date:20130514

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread John Mikes

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 13 May 2013, at 18:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
>  On 13.05.2013 17:41 Telmo Menezes said the following:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Recently I have listened to a nice talk about the search of
 extraterrestrial intelligence

 http://embryogenesisexplained.**com/2013/03/the-starivore-**
 hypothesis.html



  The author has mentioned two fallacies (slides 6 and 7)
>>
>>>
 Artificiality-of-the-gaps

 and

 Naturality-of-the-gaps

 However, I was unable to understand his difference between
 artificial and natural.

>>>
>>> I believe he just means "generated by an intelligent biological
>>> entity" vs "generated directly by nature". UFOs, the New York City
>>> and burritos are artificial in this sense, while Clouds, the Grand
>>> Canyon and apples are not.
>>>
>>> He's then specifically alluding to the fallacy of assuming that
>>> extra-terrestrial intelligent entities would be sufficiently similar
>>> to us for us to notice them (an old but interesting debate).
>>>
>>
>> Yes, but my point was to take this just as a starting point to ask
>> ourselves how we distinguish what is artificial and what is natural.
>>
>> The author failed to make definitions for artificial and natural. Could
>> you define these terms?
>>
>
> * The difference between natural and artificial is ... artificial.
>
> And thus it is natural ... for creatures which are developing some ego.
> "artificial" is a human indexical. Even with comp, we are part of nature.
> I think.
>
> Bruno*


Beautiful, Bruno.
If I may add: I would call "NATURAL" also :ARTIFICIAL, because the way WE
look at Nature is the way WE LOOK AT NATURE. Would you include that into
artificial, too?
JOhn M




>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>

-- 
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: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread meekerdb

On 5/14/2013 1:18 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 May 2013, at 21:45, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/14/2013 12:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 May 2013, at 19:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 14.05.2013 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following:

On 14 May 2013, at 15:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

I am interested in the difference between natural and artificial.
So a computer both natural and artificial. Do you know things that
are just natural and where the term artificial is not applicable?
If yes, what is the difference in your view between things that

1) Natural

2) Natural and artificial

For the human, the distinction is:

Natural = not man made. Artificial = man made

So TV, castles, churches, planes, computers, houses, etc. are
artificial, and clouds, volcano, sea, fishes, comets, stars, etc. are
natural.

If you are monist, that distinction is quite artificial, because
humans have no special status.

They have the special status of being humans.

Sure, like termites have the special status of being termites.

And we could define a word "termiticial" to denote things made by termites. So what's the
problem?

If you are dualist and
anthropomorphic, then you can absolutize the distinction (but this
seems ad hoc to me).

I don't see what is has to do with dualism. If you can distinguish "humans" from
"not-humans" then you can distinguish "made by humans" from "not made by humans". It's
as scientific as any concept: table, chair, tiger, star, amoeba,...

If you can distinguish "termites" from "not-termites" then you can distinguish "made by
termites" from "not made by termites".

All I say is that "artificial" is relative to the choice of a particular animal among
the animal. The humans. Us.

So it doesn't have anything to do with dualism.

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: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 14 May 2013, at 21:45, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/14/2013 12:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 May 2013, at 19:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 14.05.2013 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following:


On 14 May 2013, at 15:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


I am interested in the difference between natural and artificial.
So a computer both natural and artificial. Do you know things that
are just natural and where the term artificial is not applicable?
If yes, what is the difference in your view between things that

1) Natural

2) Natural and artificial


For the human, the distinction is:

Natural = not man made. Artificial = man made

So TV, castles, churches, planes, computers, houses, etc. are
artificial, and clouds, volcano, sea, fishes, comets, stars, etc.  
are

natural.

If you are monist, that distinction is quite artificial, because
humans have no special status.


They have the special status of being humans.


Sure, like termites have the special status of being termites.





If you are dualist and
anthropomorphic, then you can absolutize the distinction (but this
seems ad hoc to me).


I don't see what is has to do with dualism.  If you can distinguish  
"humans" from "not-humans" then you can distinguish "made by humans"  
from "not made by humans".  It's as scientific as any concept:  
table, chair, tiger, star, amoeba,...



If you can distinguish "termites" from "not-termites" then you can  
distinguish "made by termites" from "not made by termites".


 All I say is that "artificial" is relative to the choice of a  
particular animal among the animal. The humans. Us.


Bruno




Brent
"Remember, you are unique, just like everybody else."
   --- Lily Tomlin

--
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: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread meekerdb


On 5/14/2013 12:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 May 2013, at 19:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 14.05.2013 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following:


On 14 May 2013, at 15:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


I am interested in the difference between natural and artificial.
So a computer both natural and artificial. Do you know things that
are just natural and where the term artificial is not applicable?
If yes, what is the difference in your view between things that

1) Natural

2) Natural and artificial


For the human, the distinction is:

Natural = not man made. Artificial = man made

So TV, castles, churches, planes, computers, houses, etc. are
artificial, and clouds, volcano, sea, fishes, comets, stars, etc. are
natural.

If you are monist, that distinction is quite artificial, because
humans have no special status. 


They have the special status of being humans.


If you are dualist and
anthropomorphic, then you can absolutize the distinction (but this
seems ad hoc to me).


I don't see what is has to do with dualism.  If you can distinguish "humans" from 
"not-humans" then you can distinguish "made by humans" from "not made by humans".  It's as 
scientific as any concept: table, chair, tiger, star, amoeba,...


Brent
"Remember, you are unique, just like everybody else."
--- Lily Tomlin

--
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: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 14 May 2013, at 19:12, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 14.05.2013 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following:

On 14 May 2013, at 15:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

I am interested in the difference between natural and artificial.
So a computer both natural and artificial. Do you know things that
are just natural and where the term artificial is not applicable?
If yes, what is the difference in your view between things that

1) Natural

2) Natural and artificial

For the human, the distinction is:

Natural = not man made. Artificial = man made

So TV, castles, churches, planes, computers, houses, etc. are
artificial, and clouds, volcano, sea, fishes, comets, stars, etc. are
natural.

If you are monist, that distinction is quite artificial, because
humans have no special status. If you are dualist and
anthropomorphic, then you can absolutize the distinction (but this
seems ad hoc to me).

This means that a scientific answer to this question is impossible.  
One has just to take a position, or in other words, make his/her bet.

No, there is a scientific answer, assuming comp.

And the scientific answer is that this is a private concern between  
you and your shaman or doctor. It is *your* choice.

A fly might consider that termites' nest are quite artificial
buildings, for example.

Artificial is an indexical, like "now", "here" or "yesterday", or
"modern", or "contemporary", etc. The meaning depends on the person
using the word and his/her relative position.

For a quite advanced alien, silicon computers and atomic bombs might
be considered as natural products on certain type of planets, for a
different example.

What do you think if humans receives this message from the stars,
with A, B, C, D, ... being token easy to identified and differentiate
as physical signals:

ABACAADAABACAAADABAAACDAABAACDBCDFBACADAAAGAACAAD

etc.

Can you guess the intent? Can you guess what F and G are for? What
would you think if we get such a message (probably longer) coming
from far away?

I do not know. Right now there is discussion at biosemiotics list on  
what is sign. For example, let us consider a mating courtship  
between birds

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwG7l7bp4t4
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkshIwdw7DY
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zJhlr016VU

In the last case, a male bird catches a fish and gives it to the  
bride. Could we consider a fish as a sign in this case?

I do not know what happens under comp but I personally see no  
possibility to find signs under physicalism. Hence currently I  
follow people who preach Peircean metaphysics of the sign.

OK.
I think that with comp you can interpret the sign as the elements of  
recursively enumerable set (of numbers, or whatever), with their  
intensional meaning defined by the (universal numbers) supporting them  
(context). Signs are interesting, they live near the syntax/semantic  
fixed points. They plausibly speed up computations. But I have not  
studied Peirce, like I would say ... I give time to Plato and Plotinus  
(and Descartes, and the Taoists notably Lie Ze, and Lewis Carroll,  
Alan Watts, ...).

About the fish you should ask the bride. I think it is a sign.

Yeah, the "correct" signs, for a male spider is a matter of mating or  
be eaten:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-nmeYirsvA

Bruno

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.

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: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi

On 14.05.2013 16:51 Bruno Marchal said the following:

On 14 May 2013, at 15:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

I am interested in the difference between natural and artificial.
So a computer both natural and artificial. Do you know things that
are just natural and where the term artificial is not applicable?
If yes, what is the difference in your view between things that

1) Natural

2) Natural and artificial

For the human, the distinction is:

Natural = not man made. Artificial = man made

So TV, castles, churches, planes, computers, houses, etc. are
artificial, and clouds, volcano, sea, fishes, comets, stars, etc. are
 natural.

If you are monist, that distinction is quite artificial, because
humans have no special status. If you are dualist and
anthropomorphic, then you can absolutize the distinction (but this
seems ad hoc to me).

This means that a scientific answer to this question is impossible. One 
has just to take a position, or in other words, make his/her bet.

A fly might consider that termites' nest are quite artificial
buildings, for example.

Artificial is an indexical, like "now", "here" or "yesterday", or
"modern", or "contemporary", etc. The meaning depends on the person
using the word and his/her relative position.

For a quite advanced alien, silicon computers and atomic bombs might
be considered as natural products on certain type of planets, for a
different example.

What do you think if humans receives this message from the stars,
with A, B, C, D, ... being token easy to identified and differentiate
as physical signals:

ABACAADAABACAAADABAAACDAABAACDBCDFBACADAAAGAACAAD

etc.

Can you guess the intent? Can you guess what F and G are for? What
would you think if we get such a message (probably longer) coming
from far away?

I do not know. Right now there is discussion at biosemiotics list on 
what is sign. For example, let us consider a mating courtship between birds

>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jwG7l7bp4t4
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkshIwdw7DY
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zJhlr016VU

In the last case, a male bird catches a fish and gives it to the bride. 
Could we consider a fish as a sign in this case?

I do not know what happens under comp but I personally see no 
possibility to find signs under physicalism. Hence currently I follow 
people who preach Peircean metaphysics of the sign.

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.

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 14 May 2013, at 15:33, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

 I am interested in the difference between natural and artificial.  
So a computer both natural and artificial. Do you know things that  
are just natural and where the term artificial is not applicable? If  
yes, what is the difference in your view between things that


1) Natural

2) Natural and artificial


For the human, the distinction is:

Natural = not man made.
Artificial = man made

So TV, castles, churches, planes, computers, houses, etc. are  
artificial, and clouds, volcano, sea, fishes, comets, stars, etc. are  
natural.


If you are monist, that distinction is quite artificial, because  
humans have no special status. If you are dualist and anthropomorphic,  
then you can absolutize the distinction (but this seems ad hoc to me).


A fly might consider that termites' nest are quite artificial  
buildings, for example.


Artificial is an indexical, like "now", "here" or "yesterday", or  
"modern", or "contemporary", etc. The meaning depends on the person  
using the word and his/her relative position.


For a quite advanced alien, silicon computers and atomic bombs might  
be considered as natural products on certain type of planets, for a  
different example.


What do you think if humans receives this message from the stars, with  
A, B, C, D, ... being token easy to identified and differentiate as  
physical signals:


ABACAADAABACAAADABAAACDAABAACDBCDFBACADAAAGAACAAD
etc.

Can you guess the intent? Can you guess what F and G are for? What  
would you think if we get such a message (probably longer) coming from  
far away?


Bruno















search for ETs, interestingly, forces the distinction into an
uncomfortable territory, because it's now "the product of some
intelligence's engineering". We have no way of knowing the full
spectrum of possibilities for alternative biologies, so we can
never be sure if, for example, a signal we receive from outer
space is "natural" or "artificial".



This means that this kind of research is just a way to throw
taxpayers money out. Hence, to be consistent, the government
funding of search for extraterrestrial intelligence should be
banned.


I don't think that follows. SETI is looking for ETs which are
similar enough to us to be detected by looking for stuff we're
familiar with. That seems like a reasonable goal to me.



Well, if scientists cannot say what is the difference between  
natural and artificial, then it is unclear what they are doing. In  
this case, in my view, the goal is ill-defined.


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.




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: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


On 14.05.2013 13:39 Telmo Menezes said the following:

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi 
wrote:

On 14.05.2013 11:01 Telmo Menezes said the following:


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
 wrote:



On 13 May 2013, at 18:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:



...



The author failed to make definitions for artificial and
natural. Could you define these terms?




The difference between natural and artificial is ...
artificial.

And thus it is natural ... for creatures which are developing
some ego. "artificial" is a human indexical. Even with comp, we
are part of nature. I think.



Yes, I agree with this.

The distinction is useful to simply qualify something as being
the product of human engineering (as in "Artificial
Intelligence"). The



Well, if we cannot define artificial vs. natural, then the question
actually remains. Are computers for example artificial products or
natural?


I guess an answer that would make sense to me would be: "both".

I think artificial is a useful concept, but just that. Natural is a
bit silly because, obviously, everything is a part of nature. So you
can have the artificial / non-artificial distinction, which is
already implicit in "intelligence" vs. "artificial intelligence" or
"sugar" vs. "artificial sweetener".

The opposite of natural would be unnatural (?). For example, a neon
blue cat the size of Europe is unnatural (as far as we know).


No, I am interested in the difference between natural and artificial. So 
a computer both natural and artificial. Do you know things that are just 
natural and where the term artificial is not applicable? If yes, what is 
the difference in your view between things that


1) Natural

2) Natural and artificial





search for ETs, interestingly, forces the distinction into an
uncomfortable territory, because it's now "the product of some
intelligence's engineering". We have no way of knowing the full
spectrum of possibilities for alternative biologies, so we can
never be sure if, for example, a signal we receive from outer
space is "natural" or "artificial".



This means that this kind of research is just a way to throw
taxpayers money out. Hence, to be consistent, the government
funding of search for extraterrestrial intelligence should be
banned.


I don't think that follows. SETI is looking for ETs which are
similar enough to us to be detected by looking for stuff we're
familiar with. That seems like a reasonable goal to me.



Well, if scientists cannot say what is the difference between natural 
and artificial, then it is unclear what they are doing. In this case, in 
my view, the goal is ill-defined.


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.

The New Tractatus (ver. 1.0)

2013-05-14 Thread Roger Clough


The New Tractatus (ver. 1.0)
by Roger Clough,  copyright 2013

Introduction.

It is said that Wittgenstein spent the first half of his life writing the 
Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP) and the second half disproving it.
It became the Bible of the Vienna Circle of the thirties of analytic logic. 
My conjecture is that it ultimately didn't work because it left out the One
(mind, subjectivity, the nonphysical) and only dealt with the physical world 
of spacetime (the objective world, modal logic).

Russell  contributed to the TLP project in the form of his Theory of 
Descriptions,
where as Russell stated, there are two types of knowledge, knowledge by
acquaintance (personal knowledge, what bruno calls 1p) and knowledge by
descriptions (objective knowledge, what Bruno calls 3p). Russell had trouble 
understanding
the One and hence 1p.

My conjecture is that intuitively it seems possible that Leibnbiz's world view 
(1p +3p)  can be written  in a form similar to Wittgenstein's Tractatus Logico-
Philosophicus (3p only), where  his Proposition 1 is given at the bottom of the 
page.

The New Tractatus might start out as

Proposition I.  


1. In the beginning was the Creator, the One, the a priori nonphysical global 
Mind of Plato's One (1P),  
which is absolute, eternal, outside of spacetime and is ruled by necessary 
logic.  Here propositions are
always either true or false.

2. Then the One expressed a script of  contingent pre-established harmony (PEH) 
for the world of
spacetime (3P), in which objects move in harmony with each other. Here 
propositions, depending on space
and time, be  may be either true or false, so this --the world of facts and 
physics--is not an absolute world. 
It is simply whatever is the case.

3. The One (1P)  being good, the PEH was written as the best possible 3P, with 
the least suffering and evil.

4.  In the world of 3P, matter is created as an infinite number of individual  
spacetime particles (3p) 
are created by collisions with pre-existing Higgs bosons according to the PEH.

5.The One (1P) contains the "perceptions" (in the sense defined by Leibniz, 
being the sum of the individual 3p's, 
each with its own perspective on the rest of the 3ps --but is also more than 
that.

6. Then the world is 1P + 3P, where 1P is the world of Mind, and 3P is the 
world of matter, the picture theory of the world as described by Wittgenstein.

7. The world of 3P is the mental representation of 1P.

Proposition II

8.. Because of 1P, the world of 3P is also alive, and conscious. 

9. The physical objects of 3P, if they can be described by a single concept (or 
part), are monads.

10. If the object contains more than one part, it is a composite monad.

11. Thus the world divides into monads. 

12. Each monad (or whole concept), is a substance or entity.

13. Each monad is also a logical subject, which contains its predicates 
analytically. 

14. Monads do not perceive the world or act on it directly but only through 1P, 
which constantly
monitors (by rapid, infinitely small stages) and acts on the components of 
3P, then forwarding the 
contents of 1P back to the individual monads.

15. Thus each monad has knowledge of the entire universe from its own 
perspective,
providing a holographic vbiew of all.  

16. Neither space nor time can be monads because they cannot be conceived as a 
whole
nor divided only a finite number of times.

17.  Thus the world is made up of monads.

18.  Monads are in 3P, so there is no physical space between them , they are 
nonlocal.

19. Being nonlocal, monads share mental contents.
 

.and so on.


= 
PROPOSITION 1

>From 
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tractatus_Logico-Philosophicus#Proposition_1. 



Proposition 1.  
The first chapter is very brief: 
1 The world is all that is the case. 
1.1 The world is the totality of facts, not of things. 
1.11 The world is determined by the facts, and by their being all the facts. 
1.12 For the totality of facts determines what is the case, and also whatever 
is not the case. 
1.13 The facts in logical space are the world. 
1.2 The world divides into facts. 
1.21 Each item can be the case or not the case while everything else remains 
the same. 

This along with the beginning of two can be taken to be the relevant parts of 
Wittgenstein's metaphysical view that he will use to support his picture theory 
of language. 
Propositions 2. & 3.  
These sections concern Wittgenstein's view that the sensible, changing world we 
perceive does not consist of substance but of facts. Proposition two begins 
with a discussion of objects, form and substance. 
2 What is the case. Facts, the existence of states of affairs. 
2.01 A state of affairs (a state of things) is a combination of objects 
(things). 
This epistemic notion is further clarified by a discussion of objects or things 
as metaphysical substances. 
2.0141 The possibility

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi  wrote:
> On 14.05.2013 11:01 Telmo Menezes said the following:
>
>> On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal 
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 May 2013, at 18:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>>>
>
> ...
>
>
 The author failed to make definitions for artificial and natural.
 Could you define these terms?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The difference between natural and artificial is ... artificial.
>>>
>>> And thus it is natural ... for creatures which are developing some
>>> ego. "artificial" is a human indexical. Even with comp, we are part
>>> of nature. I think.
>>
>>
>> Yes, I agree with this.
>>
>> The distinction is useful to simply qualify something as being the
>> product of human engineering (as in "Artificial Intelligence"). The
>
>
> Well, if we cannot define artificial vs. natural, then the question actually
> remains. Are computers for example artificial products or natural?

I guess an answer that would make sense to me would be: "both".

I think artificial is a useful concept, but just that. Natural is a
bit silly because, obviously, everything is a part of nature. So you
can have the artificial / non-artificial distinction, which is already
implicit in "intelligence" vs. "artificial intelligence" or "sugar"
vs. "artificial sweetener".

The opposite of natural would be unnatural (?). For example, a neon
blue cat the size of Europe is unnatural (as far as we know).

>
>> search for ETs, interestingly, forces the distinction into an
>> uncomfortable territory, because it's now "the product of some
>> intelligence's engineering". We have no way of knowing the full
>> spectrum of possibilities for alternative biologies, so we can never
>> be sure if, for example, a signal we receive from outer space is
>> "natural" or "artificial".
>
>
> This means that this kind of research is just a way to throw taxpayers money
> out.
> Hence, to be consistent, the government funding of search for
> extraterrestrial intelligence should be banned.

I don't think that follows. SETI is looking for ETs which are similar
enough to us to be detected by looking for stuff we're familiar with.
That seems like a reasonable goal to me.

Telmo.

> Evgenii
>
>
>> Or can we?
>>
>> Telmo.
>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

 Evgenii

> Telmo.
>
>> It might be this is a good chance to look from another
>> perspective on an ASCII string that has no meaning for John
>> Clark. Could we find the difference between natural and
>> artificial if we say that a term "free will" is meaningless?
>>
>> Evgenii --
>> http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/03/natural-vs-artificial.html
>>
>> -- 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.
>
>

-- 
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@googl

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


On 14.05.2013 11:01 Telmo Menezes said the following:

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal 
wrote:


On 13 May 2013, at 18:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:



...


The author failed to make definitions for artificial and natural.
Could you define these terms?



The difference between natural and artificial is ... artificial.

And thus it is natural ... for creatures which are developing some
ego. "artificial" is a human indexical. Even with comp, we are part
of nature. I think.


Yes, I agree with this.

The distinction is useful to simply qualify something as being the
product of human engineering (as in "Artificial Intelligence"). The


Well, if we cannot define artificial vs. natural, then the question 
actually remains. Are computers for example artificial products or natural?



search for ETs, interestingly, forces the distinction into an
uncomfortable territory, because it's now "the product of some
intelligence's engineering". We have no way of knowing the full
spectrum of possibilities for alternative biologies, so we can never
be sure if, for example, a signal we receive from outer space is
"natural" or "artificial".


This means that this kind of research is just a way to throw taxpayers 
money out. Hence, to be consistent, the government funding of search for 
extraterrestrial intelligence should be banned.


Evgenii


Or can we?

Telmo.


Bruno








Evgenii


Telmo.


It might be this is a good chance to look from another
perspective on an ASCII string that has no meaning for John
Clark. Could we find the difference between natural and
artificial if we say that a term "free will" is meaningless?

Evgenii --
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/03/natural-vs-artificial.html

-- 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: A thought on right and left hemispheres and reality - and their relationship to 'comp'

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 14 May 2013, at 04:15, Pierz wrote:

On Tuesday, May 14, 2013 12:13:19 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 13 May 2013, at 09:30, Pierz wrote:

>
>
> On Monday, May 13, 2013 2:49:32 AM UTC+10, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The inside view comes when we agree that knowledge obeys to S4, and we
recover S4 (S4Grz) by linking truth to belief.
In a sense, for a machine M1 much stronger than a machine M2, the
theology of M2 can be made mathematical. What M2 cannot do
"mathematically" is to lift that theology on herself, unless she bet
(cautiously) on some self-correctness principle, but that cannot be
done in any 3p method, and usually math is considered as 3p-science,
so that correctness is not a part of math, but on faith in some
reality made by the machine M2. Likewise, I decide to not look at such
machine as zombie, and that means I project a non mathematical thing
(my consciousness) on them. This too is not mathematical.
In fact some mathematicians understood already that the encompassing
notion of "mathematical truth", or even just "arithmetical truth" is
not accessible by mathematics. In practice, this is no problem because
we hardly need such an encompassing notion, but in "theology" we need
it for the inside views.

Well I'll need to read the magical island story to make any sense of  
that.

Computerland or Numberland are more magic than the Wonderland :)

A good book is Boolos 1979. A nice recreative introduction to G is
Smullyan's "Forever Undecided". In that last book it looks like it
concerns only people living in some fairy tale, with perfect liars and
truth-tellers inhabiting some magic island, but that fairy tale is
shown to be the case for ideally perfect machines thanks to the
"famous" diagonalization lemma of Gödel.

Cool. Thanks for those references. A fairy tale! I can cope with  
that :)

Nice. I will come back on this, soon or later on Russell's FOAR list.

I think you did a pretty good summary of the UDA(*). I am not sure
what you are missing. Feel free to try to point on an assumption which
would have been made implicitly, or if a step is not valid. UDA1-7 is
enough I think, as step 8 is more subtle, and can certainly be
clarified.

(*) 
http://clubofsc.blogspot.be/2011/08/my-topic-universal-dovetailer-argument.html

Ha! Nothing on the net is safe!

Nope :)

(*) 
http://clubofsc.blogspot.be/2011/08/my-topic-universal-dovetailer-argument.html
 (I will reread it and answer some questions there asap)

I wrote that for my philosophy group quite some time ago (well, 2011  
as you can see). Since then I have gotten my head around step 8. My  
agnosticism about the argument stems not so much from having found a  
concrete flaw as from a lack of confidence in our understanding of  
the nature of consciousness (a question about the comp assumption  
itself), as well as an uncertainty about your use of arithmetical  
realism. I know you insist that your version of AR is "weak", but I  
wonder if you're not conflating types of "being". To be sure, I can  
accept "7 is prime" as an independently "existing" fact, but of all  
the problems of philosophy, the nature of what being is is surely  
one of the trickiest.

Sure.

Our minds just don't seem to be well equipped to grasp something so  
fundamental - perhaps even the whole notion of being and non-being  
is unintelligible when enquired into deeply enough. There are  
propositions about the states of being in the world ("the cat is  
dead"), and there are propositions about propositions - purely  
logical ones (forgive my lack of rigorous philosophical terms here.  
I'm not an academic philosopher

That's why you are clear and talk in an intelligible way. I am not an  
academic philosopher too. I am a biologist/psychologist/theologian who  
understood early that with comp, biology/psychology/theology admits  
mathematical (even arithmetical) foundations.

and I can't recall the technical way of defining this distinction).  
You've merged the two, making statements about the world a special  
kind of logical statement. You've argued in effect in the MGA that  
this move is the only elegant solution to the paradoxes that become  
apparent when the notion of physical supervenience is pushed far  
enough. But it is a pretty massive leap. I see the appeal of the  
solution - but I've also wondered if paradoxes like the one exposed  
by the MGA aren't actually better seen as refutations of the comp  
hypothesis itself.

That remains logically possible.

The comp hypothesis is in a sense a naive one - one notices that  
computers can perform 'thinking-like' operations, solving problems  
that we use thought for, so one makes the leap that perhaps the mind  
itself is a computer.

Well, the brain, or the body, or the environment, at some level. The  
mind is a too fuzzy term, even with comp. It can be the software  
(still machine or number like), or the consciousness, which is more in  
the limit of the UD* than in any p

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
> On 13 May 2013, at 18:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
>> On 13.05.2013 17:41 Telmo Menezes said the following:
>>>
>>> On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi 
>>> wrote:

 Recently I have listened to a nice talk about the search of
 extraterrestrial intelligence

 http://embryogenesisexplained.com/2013/03/the-starivore-hypothesis.html



>> The author has mentioned two fallacies (slides 6 and 7)


 Artificiality-of-the-gaps

 and

 Naturality-of-the-gaps

 However, I was unable to understand his difference between
 artificial and natural.
>>>
>>>
>>> I believe he just means "generated by an intelligent biological
>>> entity" vs "generated directly by nature". UFOs, the New York City
>>> and burritos are artificial in this sense, while Clouds, the Grand
>>> Canyon and apples are not.
>>>
>>> He's then specifically alluding to the fallacy of assuming that
>>> extra-terrestrial intelligent entities would be sufficiently similar
>>> to us for us to notice them (an old but interesting debate).
>>
>>
>> Yes, but my point was to take this just as a starting point to ask
>> ourselves how we distinguish what is artificial and what is natural.
>>
>> The author failed to make definitions for artificial and natural. Could
>> you define these terms?
>
>
> The difference between natural and artificial is ... artificial.
>
> And thus it is natural ... for creatures which are developing some ego.
> "artificial" is a human indexical. Even with comp, we are part of nature. I
> think.

Yes, I agree with this.

The distinction is useful to simply qualify something as being the
product of human engineering (as in "Artificial Intelligence"). The
search for ETs, interestingly, forces the distinction into an
uncomfortable territory, because it's now "the product of some
intelligence's engineering". We have no way of knowing the full
spectrum of possibilities for alternative biologies, so we can never
be sure if, for example, a signal we receive from outer space is
"natural" or "artificial". Or can we?

Telmo.

> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Evgenii
>>
>>> Telmo.
>>>
 It might be this is a good chance to look from another perspective
 on an ASCII string that has no meaning for John Clark. Could we
 find the difference between natural and artificial if we say that a
 term "free will" is meaningless?

 Evgenii --
 http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/03/natural-vs-artificial.html

 -- 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: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 14 May 2013, at 03:32, meekerdb wrote:

Right. It's not computing all possible functions, it's executing
all possible programs - most of which don't terminate and so don't
compute a function at all.

It computes a partial function, undefined on some arguments, but
defined on possible other arguments. That's why we have to dovetail.
Carfeul because computing a non computable function, on an argument
where it is not defined, gives an infinite computation which can be a
relevant (for our consciousness) computable process. A bit like
emulating a steady evolving physical universe: it is a non stopping
program. By the intensional Church thesis (provable from the usual
one), the UD does not just compute function, it emulates all possible
ways to compute those functions, and thus it emulates all Turing
emulable processes. Amazing, but trivial, the UD computes the
factorial function is all manner, which includes programs emulating
you in passing.

Bruno

Brent

On 5/13/2013 3:30 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some
functions would take an eternity to compute and that the number of
such vastly outnumber the recursively enumerable ones.

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable?

It computes all of them.

Brent

AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of the
former. This is one reason why I worry about the viability of UDA
(and AUDA), it postulates a severely restricted subset of the
possible functions as ontologically primitive without a good
argument as to why.
Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural
numbers is not an argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that
standard. Man is NOT the measure of all things!

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this topic, visit https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/K7E-Vfwj4QU/unsubscribe?hl=en
.
To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.3336 / Virus Database: 3162/6320 - Release Date:
05/13/13

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/

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 14 May 2013, at 00:57, Russell Standish wrote:


On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 03:24:09PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:

On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable?


It computes all of them.

Brent



Sorry - it does not compute all functions, just all partially
recursive ones. As Stephen says, there are only countably many
recursive functions, but a continuum of functions from N->N.

As for Stephen's question of why we might want to single out that set
- it so happens that that set is closed under diagonalisation - which
is Goedel's "miracle".

Its an aesthetic thing - just like Einstein's theory of general
relativity is the simplest, and most elegant, formulation of geometric
spacetime theories of gravitation.

It doesn't mean its right, of course, but elegant theories have a
habit of  being more likely right than inelegant ones.

PS - I am unsure whether the set of partially recursive functions is
the only such set closed under diagonalisation - do you know Bruno?


It should be possible to build some ad hoc other sets. Some sets, like  
those related to truth and knowledge can be said to be also immune,  
but this is due to the fact that they cannot be defined formally. It  
is a different sort of diagonalization immunity. Many non computable  
set will be like that too. I am pretty sure, that the set of partial  
recursive functions (with or without oracle) is (are) the only non  
trivial , effective (RE) definable sets close for diagonalization.


Bruno






Cheers

--


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.




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?

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 14 May 2013, at 00:30, Stephen Paul King wrote:

So all possible functions are computed equally? ISTM that some
functions would take an eternity to compute and that the number of
such vastly outnumber the recursively enumerable ones.

Non-computable function cannot be computed. But we can dovetail on
them, and so can play a possible role as inputs for computable
function. But consciousness is related to the computation. In the
limit, on which the 1-indterminacy bears, the halting oracle does play
a role, like with the end of the dinosaurs ...

Bruno

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 6:24 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable?

It computes all of them.

Brent

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.

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/

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 13 May 2013, at 23:49, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are
recursively enumerable? AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure
zero as a subset of the former. This is one reason why I worry about
the viability of UDA (and AUDA), it postulates a severely restricted
subset of the possible functions as ontologically primitive without
a good argument as to why.

The why is the why of the comp hypothesis. Church thesis is very
solid, and the evidences are that brains operates computably.

Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural
numbers is not an argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that
standard. Man is NOT the measure of all things!

But with comp, the universal machine is.

Bruno

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:02 PM, meekerdb
wrote:
I don't know. It would seem you would want to believe that if you
were going to say "yes" to the doctor, since the doctor is relying
functionalism to ensure the replacement works. But Bruno's UD
computes all functions and he theorizes that 1p consciousness
consists of a sequence of states in this computation, if I
understand him correctly.

Brent

On 5/13/2013 10:39 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness
is a process that can be exactly specified by a recursively
enumerable function. No?

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such
that you
developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would
have been
born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious? Or if one
unexpressed
gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking
through those
eyes? What if one gene were different, but it was of little
consequence, or
what if multiple genes were different, etc. How much of the
circumstances
would have to change for you to never have been born? If you admit
that
different matter or different genes would not make it such that you
were

never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?

That doesn't follow. The most common theory of why you are you is
that the
structure of your brain and body encode computations that are
peculiar to
you. You are determined by the structure that effects these
computations.
This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even
a lot of
the structure. As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of
substitution.
Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no
difference, it

doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another level.
It's hard to have this discussion with a single word for "you". 1p-
you

and 3p-you might make it easier. The 3p-you is characterised by a
number of physical processes that we more or less understand. For
example, if I fall and lose a bit of skin from my knee that won't
change much, but there is possible a relatively small set of neurons
that can be changed to alter my personality. But the idea that the
1p-you is determined at a substitution level seems silly to me

I said it was the most common theory. Not that it was right.
Computationalism is the theory that there is no substitution level
which doesn't instantiate you1 so long as the computation is the
same.

(unless
we can find some fundamental process by which the 1p arises).
Otherwise, I find it easier to believe that there is only one 1p
conscious entity that gets instantiated on everyone (and possible
everything), at all times, in all possible universes.

Even assuming computationalism there can be different computations
and hence different 1p. As I understandBruno's theory,
consciousness is not an entity, it's described by a relation
between threads of computation.

Brent

Telmo.

Brent

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.

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:/

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 14 May 2013, at 00:24, meekerdb wrote:


On 5/13/2013 2:49 PM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
Does the UD compute *all* functions or only those that are  
recursively enumerable?


It computes all of them.


It computes only the computable one. But it generates all inputs and  
streams, like in the WM duplication, it generates all sequences of W  
and M, so the UD computes all computable functions, on all inputs/ 
oracles.


By comp our mind states are UD accessible, as they are brought by some  
computations.


Bruno





Brent

AFAIK, the latter, as a set, has a measure zero as a subset of the  
former. This is one reason why I worry about the viability of UDA  
(and AUDA), it postulates a severely restricted subset of the  
possible functions as ontologically primitive without a good  
argument as to why.
Just because we finite mortals can only counts in terms of natural  
numbers is not an argument that All-that-Exists is limited to that  
standard. Man is NOT the measure of all things!


--
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?

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 13 May 2013, at 20:02, meekerdb wrote:

I don't know.  It would seem you would want to believe that if you  
were going to say "yes" to the doctor, since the doctor is relying  
functionalism to ensure the replacement works.  But Bruno's UD  
computes all functions and he theorizes that 1p consciousness  
consists of a sequence of states in this computation, if I  
understand him correctly.


Yes. One computation hereby can make possible to a consciousness to  
manifest itself, by comp. But from the 1p of that consciousness, his  
immediate future depends on all the infinity of computations going  
through its current state.


Bruno





Brent


On 5/13/2013 10:39 AM, Stephen Paul King wrote:
We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness  
is a process that can be exactly specified by arecursively  
enumerable function. No?



On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb   
wrote:

On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:


If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such  
that you
developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would  
have been
born in your place and you wouldn't be conscious?  Or if one  
unexpressed
gene was different, would it be someone other than you looking  
through those
eyes?  What if one gene were different, but it was of little  
consequence, or
what if multiple genes were different, etc.  How much of the  
circumstances
would have to change for you to never have been born?  If you admit  
that
different matter or different genes would not make it such that you  
were

never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?


That doesn't follow.  The most common theory of why you are you is  
that the
structure of your brain and body encode computations that are  
peculiar to
you.  You are determined by the structure that effects these  
computations.
This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even  
a lot of
the structure.  As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of  
substitution.
Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no  
difference, it

doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another level.
It's hard to have this discussion with a single word for "you". 1p- 
you

and 3p-you might make it easier. The 3p-you is characterised by a
number of physical processes that we more or less understand. For
example, if I fall and lose a bit of skin from my knee that won't
change much, but there is possible a relatively small set of neurons
that can be changed to alter my personality. But the idea that the
1p-you is determined at a substitution level seems silly to me

I said it was the most common theory.  Not that it was right.  
Computationalism is the theory that there is no substitution level  
which doesn't instantiate you1 so long as the computation is the  
same.



(unless
we can find some fundamental process by which the 1p arises).
Otherwise, I find it easier to believe that there is only one 1p
conscious entity that gets instantiated on everyone (and possible
everything), at all times, in all possible universes.

Even assuming computationalism there can be different computations  
and hence different 1p.  As I understand Bruno's theory,  
consciousness is not an entity, it's described by a relation  
between threads of computation.


Brent



Telmo.

Brent



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 13 May 2013, at 19:39, Stephen Paul King wrote:

We should add that computationalism postulates that consciousness is
a process that can be exactly specified by a recursively enumerable
function. No?

Well, OK, but with Church Thesis, we can just say "computable
function", or "mechanically generable" if you look at a function as a
set of input-outputs. The graph of a computable function is
recursively enumerable, or sigma_1.

Bruno

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 1:16 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/13/2013 5:41 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 7:05 PM, meekerdb
wrote:

On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:

never born, then are you not all your siblings as well?

That doesn't follow. The most common theory of why you are you is
that the
structure of your brain and body encode computations that are
peculiar to
you. You are determined by the structure that effects these
computations.
This is independent of the particular atoms and molecules and even a
lot of
the structure. As Bruno puts it, it depends on the level of
substitution.
Just because there is a level, e.g. atoms, that makes no difference,
it

doesn't follow that there is not a difference at another level.
It's hard to have this discussion with a single word for "you". 1p-you
and 3p-you might make it easier. The 3p-you is characterised by a
number of physical processes that we more or less understand. For
example, if I fall and lose a bit of skin from my knee that won't
change much, but there is possible a relatively small set of neurons
that can be changed to alter my personality. But the idea that the
1p-you is determined at a substitution level seems silly to me

I said it was the most common theory. Not that it was right.
Computationalism is the theory that there is no substitution level
which doesn't instantiate you1 so long as the computation is the same.

Even assuming computationalism there can be different computations
and hence different 1p. As I understand Bruno's theory,
consciousness is not an entity, it's described by a relation between
threads of computation.

Brent

Telmo.

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.

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.

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/

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 13 May 2013, at 18:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 13.05.2013 17:41 Telmo Menezes said the following:

On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi 
wrote:

Recently I have listened to a nice talk about the search of
extraterrestrial intelligence

http://embryogenesisexplained.com/2013/03/the-starivore-hypothesis.html




The author has mentioned two fallacies (slides 6 and 7)


Artificiality-of-the-gaps

and

Naturality-of-the-gaps

However, I was unable to understand his difference between
artificial and natural.


I believe he just means "generated by an intelligent biological
entity" vs "generated directly by nature". UFOs, the New York City
and burritos are artificial in this sense, while Clouds, the Grand
Canyon and apples are not.

He's then specifically alluding to the fallacy of assuming that
extra-terrestrial intelligent entities would be sufficiently similar
to us for us to notice them (an old but interesting debate).


Yes, but my point was to take this just as a starting point to ask  
ourselves how we distinguish what is artificial and what is natural.


The author failed to make definitions for artificial and natural.  
Could you define these terms?


The difference between natural and artificial is ... artificial.

And thus it is natural ... for creatures which are developing some ego.
"artificial" is a human indexical. Even with comp, we are part of  
nature. I think.


Bruno







Evgenii


Telmo.


It might be this is a good chance to look from another perspective
on an ASCII string that has no meaning for John Clark. Could we
find the difference between natural and artificial if we say that a
term "free will" is meaningless?

Evgenii --
http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2013/03/natural-vs-artificial.html

-- 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: Natural vs. Artificial

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

The New Tractatus (ver. 1.0)

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

Re: A thought on right and left hemispheres and reality - and their relationship to 'comp'

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

Re: Why do particles decay randomly?

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

21 matches

Site Navigation

Mail list logo

Footer information