the spear rented to 'natives' for a 5 percent fish catch return becomes a new business, and so on. I think that we all are convinced that the following two statements are true: (1) the number of uses of a screw driver is indefinite; and (2) unlike the integers which can be ordered, there is no natural ordering of the uses of a screw driver. The uses are unordered. But these two claims entail that there is no 'Turing Effective Procedure' to list all the uses of a screwdriver alone or with other objects or processes. In short, there is no algorithm to list all the uses of a screwdriver. Any comment? That is not an argument for putting life back into biology, but for putting life out of computers or arithmetic, based on a lack of knowledge in computer science. Why? because most properties of programs and machines are beyond effective procedures. For example, given an arbitrary program, there is not effective procedure to know if it computes x+y or not. More similar to this screwdriver problem: there is no effective procedure to decide what an arbitrary universal machine will do with some code. Machines already know that most of machines' properties analysis are *far* beyond machines. Like us, they can make bet and theories, but none will be complete. 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: Hard Problem not hard at all?
On 20 Apr 2013, at 21:50, John Mikes wrote: Brent and Bruno: Brent I love you for your scientific self-consciousness: I'm not so sure of the problem, but I'm pretty sure of the solution. That's the 'end' of all. Religions like it. Here is what I see as the (hard problem) problem: people like to think in the mind-body restriction, as BODY only, considering the 'mind' (?) only as expressions of the body. How about thought, i.e. ideational thinking - considered practically within measuring only our already available physical data? where do we get the blue mAmp for logical and the red mAmp for emotional disagreement? the yellow mAmp for I forgot and the purple mAmp for yesterday I was hungry? Do we differentiate btw. blood-surges as to pertinent to musical, or visual enjoyment/(un)aesthetics) - or else? I would love to learn the solution for such distinctions using BODILY data. I have a solution: I dunno. No machines can know that. But this very fact is already know by Löbian machine. Bruno: ...it is just pseudo aristotelian religion. I like your putting a NAME to my agnostic outburst, not necessarily all-agreeable for me (I don't like to go 'back' to the oldies). Are you sure I was quoting you? I don't remember, and this astonishes me. Oh, I see the quote below. I was quoting J. Clark Aristotelian prejudice, not your agnosticism, which fit so remarkably with the universal machine position. Even 'religion' (what I used a minute ago) is suspect since we have no proper identification for 'them' in wide ranges (I may call my 'belief' in the infinite complexity as one). So is your comp-basis I suppose, or Brent's 'connectivity' (=mapping?) between (tissue?)brain functions and AS (oops: AI, what I miswrote is Artificial Stupidity). He may be right, of course, if we reduce our interest to the already knowable 'model' of the world. I don't go for such reductionism in thinking theoretically. Nor does machines when they look inward enough. Best, Bruno Regards John M On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark wrote: The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer is expected to do. I'm not so sure of the problem, but I'm pretty sure of the solution. When we can build AI robots that exhibit (including reporting) intelligent and emotional responses similar to humans and we can map between their AI and the function of brains in a way that allows us to reliably adjust the behavior of AI robots and/or humans - then we will have solved the problem, in the practical sense that no one will care about it in general terms but will discuss it in technical terms the way biologists discuss protein production and messenger RNA and DNA error correction but no longer discuss what is life?. No this will not work. We must test the physical consequence of the belief that the brain can be truncated at a finite level. If not, it is just pseudo aristotelian religion. 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. -- 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
Re: The Uses of a Screwdriver Cannot be Listed Algorithmically
On 20 Apr 2013, at 22:04, John Mikes wrote: Evgeniy: although I had my disagreements with Stuart dating back to prior to the 1997 Nashua Conference, I have to agree here. Turing was a great mind, his ideas leading to our (embryonic, binary) computing machine are great, it is not the ultimate word. I wonder how much Bruno's (Loeb's) universal machine is such? So far we have no better one, the Turingesque contraption is our miraculous panacea to lots of things, but it may have its limitations and disadvantages. Screwdriver, or not. With such thesis, universal machine are really the most universal non trivial entity. Then they are quite limited, and that is why a universal machine, when looking inward, will build an infinity of more and more complex (and diverging) possible theories to understand their behavior. And she has disadvantage, they can crash, and they can't know exactly what that mean, so some of the theories that they will build will have a religious nature. Bruno John M On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: I am reading now Beyond Mechanism: Putting Life back into Biology. In Foreword: Evolution beyond Newton, Darwin, and Entailing Law, Stuart A. Kauffman writes: p. 9 Here is the first 'strange' step. Can you name all the uses of a screwdriver, alone, or with other objects or process? Well, screw in a a screw, open a paint can, wedge open a door, wedge closed a door, scrape putty off a window, stab an assailant, be an objet d'art, tied to a stick a fish spear, the spear rented to 'natives' for a 5 percent fish catch return becomes a new business, and so on. I think that we all are convinced that the following two statements are true: (1) the number of uses of a screw driver is indefinite; and (2) unlike the integers which can be ordered, there is no natural ordering of the uses of a screw driver. The uses are unordered. But these two claims entail that there is no 'Turing Effective Procedure' to list all the uses of a screwdriver alone or with other objects or processes. In short, there is no algorithm to list all the uses of a screwdriver. Any comment? Evgenii -- 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. -- 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: Moslem peace march ?
On 20 Apr 2013, at 23:05, meekerdb wrote: On 4/20/2013 12:16 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then a majority of atheist believes in Matter. That has been introduced as an hypothesis by Aristotle (although he appears to be unclear in some passage), I don't know why you keep attributing the belief in matter to Aristotle? First, belief in matter was commonplace. I used Matter with a big M, and I was alluding to Aristotle metaphysical assumption that such a thing exists in the ontological primary sense. Second, Aristotle was more a dualist who believed in a teleological spirit animating things: Stones wanted to sink. Air wanted to rise. Third, Aristotle opposed the atomism of Democritus which is more nearly the metaphysical ancestor of modern science. I agree. Of course we know (or should know) that if we are Turing emulable, atomism does not make sense, like we have a confirmation with modern physics (which introduced waves and fields, and keep reducing atoms into more elementary things). 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: Hard Problem not hard at all?
On 20 Apr 2013, at 23:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:51:23 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote: On 4/20/2013 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark wrote: The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer is expected to do. I'm not so sure of the problem, but I'm pretty sure of the solution. When we can build AI robots that exhibit (including reporting) intelligent and emotional responses similar to humans and we can map between their AI and the function of brains in a way that allows us to reliably adjust the behavior of AI robots and/or humans - then we will have solved the problem, in the practical sense that no one will care about it in general terms but will discuss it in technical terms the way biologists discuss protein production and messenger RNA and DNA error correction but no longer discuss what is life?. No this will not work. We must test the physical consequence of the belief that the brain can be truncated at a finite level. Sure. Not only will we build AI robots, but we will also use the understanding we develop to modify brains and cure some mental illness; which will entail learning the proper level of substitution. But it will all be inferred from behavior and reports and mapping between AI and brain processes. In part, as the pioneer of technological (local) immortality will take the first approximation. My point is more concrete, comp leads to testable observation in the physical world, indeed the laws of physics. Comp gives the realm where the laws of physics evolves, a sort of many interfering 'matrix' which exists by the law of + and *. It is testable, with the classical theory of knowledge (not Theatetus, except that Theaetetus gives it when apply to sigma_1 complete provability). But what makes the laws of physics turn into physics? What makes physics follow the laws? Study UDA. It answers this precisely. Observability is lawful. I gave the axioms, and shows them being theorem of arithmetic, once comp is at the metatlevel. What would be the point of physics if this realm of Comp already exists? It exists, like the prime number exists. What is the point of prime numbers? Not sure such question makes sense, but who knows. Bruno Craig Brent Perfection is attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away --- A de Saint-Exupery I prefer this quote than the preceding one. Looks like arithmetic is perfect, in that sense. All universal numbers! 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-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. 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: Scientific journals
On 20 Apr 2013, at 15:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q-p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition? I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time. Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the drugs ;) You do a lot of mistake in logic. Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound. That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda. Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. Logic? Indeed. It can't. But logic can't realize the deeper issue of Turing universality either. If logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is, but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ..., like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience. The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is because experience is not based on something other than itself. This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable reason. I am saying that it is ontologically true. Then you stop doing science. (You might never have begun, to be sure). Not talking about our own experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense as a function of any other phenomenon. As an extensional function? You are right. But computer science is mainly the study of intensional function. Programs are not functions. I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is something fundamentally different about logic circuits then zygotes. Racists says similar thing about Indians, black, etc. But all races and racists will save their own children from a burning building before they save a computer...even a really nice supercomputer. If the computer maintain the children or some ancestors alive, they might do. I have gone over the reason why computers qua computers will never have experiences many times - it is because the map is not the territory. Computation is devoid of aesthetics and consciousness is 100% aesthetic. If you say so ... I do. I see. Bruno Craig Bruno It assumes awareness the wrong way around, as a product of
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 21 Apr 2013, at 02:14, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:32 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: You may be pedantic about the use of anthropomorphic language but I am not. It can become distracting / misleading in deeper discussions about the mechanisms of evolution. I don't care, anybody who was mislead or distracted and believed Evolution could think would be so stupid that I wouldn't care to talk to them. And as you once said who are you to say what's useful or not as a tool for other people to think and understand?. Ok, I think this is getting a bit hostile and I apologise for my part in that. John, I don't know you personally so I have nothing against you. We're just debating ideas. Maybe you're a great guy and maybe I'm a great guy. Maybe we're both idiots. Can we keep this discussion light-hearted? Emergence is just a way to connect different levels of abstraction. The trouble is people say X leads to Y but when asked how they just wave their hands around and say it's a emergent property, as if that explains something. People also use the word quantum to sell self-help snake oil. That does not invalidate QM. There is an entire field of physics, for example, dedicated to studying emergence in a rigorous fashion -- statistical physics. It explains how local molecule interactions give rise to pressure, for example. Or the emergence of ferromagnetism. There's also mean field theory. Cellular automata show how simple local rules can give rise to complexity, again in a well-defined fashion. Artificial Life provides us with a number of computational experiments that show life-like emergence. We know how social insects like ants perform integration through simple local interactions and pheromone trails. There's schelling's segregation model in social science. It's not all wishy-washy stuff. You are right, emergence is a fundamental notion. With comp we can also tackle it with rigor. Some people misused it, but then some people misused QM, as you say, or Gödel, or theology, etc. What do you mean useful? I'm not going to tell you. Any definition I give you will be made of words and I have no doubt you would then demand a definition of at least one of those words. It wasn't a trick question, but it's a valid one when someone invokes utilitarianism -- a concept that can be dangerous, as History as shown us a number of times. Science is undoubtfuly useful in providing plausible theories for how the universe works (provided we understand a priori assumptions). Also for generating new technologies. It even helps me in understanding what I am, but only too a degree. The missing part I don't understand bugs me. I love science too much not to question it. Because, like you, I loathe religion. Religion is what happens when people put theology out of science. That's the trouble with this list, everybody is a big picture man with their own fundamental holistic theories about consciousness Isn't big picture the theme of this list? I thought the theme of this list was everything, and details are something. Ok. Dilettantes are always big picture men because that is so much easier than being a details man; they are VERY big picture men, so big that their ideas have made absolutely no changes to science or to anything that anyone can measure. Can one be both? I promise you, I spend most of my time on details. Here I do as I please, until the list sends me a paycheck :) If consciousness is easier than intelligence Evolution certainly found that to be the case. There is not scientific evidence whatsoever of this. Nor do I think it can be. People like António Damásio (my compatriot) and other neuroscientists confuse a machine's ability to recognise itself with consciousness. This makes me wonder if some people are zombies. Careful! Some people don't think, but are still conscious, most plausibly. I guess you were joking. You are right about Damásio. he confuses [] p and (([] pp). Machines already know the nuances, when they look inward, and bet that they are correct. how come we have scientific progress in the latter and not in the former? Today's computers are smarter than they were 10 years ago so I think it is highly likely that they are more conscious too. Computers are what they have always been, Turing machines with finite tapes. The tapes are getting bigger, that's all. We have discovered more algorithms. If you have another method for measuring consciousness other than intelligent behavior I would very much like to hear about it. The lack of a method is not a reason to accept any alternative. Measuring conscious by intelligent behaviour is mysticism, just like believing that it rains because Zeus is peeing. how do you know that intelligence is a requirement of consciousness?
Re: Scientific journals
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today. You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than I do, in any case. :) PGC Lovely :) Musinum, by Kindermann, also relates number, number sequences, and music: http://reglos.de/musinum/ Like with the Mandelbrot set, simple number can generate rich music, if I dare to say that to a guitar cowbow :) The richest I guess. Baroc music is generated by numbers near power of 2. http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/aintbaroque.mid I find this one fascinating (generated with few ratio related numbers): http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/sphere4.mid Of course the instrument are bad, and the interpreter still a bit sleepy. What is amazing is that the full melody is generated by very few bits. Thanks for these examples. I collect them, not caring much if the author is scientific journal with huge impact factor or Donald Duck :) PGC 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. -- 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: Scientific journals
On 21 Apr 2013, at 16:41, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today. You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than I do, in any case. :) PGC Lovely :) Musinum, by Kindermann, also relates number, number sequences, and music: http://reglos.de/musinum/ Like with the Mandelbrot set, simple number can generate rich music, if I dare to say that to a guitar cowbow :) The richest I guess. Baroc music is generated by numbers near power of 2. http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/aintbaroque.mid I find this one fascinating (generated with few ratio related numbers): http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/sphere4.mid Of course the instrument are bad, and the interpreter still a bit sleepy. What is amazing is that the full melody is generated by very few bits. Thanks for these examples. I collect them, not caring much if the author is scientific journal with huge impact factor or Donald Duck :) PGC May be you should. It is easy to guess that there are less inadequate statements made by Donald Duck than in the huge impact factor journals. Huge impact factor means only that stupidities might spread more quickly. And peer reviewing might mean we have to wait for the peers' death to get the new news. Löbian, too much Löbian! Bruno 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. -- 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: Why do particles decay randomly?
Hi Telmo, Could it be that, as usual, each of us are using a different dictionary of definitions of words? What is science, what is religion.. Round and round we go! ISTM that consciousness per se is completely and totally 1p and anything that involves reporting on its content is not consciousness. On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:32 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: You may be pedantic about the use of anthropomorphic language but I am not. It can become distracting / misleading in deeper discussions about the mechanisms of evolution. I don't care, anybody who was mislead or distracted and believed Evolution could think would be so stupid that I wouldn't care to talk to them. And as you once said who are you to say what's useful or not as a tool for other people to think and understand?. Ok, I think this is getting a bit hostile and I apologise for my part in that. John, I don't know you personally so I have nothing against you. We're just debating ideas. Maybe you're a great guy and maybe I'm a great guy. Maybe we're both idiots. Can we keep this discussion light-hearted? Emergence is just a way to connect different levels of abstraction. The trouble is people say X leads to Y but when asked how they just wave their hands around and say it's a emergent property, as if that explains something. People also use the word quantum to sell self-help snake oil. That does not invalidate QM. There is an entire field of physics, for example, dedicated to studying emergence in a rigorous fashion -- statistical physics. It explains how local molecule interactions give rise to pressure, for example. Or the emergence of ferromagnetism. There's also mean field theory. Cellular automata show how simple local rules can give rise to complexity, again in a well-defined fashion. Artificial Life provides us with a number of computational experiments that show life-like emergence. We know how social insects like ants perform integration through simple local interactions and pheromone trails. There's schelling's segregation model in social science. It's not all wishy-washy stuff. What do you mean useful? I'm not going to tell you. Any definition I give you will be made of words and I have no doubt you would then demand a definition of at least one of those words. It wasn't a trick question, but it's a valid one when someone invokes utilitarianism -- a concept that can be dangerous, as History as shown us a number of times. Science is undoubtfuly useful in providing plausible theories for how the universe works (provided we understand a priori assumptions). Also for generating new technologies. It even helps me in understanding what I am, but only too a degree. The missing part I don't understand bugs me. I love science too much not to question it. Because, like you, I loathe religion. That's the trouble with this list, everybody is a big picture man with their own fundamental holistic theories about consciousness Isn't big picture the theme of this list? I thought the theme of this list was everything, and details are something. Ok. Dilettantes are always big picture men because that is so much easier than being a details man; they are VERY big picture men, so big that their ideas have made absolutely no changes to science or to anything that anyone can measure. Can one be both? I promise you, I spend most of my time on details. Here I do as I please, until the list sends me a paycheck :) If consciousness is easier than intelligence Evolution certainly found that to be the case. There is not scientific evidence whatsoever of this. Nor do I think it can be. People like António Damásio (my compatriot) and other neuroscientists confuse a machine's ability to recognise itself with consciousness. This makes me wonder if some people are zombies. how come we have scientific progress in the latter and not in the former? Today's computers are smarter than they were 10 years ago so I think it is highly likely that they are more conscious too. Computers are what they have always been, Turing machines with finite tapes. The tapes are getting bigger, that's all. We have discovered more algorithms. If you have another method for measuring consciousness other than intelligent behavior I would very much like to hear about it. The lack of a method is not a reason to accept any alternative. Measuring conscious by intelligent behaviour is mysticism, just like believing that it rains because Zeus is peeing. how do you know that intelligence is a requirement of consciousness? The only consciousness I have direct experience with is my own and I note that when I'm sleepy my consciousness is
Re: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 3:52 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Apr 2013, at 02:14, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:32 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: You may be pedantic about the use of anthropomorphic language but I am not. It can become distracting / misleading in deeper discussions about the mechanisms of evolution. I don't care, anybody who was mislead or distracted and believed Evolution could think would be so stupid that I wouldn't care to talk to them. And as you once said who are you to say what's useful or not as a tool for other people to think and understand?. Ok, I think this is getting a bit hostile and I apologise for my part in that. John, I don't know you personally so I have nothing against you. We're just debating ideas. Maybe you're a great guy and maybe I'm a great guy. Maybe we're both idiots. Can we keep this discussion light-hearted? Emergence is just a way to connect different levels of abstraction. The trouble is people say X leads to Y but when asked how they just wave their hands around and say it's a emergent property, as if that explains something. People also use the word quantum to sell self-help snake oil. That does not invalidate QM. There is an entire field of physics, for example, dedicated to studying emergence in a rigorous fashion -- statistical physics. It explains how local molecule interactions give rise to pressure, for example. Or the emergence of ferromagnetism. There's also mean field theory. Cellular automata show how simple local rules can give rise to complexity, again in a well-defined fashion. Artificial Life provides us with a number of computational experiments that show life-like emergence. We know how social insects like ants perform integration through simple local interactions and pheromone trails. There's schelling's segregation model in social science. It's not all wishy-washy stuff. You are right, emergence is a fundamental notion. With comp we can also tackle it with rigor. Some people misused it, but then some people misused QM, as you say, or Gödel, or theology, etc. What do you mean useful? I'm not going to tell you. Any definition I give you will be made of words and I have no doubt you would then demand a definition of at least one of those words. It wasn't a trick question, but it's a valid one when someone invokes utilitarianism -- a concept that can be dangerous, as History as shown us a number of times. Science is undoubtfuly useful in providing plausible theories for how the universe works (provided we understand a priori assumptions). Also for generating new technologies. It even helps me in understanding what I am, but only too a degree. The missing part I don't understand bugs me. I love science too much not to question it. Because, like you, I loathe religion. Religion is what happens when people put theology out of science. Bruno, I'm still not sure I understand your definition of theology. Is it the same as metaphysics? That's the trouble with this list, everybody is a big picture man with their own fundamental holistic theories about consciousness Isn't big picture the theme of this list? I thought the theme of this list was everything, and details are something. Ok. Dilettantes are always big picture men because that is so much easier than being a details man; they are VERY big picture men, so big that their ideas have made absolutely no changes to science or to anything that anyone can measure. Can one be both? I promise you, I spend most of my time on details. Here I do as I please, until the list sends me a paycheck :) If consciousness is easier than intelligence Evolution certainly found that to be the case. There is not scientific evidence whatsoever of this. Nor do I think it can be. People like António Damásio (my compatriot) and other neuroscientists confuse a machine's ability to recognise itself with consciousness. This makes me wonder if some people are zombies. Careful! Some people don't think, but are still conscious, most plausibly. I guess you were joking. I meant the opposite: people who think but are not conscious. I'm half-joking. You are right about Damásio. he confuses [] p and (([] pp). Not sure I understand. Doesn't []p = p ? Machines already know the nuances, when they look inward, and bet that they are correct. how come we have scientific progress in the latter and not in the former? Today's computers are smarter than they were 10 years ago so I think it is highly likely that they are more conscious too. Computers are what they have always been, Turing machines with finite tapes. The tapes are getting bigger, that's all. We have discovered more algorithms. If you have another method for measuring consciousness other
Re: Moslem peace march ?
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: do you believe there is a small china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus? There is not a scrap of evidence indicating the existence of such a teapot nor is there anything proving its nonexistence, so are you a teapot atheist or a teapot agnostic? Personally I'm willing to get off the fence and say I am a teapot atheist. As a scientist, I can only be a teapot agnostic. From current information I would say that the teapot theory is rather implausible. And I would say that if there is no evidence for or against a theory that does not mean there is a 50% chance it is correct, and if I judge that the theory was so implausible it does not warrant ware and tear on valuable brain cells with one more thought about it then I would call myself a teapot atheist without apology. Atheism which is a variant of Christianism And 2+2= 5 for extremely large values of 2. Atheism use the conception of God given by people using authoritative argument, and dismiss the talk of both the rationalist and the mystics. That's like the fundamentalist Well OK, if you radically redefine the word God and radically redefine the word atheism and radically redefine the word variant and radically redefine the word Christianity then atheism is a variant of Christianity, just as 2+2=5 if you redefine the symbol 2 to mean 2.5 ; but the trouble is I'm not bilingual and am only familiar with the English language. 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: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 6:25 PM, Stephen Paul King kingstephenp...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Telmo, Hi Stephen, great moustache! Could it be that, as usual, each of us are using a different dictionary of definitions of words? What is science, what is religion.. Round and round we go! I'm not sure I agree that's the problem in this case. My view: science and religion are two systems for acquiring beliefs. Religion is purely based on authority -- it's true because someone with a wizard suit says so. Pure science completely rejects arguments from authority and instead relies on observation, experimentations and then explanations that lead to testable predictions. Some things are in a gray area, of course. Is string theory science? Is taoism religion? The problem I see here is arguments from authority subtly creeping into science, thus allowing one to take it as a religion -- a common pitfall of atheists. For example, the subtle distinction between assuming there's an objective, shared, material world and taking this as a true and unquestionable fact. The former position has show itself to be highly effective for the purpose of creating new technologies, for example. The latter position, in my view, turns science into religion. ISTM that consciousness per se is completely and totally 1p and anything that involves reporting on its content is not consciousness. I completely agree. The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao The name that can be named is not the eternal name :) On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: On Thu, Apr 18, 2013 at 10:32 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote: You may be pedantic about the use of anthropomorphic language but I am not. It can become distracting / misleading in deeper discussions about the mechanisms of evolution. I don't care, anybody who was mislead or distracted and believed Evolution could think would be so stupid that I wouldn't care to talk to them. And as you once said who are you to say what's useful or not as a tool for other people to think and understand?. Ok, I think this is getting a bit hostile and I apologise for my part in that. John, I don't know you personally so I have nothing against you. We're just debating ideas. Maybe you're a great guy and maybe I'm a great guy. Maybe we're both idiots. Can we keep this discussion light-hearted? Emergence is just a way to connect different levels of abstraction. The trouble is people say X leads to Y but when asked how they just wave their hands around and say it's a emergent property, as if that explains something. People also use the word quantum to sell self-help snake oil. That does not invalidate QM. There is an entire field of physics, for example, dedicated to studying emergence in a rigorous fashion -- statistical physics. It explains how local molecule interactions give rise to pressure, for example. Or the emergence of ferromagnetism. There's also mean field theory. Cellular automata show how simple local rules can give rise to complexity, again in a well-defined fashion. Artificial Life provides us with a number of computational experiments that show life-like emergence. We know how social insects like ants perform integration through simple local interactions and pheromone trails. There's schelling's segregation model in social science. It's not all wishy-washy stuff. What do you mean useful? I'm not going to tell you. Any definition I give you will be made of words and I have no doubt you would then demand a definition of at least one of those words. It wasn't a trick question, but it's a valid one when someone invokes utilitarianism -- a concept that can be dangerous, as History as shown us a number of times. Science is undoubtfuly useful in providing plausible theories for how the universe works (provided we understand a priori assumptions). Also for generating new technologies. It even helps me in understanding what I am, but only too a degree. The missing part I don't understand bugs me. I love science too much not to question it. Because, like you, I loathe religion. That's the trouble with this list, everybody is a big picture man with their own fundamental holistic theories about consciousness Isn't big picture the theme of this list? I thought the theme of this list was everything, and details are something. Ok. Dilettantes are always big picture men because that is so much easier than being a details man; they are VERY big picture men, so big that their ideas have made absolutely no changes to science or to anything that anyone can measure. Can one be both? I promise you, I spend most of my time on details. Here I do as I please, until the list sends me a paycheck :) If consciousness is easier than
Re: Hard Problem not hard at all?
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:20:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 23:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:51:23 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 17:56, meekerdb wrote: On 4/20/2013 2:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 05:26, meekerdb wrote: On 4/19/2013 5:31 PM, John Clark wrote: The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer is expected to do. I'm not so sure of the problem, but I'm pretty sure of the solution. When we can build AI robots that exhibit (including reporting) intelligent and emotional responses similar to humans and we can map between their AI and the function of brains in a way that allows us to reliably adjust the behavior of AI robots and/or humans - then we will have solved the problem, in the practical sense that no one will care about it in general terms but will discuss it in technical terms the way biologists discuss protein production and messenger RNA and DNA error correction but no longer discuss what is life?. No this will not work. We must test the physical consequence of the belief that the brain can be truncated at a finite level. Sure. Not only will we build AI robots, but we will also use the understanding we develop to modify brains and cure some mental illness; which will entail learning the proper level of substitution. But it will all be inferred from behavior and reports and mapping between AI and brain processes. In part, as the pioneer of technological (local) immortality will take the first approximation. My point is more concrete, comp leads to testable observation in the physical world, indeed the laws of physics. Comp gives the realm where the laws of physics evolves, a sort of many interfering 'matrix' which exists by the law of + and *. It is testable, with the classical theory of knowledge (not Theatetus, except that Theaetetus gives it when apply to sigma_1 complete provability). But what makes the laws of physics turn into physics? What makes physics follow the laws? Study UDA. It answers this precisely. Observability is lawful. I gave the axioms, and shows them being theorem of arithmetic, once comp is at the metatlevel. It's not enough that observability is lawful, physical enactments must be identified as a pure consequence of law - which it can't be. All laws of geometry can be simulated computationally without generating any physical lines, points, or shapes. When does UDA generate geometry, why should it ever do that, and how does it accomplish it? What would be the point of physics if this realm of Comp already exists? It exists, like the prime number exists. What is the point of prime numbers? Not sure such question makes sense, but who knows. Prime numbers exist if you understand what you are looking for. So do words ending in the word 's'. There is a huge difference, however, in questioning the meaning of a pattern within a symbol system, and a completely arbitrary attachment of all of the physical phenomena in the universe to an abstract system. What Comp really does is push dualism halfway under the carpet, leaving only mind exposed and claiming body as an epiphenomena. The question remains though, if all bodies can be simulated, then why have bodies at all? If anything can be simulated as a number relation, then what's with all of the shapes and textures? Craig Bruno Craig Brent Perfection is attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away --- A de Saint-Exupery I prefer this quote than the preceding one. Looks like arithmetic is perfect, in that sense. All universal numbers! 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-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. 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
Re: Improving The Hard Problem
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:45:39 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 20 Apr 2013, at 13:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 19, 2013 11:46:25 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 19 Apr 2013, at 13:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Qualia are generated,
With comp the qualia are not generated. They are arithmetical truth seen
from some point of view. They cannot even been defined, but it can be shown
that they obeys to some laws (including the maws of not being definable).
but only by other qualia. By pointing out that qualia can have no
possible function, I am clarifying that in a universe defined purely by
function, that qualia cannot be possible.
This does not follow. Qualia might be epiphenomenal.
Whether qualia is epiphenomenal or not is up to the participant. That is
their role from 3p perspective, to select which sensory affect they prefer
or allow to influence their motive output, and thus contribute to public
realism. Free will is the active modality of qualia, turning
superpositioned epiphenomena into thermodynamically committed phenomena.
But this does not follow for another reason: qualia have a function/role,
although in the intensional (program related) sense, and not really in the
usual extensional one (set of input-outputs). So it is preferable to refer
to computation instead of function, which is an ambiguous term in computer
science.
What role could qualia have to a program that would not be accomplished by
other quantitative means? Any number, for example, can be used as a precise
and absolutely unique identifier - why would a colorful name be used
instead of that? If we don't add in high level names for our own benefit,
by default strings like SIDs and GUIDs are easier to use.
What this means is that the universe cannot be defined purely by
function. It cannot be a motor, machine, computer, zombie, or set of all
arithmetic truths.
This is vague. I can agree (in comp) and disagree (in comp).
If 'universe' denotes the big whole, by definition it has no input nor
output, and so is equivalent with the unique function from nothing to
nothing. The empty function = { }.
That's only if you assume a number system based on a null default. I am
using the totality as a default. The universe is the set of all inputs and
outputs; every significant function (not every function, since the universe
is not a nonsense generator of accidental sense like UD, but an elitist
aesthetic agenda which chooses which functions to formally pay attention
to/materialize and which to leave as theoretical potentials).
So universe is already an intensional term, and should be handled with
intensional tools, like computer science, modal logic, etc. Then assuming
comp, we can explain how the physical universe appearance is given by
internal modalities, some locally sharable (quanta), and some not locally
sharable (qualia).
These tools are only useful to organize aesthetic phenomena which already
exist (insist). No logic or Doxastic framework can ever account for qualia.
Who cares if we know all of the things that satisfy some relation to the
experience of seeing red? That doesn't let the blind see red.
We cannot know all the things that satisfy some relation of seeing red,
oeven of comuting x+y. Machines prove this or similar in their own qualia
theory, with some reasonable axiomatic of qualia.
You systematically talk about the machine we thought we knew before the
advent of the universal machine. You just confirms systematically that you
have not taken the time to study computer science.
Develop your theory, and then compare it to comp, if you want, but then
study it.
What are you saying in particular is different about my understanding of a
machine and the post Turing understanding regarding the presentation of
qualia though?
I think you're dodging the question and making it about the knowability of
qualia, when qualia has nothing to do with knowledge. Knowledge can tell
you about experiences that you have not have, but nothing can tell you
about experience itself. I don't care if there is a family of equations
that add up to be a picture of Plato with a thought balloon saying qualia
goes here - unless it turns numbers and functions into feelings and
flavors and electromotive power then it's still ultimately a way to talk
about reality rather than a way of replacing it.
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
Re: Scientific journals
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 9:35:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 15:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:46:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 19 Apr 2013, at 17:47, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:49:35 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Apr 2013, at 14:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, April 18, 2013 5:42:21 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 17 Apr 2013, at 19:09, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2013 Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.be wrote: snip It is more easy to see the irrationality of others than of oneself apparently. In general that is certainly true but Bruno let me ask you a very serious question, doesn't all this astrology stuff bother you and make you question how you allocate your time? Doesn't it bother you to learn that Craig Weinberg, somebody you have spent a lot of effort debating with, would say things like embody the Aquarian tension of revolutionary rationalism symbolized by the Saturnian-Uranian co-rulership of Aquarius. and With their interesting combination of Mars in Libra squaring their Moon and trining their Sun and The Neptune Saturn conjunction with the Jupiter stellium in Neptune-ruled Pisce and There is nothing in numerology or astrology which is even remotely as flaky as modern cosmology. and Astrology is extremely rational ? I've got to tell you that finding out that I have misjudged somebody that massively bothers the hell out of me. I agree with you. But Craig made a lot of invalid arguments well before this gross statements. As a teacher I am used to bet that crank can progress, so when an argument is invalid I make the correction. I know that some people cannot listen, but I keep hope, basically because that's my job. His argument for astrology was isomorphic to the main argument in favor of drug prohibition. Basically a confusion between p-q and q-p. Everyday that error appears in media, news, etc., be it on terrorism, drug, religion, etc. I can't help to denounce it wherever it appears. When have I ever argued in favor of drug prohibition? Are you confusing me with one of the Right-Wingers? When and where did I ever argue that you were in favor of drug prohibition? I as just saying that your argument in favor of astrology contained the same logical mistake than the one which figure in basically all papers in favor of prohibition. I did reply and explain at that time. Oh, sorry, I read it as 'my' argument for drug prohibition. Must be the drugs ;) You do a lot of mistake in logic. Maybe. But that may not be important. That might be an irrelevant distraction to an underlying thesis which is sound. That is an argument per authority. It is obvious that the validity of argument is what count, if not it is only propaganda. Logic may not be able to realize the deeper issues of subjectivity. Logic? Indeed. It can't. But logic can't realize the deeper issue of Turing universality either. Even if they have the same depth, that doesn't mean they are in the same ocean. Why doesn't logic apply to Turing universality though? What room does a Turing emulation have to change from numbers into flavors? If logic is subtly bent in the right places (and I don't know that mine is, but you accuse me of that), then it might illuminate important areas which logic cannot reach. The intuition pump is exactly what you do want. You take special sample and conclude from that. Today you said once again: No computer I have ever worked on has ever been conscious of anything that it is doing. ..., like if that was an argument against the idea that a computer *can* support some experience. The only reason that I argue that a computer cannot support experience, is because experience is not based on something other than itself. This might be phenomenologically true in other theories, by justifiable reason. I am saying that it is ontologically true. Then you stop doing science. (You might never have begun, to be sure). Only if I'm wrong. If I am right, and experience is ontology itself, then science must adapt, not me. Not talking about our own experience, but the principle of experience in general - it makes no sense as a function of any other phenomenon. As an extensional function? You are right. But computer science is mainly the study of intensional function. Programs are not functions. Whatever terms you like, but experience makes no sense as a consequence of a program or intensional arithmetic incantation. You are attaching experience to it because of your own first person experience, but there is no bridge to aesthetic experience from programs going the other way. I don't take the fact that computers are not conscious as an argument that they can't be, only that it should be a clue to us that there is
Re: Hard Problem not hard at all?
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:49:04 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 5:18 AM, Bruno Marchal mar...@ulb.ac.bejavascript: wrote: The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer is expected to do. The hard problem is only the antic mind-body problem, and what you say is that you don't understand it, as it happens frequently. UDA reduces that problem to the problem of justifying, by a FPI statistics, the belief in matter by some average relative universal machine/number. Yes exactly, that is a perfect example of what I just said: The reason nobody has a answer to the hard problem is that nobody has clearly explained exactly what the problem is or what the answer is expected to do. That may be the reason why I do have an answer to the hard problem, because I have explained exactly what it is and what the answer is expected to do. The Hard problem defined = Why is there any such thing as aesthetic experience, given a deterministic universe which has no plausible use for it? The Hard problem solved = By pivoting the presumed figure-ground relation between mechanism and aesthetics, a deterministic universe can be easily derived from aesthetic principles, including, but not limited to, the quantitative aesthetics of arithmetic. The value of the solution = A new synthesis of mind-body, physics and information in which sensory-motor participation is understood to be the primary element from which physics and information (aka matter-energy and space-time/geometry-arithmetic) are derived. Thus, we achieve a vast revolution in human understanding and can begin to progress in every aspect of human endeavor. 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: Scientific journals
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 21 Apr 2013, at 16:41, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 20 Apr 2013, at 19:15, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today. You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than I do, in any case. :) PGC Lovely :) Musinum, by Kindermann, also relates number, number sequences, and music: http://reglos.de/musinum/ Like with the Mandelbrot set, simple number can generate rich music, if I dare to say that to a guitar cowbow :) The richest I guess. Baroc music is generated by numbers near power of 2. http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/aintbaroque.mid I find this one fascinating (generated with few ratio related numbers): http://reglos.de/musinum/midi/sphere4.mid Of course the instrument are bad, and the interpreter still a bit sleepy. What is amazing is that the full melody is generated by very few bits. Thanks for these examples. I collect them, not caring much if the author is scientific journal with huge impact factor or Donald Duck :) PGC May be you should. It is easy to guess that there are less inadequate statements made by Donald Duck than in the huge impact factor journals. Huge impact factor means only that stupidities might spread more quickly. And peer reviewing might mean we have to wait for the peers' death to get the new news. Löbian, too much Löbian! Bruno Wait a moment! You did not, like proper logic police-machine* , ask what my blood-alcohol levels were at the time I made the statement! Not fair! It's Sunday Bruno, and I had too much wine this lunch + afternoon. Sometimes hard drugs like alcohol make some machines wishfully think that huge impact journal and Donald can be trusted to the same degree. And before you start statements of the sort I don't know if you'll convince the judge: it is a minor offense, no harm in local platonia, the judge will dismiss the case as trivial. PGC 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. -- 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. -- 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: Scientific journals
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 12:59 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Saturday, April 20, 2013 1:15:02 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 3:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote: I do. Then you're conception of aesthetics is more limited than that of old Greeks who saw number relations giving rise to beauty ( = computing results in aesthetic experience of music) that paved the way for all forms of harmony we are familiar with today. I don't dispute that the aesthetics of music are enhanced by musicians who understanding harmony mathematically. I don't know that understanding the mathematical aspects of music unambiguously improves a listener's experience - it might, but seems unimportant. It's not important and mostly even the contrary: because music theoreticians can identify structures and classify them, they think they know these structures and can distinguish in some absolute sense trivial music from its opposite. This arrogance is common. My idea bout music and math is that math is not inherently musical, and that music is more than mathematics. Mathematics is more than a reductionist view of it. Both math and music seem to me infinitely vast and happen to correspond on many levels, especially on number relations relating to other number relations. There is no question that math and music are intertwined, and that intertwining is significant to the point that it is worthy of a Platonic-divine esteem. My issue is that as intertwined as they are, there is no mathematical reason that math itself would generate any kind of aesthetic experience. Simply: joy of relating infinite relations. No reductions, no substitutions, no discount, offer available for infinite eternity only. Why would math enjoy itself as music? Same as above. If it is the complexity and sophistication of the data which is being 'enjoyed' as music, It isn't. why wouldn't that complexity be experienced just as effectively as it is, with no suddenly-appearing experiential abstraction layer on top of it? In music, theoretical knowledge does not lead to more effective experience; I just illustrated why somebody versed in music theory might even have her/his capacity to enjoy music limited by that very knowledge. You can verify this connection between number and beauty/aesthetic experience by consulting Donald Duck, keeper of absolute truth and sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?**v=YRD4gb0p5RMhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM Donald makes a some good plausible points about this. Better than I do, in any case. Haha, cool. I'm not disagreeing with you though about the mathematical nature of music, I am disagreeing that music can be generated purely by computation. I cannot play a single note without counting or computing relative numbers (be it formal music theory; or just intuitive numbers of frets, keys, notes, buttons, steps, counting rhythm etc.). Once music exists, you can certainly use mathematics to enhance music (not as easy as it seems like it should be though...a lot of digital music seems pretty anesthetic to me. If music never existed, however, I do not think that you could create it using math alone. Math has something to offer to music - the formality of math and its structural insights in music theory certainly increases musical knowledge, intuition, appreciation, musicianship, etc. Maybe even songwriting too, who knows? What does music have to offer math though? What does math need from music? It's a false problem imho because I don't take the domain specificity of Music vs. Maths as literally as you. Not because I want to win an argument with you, but because I couldn't play a single song, without thinking in notes and their relations (intervals we say), key's, harmonies, melodies, iteration of groove, tuning. Now, you strip all the formal stuff away and assume I'm autodidact: I'll still be forced to think, like I did as a beginner, first note, 4th string, 5th fret, 2nd finger to second note/chord with 2nd finger etc. which will train my ear in time to distinguish finer and finer relations and possibilities, even without formal training, so I might not be able to name say a chord or analyze its function, but I will be able to communicate to other musicians a complex formal arrangement by giving the sequence with first this sound with this rhythm then this like this, then 2 x this, then repeat 1st part, then vary part 2 but with this transition; which is still full of numbers fundamentally, even without the jargon. That's why I can't distinguish numeric relations from music as easily. No culture could make music without agreeing on some rhythm counting- or pitch system based on the fundamental tone and all tones around it. With most music, there's A LOT of counting going on for the listeners' aesthetic experience. PGC Craig :) PGC -- You received this message because you
Re: Moslem peace march ?
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: do you believe there is a small china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus? There is not a scrap of evidence indicating the existence of such a teapot nor is there anything proving its nonexistence, so are you a teapot atheist or a teapot agnostic? Personally I'm willing to get off the fence and say I am a teapot atheist. As a scientist, I can only be a teapot agnostic. From current information I would say that the teapot theory is rather implausible. And I would say that if there is no evidence for or against a theory that does not mean there is a 50% chance it is correct, and if I judge that the theory was so implausible it does not warrant ware and tear on valuable brain cells with one more thought about it then I would call myself a teapot atheist without apology. Atheism which is a variant of Christianism And 2+2= 5 for extremely large values of 2. Atheism use the conception of God given by people using authoritative argument, and dismiss the talk of both the rationalist and the mystics. That's like the fundamentalist Well OK, if you radically redefine the word God When atheists say they don't believe in God, to which religion(s)'s God do they refer? Jason -- 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: Why do particles decay randomly?
On 4/21/2013 6:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Plato and Aristotle discovered and shaped the modern science. No, it was Democritus. 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.
Re: Moslem peace march ?
On 4/21/2013 1:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: do you believe there is a small china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus? There is not a scrap of evidence indicating the existence of such a teapot nor is there anything proving its nonexistence, so are you a teapot atheist or a teapot agnostic? Personally I'm willing to get off the fence and say I am a teapot atheist. As a scientist, I can only be a teapot agnostic. From current information I would say that the teapot theory is rather implausible. And I would say that if there is no evidence for or against a theory that does not mean there is a 50% chance it is correct, and if I judge that the theory was so implausible it does not warrant ware and tear on valuable brain cells with one more thought about it then I would call myself a teapot atheist without apology. Atheism which is a variant of Christianism And 2+2= 5 for extremely large values of 2. Atheism use the conception of God given by people using authoritative argument, and dismiss the talk of both the rationalist and the mystics. That's like the fundamentalist Well OK, if you radically redefine the word God When atheists say they don't believe in God, to which religion(s)'s God do they refer? A theist god: One who is a person, wants to be worshipped, is benevolent and powerful, sometimes answers prayers, defines morals and judges people after dearth. 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.
Re: Moslem peace march ?
Original Buddhism and Hindu Sankhya are atheistic religions. On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:44 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: do you believe there is a small china teapot in orbit around the planet Uranus? There is not a scrap of evidence indicating the existence of such a teapot nor is there anything proving its nonexistence, so are you a teapot atheist or a teapot agnostic? Personally I'm willing to get off the fence and say I am a teapot atheist. As a scientist, I can only be a teapot agnostic. From current information I would say that the teapot theory is rather implausible. And I would say that if there is no evidence for or against a theory that does not mean there is a 50% chance it is correct, and if I judge that the theory was so implausible it does not warrant ware and tear on valuable brain cells with one more thought about it then I would call myself a teapot atheist without apology. Atheism which is a variant of Christianism And 2+2= 5 for extremely large values of 2. Atheism use the conception of God given by people using authoritative argument, and dismiss the talk of both the rationalist and the mystics. That's like the fundamentalist Well OK, if you radically redefine the word God When atheists say they don't believe in God, to which religion(s)'s God do they refer? Jason -- 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. -- 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.
1959 - Donald Duck - Donald in Mathmagic Land
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRD4gb0p5RM -- 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: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Sat, Apr 20, 2013 at 8:14 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote: There is an entire field of physics, for example, dedicated to studying emergence in a rigorous fashion True, and the key word is rigorous and that means knowing the details. Cellular automata show how simple local rules can give rise to complexity, Yes, but saying something worked by cellular automation wouldn't be of any help it you didn't know what those simple local rules were, and to figure them out that you need reductionism. In talking about art there are 2 buzz words that, whatever their original meaning, now just mean it sucks; the words are derivative and bourgeois. Something similar has happened in the world of science to the word reductive, it now also means it sucks. Not long ago I read a article about the Blue Brain Project, it said it was a example of science getting away from reductionism, and yet under the old meaning of the word nothing could be more reductive than trying to simulate a brain down to the level of neurons. when someone invokes utilitarianism I don't see any difference between invoking utilitarianism and just doing something that works, and I'm pretty sure that's better than doing something that doesn't work. a concept that can be dangerous, as History as shown us a number of times. I can't think of a single case where science was harmed by doing something that worked. The missing part I don't understand bugs me. It bugs me too, I also want to know everything but, you can't always get what we want. Hey, somebody ought to make a song about that. If consciousness is easier than intelligence Evolution certainly found that to be the case. There is not scientific evidence whatsoever of this. Some of our most powerful emotions like pleasure, pain, and lust come from the oldest parts of our brain that evolved about 500 million years ago. About 400 million years ago Evolution figured out how to make the spinal cord, the medulla and the pons, we have these brain structures just like fish and amphibians do and they deal in aggressive behavior, territoriality and social hierarchies. The Limbic System is about 150 million years old and ours is similar to that found in other mammals. Some think the Limbic system is the source of awe and exhilaration because it is the active site of many psychotropic drugs, and there's little doubt that the amygdala, a part of the Limbic system, has much to do with fear. After some animals developed a Limbic system they started to spend much more time taking care of their young, so it probably has something to do with love too. It is our grossly enlarged neocortex that makes the human brain so unusual and so recent, it only started to get large about 3 million years ago and only started to get ridiculously large less than one million years ago. It deals in deliberation, spatial perception, speaking, reading, writing and mathematics; in other words everything that makes humans so very different from other animals. The only new emotion we got out of it was worry, probably because the neocortex is also the place where we plan for the future. If nature came up with feeling first and high level intelligence much much later I don't see why the opposite would be true for our computers. It's probably a hell of a lot easier to make something that feels but doesn't think than something that thinks but doesn't feel. People like António Damásio (my compatriot) and other neuroscientists confuse a machine's ability to recognise itself with consciousness. I see no evidence of confusion in that. This makes me wonder if some people are zombies. Without the axiom that intelligent behavior implies consciousness it would be entirely reasonable to conclude that you are the only conscious being in the universe. Computers are what they have always been, Turing machines with finite tapes. Human brains are what they have always been, a finite number of interconnected neurons imbedded in 3 pounds of grey jello. The tapes are getting bigger, that's all. Yes, but the grey jello is not getting any bigger and that is exactly why computers are going to win. Measuring conscious by intelligent behaviour is mysticism, Call it any bad name you like but the fact is that both you and I have been measuring consciousness by intelligent behavior every minute of every hour of our waking life from the moment we were born; but now if we're confronted with a intelligent computer for some unspecified reason you say we're supposed to suddenly stop doing that. Why? The only consciousness I have direct experience with is my own and I note that when I'm sleepy my consciousness is reduced and so is my intelligence, when I'm alert the reverse is true. I agree on intelligence, but I don't feel less conscious when I'm sleepy. If so and consciousness is a all or nothing matter and is not on a continuum then you should vividly remember the very
Re: Moslem peace march ?
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: Original Buddhism and Hindu Sankhya are atheistic religions. No, originally they were atheistic philosophies without dogma; their main concern was how to be happy not how the universe worked. But unfortunately they've changed. 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: Why do particles decay randomly?
On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 11:55:59PM -0400, John Clark wrote: If so and consciousness is a all or nothing matter and is not on a continuum then you should vividly remember the very instant you went to sleep last night. Do you? Why? I don't remember every waking moment when I'm fully alert either. -- 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 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.
