subject:"Re\: Natural vs. Artificial"



On 16 May 2013, at 19:07, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 16.05.2013 18:22 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/16/2013 12:41 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


...



I might be wrong and it might be interesting to look the archives
through more carefully. Well, this was my impression that mental
is physical was expressed quite often here.


What is expressed often here is that the mental, i.e. thoughts,
supervene on physical processes.   This is implicit in saying yes
to the doctor since that is betting that the doctor can provide
physical processes on which your consciousness will supervene.



What is the meaning of mental is physical, I do not know. This
would be exactly the goal to understand such a statement better.


Why not just understand it is not true.


Let me put is this way. Let us assume that

 mental, i.e. thoughts,
 supervene on physical processes.

Does mental has its own casual power as in strong emergence?


Assuming comp, and assuming there is no flaw in the UDA, we know that  
the physical laws supervene on machine's psychology, which supervenes  
on elementary arithmetic. Would you say that the physical has no  
causal power of its own?
I would say it has very plausibly such power, and likewise, the fact  
that human consciousness supervenes on physical computers, does not  
cast any shadow of doubts on the causal power of human consciousness.  
To believe the contrary means that there is a confusion of level made  
somewhere. A low universal machine's work can support an high level  
universal machine capable of changing itself completely, and  
independently of the nature of the low level computation. So the  
mental has its own causal power and is working fine in its own  
realm. Is it strong emergence? I am not sure, as I have read  
inconsistent definition of this notion, quite similar to the  
inconsistent definition often given for free-will.







The comparison

1) mental vs. physical

with

2) natural. vs. artificial

could probably help.


Comparison on what measure?


On casual power of mental.


Without mental power, there would be no Mona Lisa, nor atomic bombs.  
Those things happen when many layers of universality are at play and  
reflect themselves and others.
Arithmetic and other non physical things have already causal power.  
Indeed, already exploited by the physical in some way.
Now the term cause is itself complex to define, and is a higher  
notion itself, and is sometimes ambiguous, so I might miss your point.


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



On 16 May 2013, at 15:53, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 16.05.2013 15:50 Bruno Marchal said the following:


On 16 May 2013, at 08:00, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 15.05.2013 21:02 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/15/2013 12:02 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following:

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:



...


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,...


What is a scientific difference between humans and
not-humans? How would you define it?


What difference does it make?  Why do you have this obsession
with definition of words? Are you going to try to prove a theorem
about humans?


My question was not about strict definitions. My goal was better to
understand the difference physical vs. mental. I believe that most
people on this list state that

1) mental is physical


Never heard this on this list. What would that mean? I don't see that
in the link you sent to Brent.


This could mean for example:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

“The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the  
universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the  
condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that  
the world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem  
physical — items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or  
social nature. But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the  
day such items are either physical or supervene on the physical.”



The UDA shows that physicalism is incompatible with computationalism.  
To make mental and physical identifiable, you need to put string  
infinities on both matter and mind. Although this is logically  
possible (assuming NON-comp), I have never seen such attempts in the  
literature. Most physicalist defends comp (more or less explicitly)  
and are thus inconsistent.


With comp, we are back to Plato. The physical is only how the border  
of the arithmetical, viewed from inside-modality, appears. Physics is  
made into a branch of arithmetic, through machine's psychology or  
theology. This is testable, and already tested as we found, when we do  
the math, that such a border has already a quantum logic, and we have  
already an arithmetical quantization of a physical reality, etc. The  
physical is thus a tiny, but crucial and unavoidable, part of the  
mental of the machines.


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: Natural vs. Artificial



On 14 May 2013, at 11:01, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
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 use...@rudnyi.ru
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?



The Belgian police got that message from the star (according to a test  
they made to recruit policemen, 40 years ago!):


I send it to FOAR so that Liz can train her brain for the slow but  
sure return to math :)


A, B, C, D, ... are conventional names for recognizable physical  
signals in the message we got. Can you decode it? It is the inverse of  
cryptography. The idea is that such a message can be understood by any  
patient enough (Löbian) entity having a small amount of inference  
ability.


Here is the message:

ABACAADABAACAAADAABAAACADBACADAABAACDAAABAACADAABACAAAD
ABACAADEBACADBECDEBECEDAFAAACAAADAAFAAACAAD 
 Etc.


The original text was much longer. What do you think we should think  
if ever we receive such a message from the sky?


It is not regular nor periodic, and it is highly redundant. From this  
you can bet it is an interesting message, but it could still be  
natural, like the DNA code which is also non periodic and contains  
redundancy. So you can bet already that it is the result of a deep  
program (natural or artificial, alien?). Can you see the meaning of A,  
B, C, D, E, F.


Can you find a natural sequel to that string?  I get that message when  
doing my first year on math study. Most student were able to decipher  
it, and to prolongate it into a message capable of explaining the  
location of the star from which the aliens have sent it in our galaxy,  
and much more (I will not say as to not give the answer).


A hint:  a student did not succeed, but admits it was rather simple,  
when his little 10 years old brother decoded it. It is a problem whose  
difficulty relies in its simplicity, for some people.


What would we reasonably conclude if we were really getting a message  
like that?


We can argue if such a message defines a universal language or not.

Can such a message be natural? Here by natural I mean not done by  
a self-aware creature.


Bruno







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

Re: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-17 Thread Russell Standish

On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:24:30AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 A, B, C, D, ... are conventional names for recognizable physical
 signals in the message we got. Can you decode it? It is the inverse
 of cryptography. The idea is that such a message can be understood
 by any patient enough (Löbian) entity having a small amount of
 inference ability.
 
 Here is the message:
 
 ABACAADABAACAAADAABAAACADBACADAABAACDAAABAACADAABACAAAD
 ABACAADEBACADBECDEBECEDAFAAACAAADAAFAAACAAD
 Etc.
 

Obviously, the As spell out a series of integers

11212323541522432521355{10}1144413236

If you set B=+ and C==, and D=; the first part of the message decodes
as

1+1=2;1+2=3;2+3=5;4+1=5;2+2=4;3+2=5;2+1=3;5+5=10;

then we have

E+1=1;
4+E=4;
E+E=E;

so E=0

then

1F3=3;
2F3=6;

so F=*

and so on...

-- 


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.

Re: Natural vs. Artificial



On 17 May 2013, at 11:58, Russell Standish wrote:


On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 11:24:30AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

A, B, C, D, ... are conventional names for recognizable physical
signals in the message we got. Can you decode it? It is the inverse
of cryptography. The idea is that such a message can be understood
by any patient enough (Löbian) entity having a small amount of
inference ability.

Here is the message:

ABACAADABAACAAADAABAAACADBACADAABAACDAAABAACADAABACAAAD
ABACAADEBACADBECDEBECEDAFAAACAAADAAFAAACAAD
Etc.



Obviously, the As spell out a series of integers

11212323541522432521355{10}1144413236

If you set B=+ and C==, and D=; the first part of the message decodes
as

1+1=2;1+2=3;2+3=5;4+1=5;2+2=4;3+2=5;2+1=3;5+5=10;

then we have

E+1=1;
4+E=4;
E+E=E;

so E=0

then

1F3=3;
2F3=6;

so F=*

and so on...


OK nice. Then you can imagine that we can continue in this way, up to  
define PI, circles, ellipses, planetary systems, wave, colors, stars,  
and eventually explains the place from where the message has been sent.
Long and tedious exercise: pursue the message up to explain machine's  
theology!


For an arithmetical realist, it makes sense to say that such a message  
is a universal self-decoding message, capable to be understood by any  
rich enough (in cognitive ability) entity.


I guess that you agree that if we receive such a message, then we can  
reasonably bet that it has been sent by self-aware entities. OK?


Did humans sent such a message? Why not?

Bruno






--


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: Natural vs. Artificial


On 15.05.2013 21:02 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/15/2013 12:02 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following:

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:



...


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,...


What is a scientific difference between humans and not-humans? How
would you define it?


What difference does it make?  Why do you have this obsession with
definition of words? Are you going to try to prove a theorem about humans?


My question was not about strict definitions. My goal was better to 
understand the difference physical vs. mental. I believe that most 
people on this list state that


1) mental is physical

and that to this end there is no ambiguity. Now let us assume 1) and 
based on this find the difference between natural and artificial. Could 
you find that difference assuming 1)?


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

2013-05-16 Thread meekerdb

On 5/15/2013 11:00 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 15.05.2013 21:02 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/15/2013 12:02 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following:

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:

...

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,...

What is a scientific difference between humans and not-humans? How
would you define it?

What difference does it make? Why do you have this obsession with
definition of words? Are you going to try to prove a theorem about humans?

My question was not about strict definitions. My goal was better to understand the
difference physical vs. mental. I believe that most people on this list state that

1) mental is physical

I haven't seen anyone state that. I'm not even sure what it means. Does it mean a thought
is something that kicks back if you kick it?

Brent

and that to this end there is no ambiguity. Now let us assume 1) and based on this find
the difference between natural and artificial. Could you find that difference assuming 1)?

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


On 16.05.2013 08:22 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/15/2013 11:00 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 15.05.2013 21:02 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/15/2013 12:02 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following:

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:



...


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,...


What is a scientific difference between humans and
not-humans? How would you define it?


What difference does it make?  Why do you have this obsession
with definition of words? Are you going to try to prove a theorem
about humans?


My question was not about strict definitions. My goal was better to
 understand the difference physical vs. mental. I believe that most
 people on this list state that

1) mental is physical


I haven't seen anyone state that.  I'm not even sure what it means.
Does it mean a thought is something that kicks back if you kick it?


A quick search in the archives find a message

https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/43038189fd3b4c44

that in my view implies mental is physical:

I disagree since there are experiments (e.g. healing prayer, NDE tests) 
that could have provided evidence for these extra-physical phenomena. 
By their null result they provide evidence against them.


I might be wrong and it might be interesting to look the archives 
through more carefully. Well, this was my impression that mental is 
physical was expressed quite often here.


What is the meaning of mental is physical, I do not know. This would 
be exactly the goal to understand such a statement better. The comparison


1) mental vs. physical

with

2) natural. vs. artificial

could probably help.

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

2013-05-16 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 16 May 2013, at 08:00, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 15.05.2013 21:02 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/15/2013 12:02 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following:

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:



...


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,...


What is a scientific difference between humans and not-humans?  
How

would you define it?


What difference does it make?  Why do you have this obsession with
definition of words? Are you going to try to prove a theorem about  
humans?


My question was not about strict definitions. My goal was better to  
understand the difference physical vs. mental. I believe that most  
people on this list state that


1) mental is physical


Never heard this on this list. What would that mean? I don't see that  
in the link you sent to Brent.


Bruno




and that to this end there is no ambiguity. Now let us assume 1) and  
based on this find the difference between natural and artificial.  
Could you find that difference assuming 1)?


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


On 16.05.2013 15:50 Bruno Marchal said the following:


On 16 May 2013, at 08:00, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 15.05.2013 21:02 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/15/2013 12:02 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following:

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:



...


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,...


What is a scientific difference between humans and
not-humans? How would you define it?


What difference does it make?  Why do you have this obsession
with definition of words? Are you going to try to prove a theorem
about humans?


My question was not about strict definitions. My goal was better to
 understand the difference physical vs. mental. I believe that most
 people on this list state that

1) mental is physical


Never heard this on this list. What would that mean? I don't see that
in the link you sent to Brent.


This could mean for example:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

“The general idea is that the nature of the actual world (i.e. the 
universe and everything in it) conforms to a certain condition, the 
condition of being physical. Of course, physicalists don’t deny that the 
world might contain many items that at first glance don’t seem physical 
— items of a biological, or psychological, or moral, or social nature. 
But they insist nevertheless that at the end of the day such items are 
either physical or supervene on the physical.”


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

2013-05-16 Thread meekerdb


On 5/16/2013 12:41 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 16.05.2013 08:22 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/15/2013 11:00 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 15.05.2013 21:02 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/15/2013 12:02 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following:

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:



...


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,...


What is a scientific difference between humans and
not-humans? How would you define it?


What difference does it make?  Why do you have this obsession
with definition of words? Are you going to try to prove a theorem
about humans?


My question was not about strict definitions. My goal was better to
 understand the difference physical vs. mental. I believe that most
 people on this list state that

1) mental is physical


I haven't seen anyone state that.  I'm not even sure what it means.
Does it mean a thought is something that kicks back if you kick it?


A quick search in the archives find a message

https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/43038189fd3b4c44

that in my view implies mental is physical:

I disagree since there are experiments (e.g. healing prayer, NDE tests) that could have 
provided evidence for these extra-physical phenomena. By their null result they provide 
evidence against them.


In this context extra-physical meant supernatural; and I agree that it is hard to say 
exactly what is meant by supernatural. Generally it seems to mean something that is 
contrary to physical theory and has emotional and ethical significance for people.




I might be wrong and it might be interesting to look the archives through more 
carefully. Well, this was my impression that mental is physical was expressed quite 
often here.


What is expressed often here is that the mental, i.e. thoughts, supervene on physical 
processes.   This is implicit in saying yes to the doctor since that is betting that the 
doctor can provide physical processes on which your consciousness will supervene.




What is the meaning of mental is physical, I do not know. This would be exactly the 
goal to understand such a statement better. 


Why not just understand it is not true.


The comparison

1) mental vs. physical

with

2) natural. vs. artificial

could probably help.


Comparison on what measure?

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


On 16.05.2013 18:22 meekerdb said the following:

On 5/16/2013 12:41 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


...



I might be wrong and it might be interesting to look the archives
through more carefully. Well, this was my impression that mental
is physical was expressed quite often here.


What is expressed often here is that the mental, i.e. thoughts,
supervene on physical processes.   This is implicit in saying yes
to the doctor since that is betting that the doctor can provide
physical processes on which your consciousness will supervene.



What is the meaning of mental is physical, I do not know. This
would be exactly the goal to understand such a statement better.


Why not just understand it is not true.


Let me put is this way. Let us assume that

 mental, i.e. thoughts,
 supervene on physical processes.

Does mental has its own casual power as in strong emergence?


The comparison

1) mental vs. physical

with

2) natural. vs. artificial

could probably help.


Comparison on what measure?


On casual power of mental.

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

2013-05-15 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following:

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:



...


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,...


What is a scientific difference between humans and not-humans? How 
would you define it?


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

2013-05-15 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


On 14.05.2013 23:45 John Mikes said the following:

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:





...


* 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


An interesting point, John. Thank you. 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

2013-05-15 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi


On 14.05.2013 21:29 Bruno Marchal said the following:


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


...


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, ...).


A nice definition of a sign. Do you have some more written in this 
respect? I would like to understand it.



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:


What is the difference in comp between a fish and a human being?

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

2013-05-15 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 14 May 2013, at 22:26, meekerdb wrote:


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


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





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?


There is no problem. I am just saying artificial is an indexical. It  
refers to human implicitly.












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.


I was saying that it is so for someone which absolutizes the  
difference natural/artificial, like if it was not an indexical. In  
that case it singles out the human perspective from all others, and  
that entails a dualism or a duality between the human perspective and  
the others.


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: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-15 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 14 May 2013, at 23:45, John Mikes wrote:




On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 3:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
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 use...@rudnyi.ru
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.


Thanks John.


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?



Absolutely. Like if God made the world, the world is a God- artifice.

Bruno






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.




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

2013-05-15 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 15 May 2013, at 09:08, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


On 14.05.2013 21:29 Bruno Marchal said the following:


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


...


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, ...).


A nice definition of a sign. Do you have some more written in this  
respect? I would like to understand it.


Unfortunately, it is all in french, notably in Conscience et  
Mécanisme.  There I call the modal expression ~Bx, the Wittgenstein  
principle, and Bx - ~x, the lao-tse-Watts principle, notably because  
Alan Watts explains it well in the wisdom of insecurity. ~B x says  
that there is something which cannot be said, and Bx - ~x says that  
there is something which when said, becomes false. x = false is a  
trivial solution, but for (correct) machines, x = Dt is a non trivial  
solution, brought by incompleteness. It makes consistency already  
obeying some theological  principles.
Then it is interesting to see that Lie-Tse appears to be more correct  
on some theological point than Lao-tse or Chouang-Tse, when the x is  
intepreted by consistency (Dt = ~Bf).








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:


What is the difference in comp between a fish and a human being?


It might be the same persons, but with different histories, like the M- 
man, and the W-man n the WM-duplication. Of course the duplication  
occurred a long time ago.  The fish is the staying-in-the-sea-man, and  
the human is going-out-of-the-sea-and-going-to-the-moon-man. I would  
say.


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

2013-05-15 Thread meekerdb


On 5/15/2013 12:02 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

On 14.05.2013 21:45 meekerdb said the following:

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:



...


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,...


What is a scientific difference between humans and not-humans? How would 
you define it?


What difference does it make?  Why do you have this obsession with definition of words?  
Are you going to try to prove a theorem about humans?


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



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 use...@rudnyi.ru
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

2013-05-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be 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 use...@rudnyi.ru
 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: 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 marc...@ulb.ac.be
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: Natural vs. Artificial

2013-05-14 Thread Telmo Menezes

On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 1:05 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
 On 14.05.2013 11:01 Telmo Menezes said the following:

 On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 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@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 use...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:

On 14.05.2013 11:01 Telmo Menezes said the following:


On Tue, May 14, 2013 at 9:39 AM, Bruno Marchal
marc...@ulb.ac.be 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.

Re: Natural vs. Artificial



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 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



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 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