subject:"consciousness questions bruno or anyone"



On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that  
it

 is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop
 being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight?  
ass


 Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks
 to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on
 (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab  
over

 days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return
 to normal until all the REM is made up for)
 i
 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue
 to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging
 ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc
 kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such
 that 'a change is as good as a rest'.
 ion
 If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious
 in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the
 heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs
 where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with
 our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
 experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what
 object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?
 If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?

 If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
 experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically
 conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which
 hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of
 software, such that the experience is able to think the next
 thought? The processor? RAM?

 Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,
 and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware
 can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it
 be updated to include predictions for what an emergent  
consciousness

 would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is
 intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of
 our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
  of that code?
 ,
 Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over  
the

 past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all
 having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer
 runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little
 consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,
 only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why
 is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done
 on the footprint issue?


A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of  
explaining
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation  
of

the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.

I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in  
arithmetic

suggest the following answer.

Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a
person, a first person notion.

Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness  
intrinsic of computation?


You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the  
contrary. Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in  
Platonia, out of time and space and physics, which arises from their  
views from inside.
It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like  
consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost  
equate it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it  
affirmatively, we do it because we *hope* we get a level right,  
but the theory will explain that we are invoking God implicitly in  
the process, and that is why I insist it is a theology.


Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then.


OK.



I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I do  
totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad, in  
which case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you!


Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use expression  
like a machine can think or even computation can be conscious in  
some context, as a shortening for a machine can support  
consciousness, or a computation can make possible for a conscious  
person to manifest itself relatively to some environment.


The basic rule is simple: we cannot identify any 1p thing with any 3p  
thing. The nice happening in AUDA, is that we can understand from the  
math that impossibility in a

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread ghibbsa


On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:


 On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 

  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it   
  is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop   
  being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
  to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
  (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over   
  days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return   
  to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
  to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
  ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
  kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such   
  that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
  in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
  heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs   
  where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with   
  our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
  object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?   
  If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
  experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
  conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
  hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
  software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
  thought? The processor? RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,   
  and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware   
  can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
  be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness   
  would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
  intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of   
  our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
   of that code? 
  , 
  Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the   
  past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
  having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
  runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little   
  consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
  only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why   
  is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done   
  on the footprint issue? 


 A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 

 And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining   
 consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of   
 the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 

 I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic   
 suggest the following answer. 

 Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
 an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
 person, a first person notion. 

  
 Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness 
 intrinsic of computation?


 You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary. 
 Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia, out of 
 time and space and physics, which arises from their views from inside. 
 It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like 
 consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost equate 
 it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it affirmatively, we do it 
 because we *hope* we get a level right, but the theory will explain that we 
 are invoking God implicitly in the process, and that is why I insist it 
 is a theology. 

  
 Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then. 


 OK. 



 I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I do 
 totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad, in which 
 case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you! 


 Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use expression like 
 a machine can think or even computation can be conscious in some 
 context, as a shortening for a machine can support consciousness, or a 
 computation can

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread ghibbsa


On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 

  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
   
  is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop   
  being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
  to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
  (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over 
   
  days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return   
  to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
  to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
  ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
  kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such   
  that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
  in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
  heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs   
  where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with   
  our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
  object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?   
  If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
  experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
  conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
  hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
  software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
  thought? The processor? RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,   
  and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware   
  can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
  be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness 
   
  would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
  intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of   
  our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
   of that code? 
  , 
  Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the 
   
  past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
  having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
  runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little   
  consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
  only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why   
  is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done   
  on the footprint issue? 


 A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 

 And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining 
   
 consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of 
   
 the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 

 I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic 
   
 suggest the following answer. 

 Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
 an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
 person, a first person notion. 

  
 Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness 
 intrinsic of computation?


 You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary. 
 Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia, out of 
 time and space and physics, which arises from their views from inside. 
 It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like 
 consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost equate 
 it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it affirmatively, we do it 
 because we *hope* we get a level right, but the theory will explain that we 
 are invoking God implicitly in the process, and that is why I insist it 
 is a theology. 

  
 Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then. 


 OK. 



 I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I do 
 totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad, in which 
 case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you! 


 Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use expression like 
 a machine can think or even computation can be conscious in some 
 context, as a

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone



On 06 Mar 2014, at 00:17, John Mikes wrote:


Ghibsa and honored discussioneers:
you can say about that darn conscousness anything you like, as long  
as you cannot identify it. Attribute of a 1st person? that would  
leave out lots of smilar phenomena - not even assigned to 'a' 1st  
person.


I am not sure I understand this.

Are you saying that consciousness might not be an 1p attribute?

Also, we cannot define consciousness, nor identify it with anything,  
except our own right here and now. But we can still reason about it,  
just by agreeing on some principle on it. We don't need to be able to  
define the moon exactly, to walk on it.






When I tried to collect opinions about Ccness of several authors I  
found that most speak about 'processes' rather than attributes.


But process is a typical 3p notion. To identify consciousness with  
process is an error of category, more or less based on the  
Aristotelian materialist brain/mind (or brain-activity/mental  
activity) identity thesis, which is refuted by the UD Argument.




Around 'awareness'. That was in 1992 and I boiled down the essence  
of THOSE opinions into some more and more general understanding just  
to arrive at my DEFINITION-PROPOSAL (not like: 'something attributed  
to') - streamlined since then into:---  Response to relations.  


Now: 1st persons may have that, but ANYTHING else as well.


That's the right 3p notion of observers, mocked by copenhagen, but  
redeemed by Everett and computationalism.
But although very useful, such a definition ignore the 1p non  
communicable features, like qualia, consciousness, etc.



(That also changed my observer into ANYTHING reacting to -well -  
relations: maybe a person, maybe an ion 'observing an electric  
charge, or a stone rolling down a slope.


If you attribute consciousness to such interaction, you will get  
panpsychism. Why not.  It is ambiguous, as we cannot derive from this  
if you say yes or no to the doctor.





What I tried to do was (then, and mostly now as well) to get away of  
the anthropic view of the world - explaining phenomena by HUMAN  
reactivity and effect. We are not NATURE,  nor do we direct Her  
changes in every respect. We are consequence. Of more - much much  
more than we know about (what I call our 'inventory'). Computation  
(cum+putare) is definitely a human way


Not with the standard definitions. or you are saying this already for  
notions like  being odd, but then everything is human, even alien in  
other galaxies, and the word human becomes spurious.




and the quantitative side of it is math (IMO). No matter if the  
facts underlying such inventory-items preceded the 'humans' or arose  
with/after them.


So in my vocabulary (what I do not propose for everybody: I am no  
missionary) there is an infinite complexity (The World, or Nature?)


or Arithmetic. keep in mind that the big discovery of the 20th  
century, is that Arithmetical truth is far beyond machines (and  
humans) cognitive ability.



of which we are a tiny part only. There are relations (everybody  
may identify some) extended over the totality - way beyond our  
knowledge.


Sure. already in arithmetic. We only scratch the surface of arithmetic  
and computer science (a branch of arithmetic).


I am deeply agnostic on the question if there is anything more than  
arithmetical truth, or even sigma_1 arithmetical truth, the rest being  
an epistemological internal view brought by the fact that numbers need  
relative representations to manifest themselves relatively.


Bruno



I do not propose a definition for consciousness either. Nor a site  
for it (definitely not the brain, especially restricted to ours).  
Just as I claim agnosticism for 'life' (definitely more than the  
bio or wider Earthbound, not even carried on 'physical' material  
substrate.


Your questions are well formulated and interesting. I have no  
answer, but SOME you got in the discussion make lots of sense. What  
I enjoyed was the 2D mentioned by Liz as the database.


Best regards

John Mikes


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it  
is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop  
being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass


Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks  
to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on  
(strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over  
days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return  
to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue  
to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging  
ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc  
kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such  
that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread LizR

I don't know anything about obligatory ram ventilators, but I do like
fluffy kittens.


On 6 March 2014 17:20, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:16:03 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 March 2014 15:47, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
 moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.

 As ever, the fount of all knowledge has the answer!

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Respiration
 Respiration

 Like other fish, sharks extract oxygen from seawater as it passes over
 their gills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill. Unlike other fish,
 shark gill slits are not covered, but lie in a row behind the head. A
 modified slit called a spiracle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiraclelies 
 just behind the eye, which assists the shark with taking in water
 during respiration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_respirationand 
 plays a major role in bottom-dwelling sharks. Spiracles are reduced or
 missing in active pelagic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic sharks.[
 21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-Gilbertson-21 While
 the shark is moving, water passes through the mouth and over the gills in a
 process known as ram ventilation. While at rest, most sharks pump
 water over their gills to ensure a constant supply of oxygenated water. A
 small number of species have lost the ability to pump water through their
 gills and must swim without rest. These species are *obligate ram
 ventilators* and would presumably 
 asphyxiatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxiateif unable to 
 move.Obligate ram ventilation is also true of some pelagic bony fish species.
 [32] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-32

 obligate ram ventilators are the original and TRUE shark and it's pure
 Political Correctness gone mad those gill suckers - those SINO's - get same
 named. The agenda of diversity and equality has reached sharks now and you
 buy every word like a little sheep bah bah bah to you.


 alternatively, I do so like a happy ending...where everyone gets a salty
 little slice of the sticky 'Right' cake (in the voice of dame edna
 Everett )

 more generally, it's kinda fun not googling to the end, and we all seem to
 have tacitly partook. Someone had to google in the end of course, and your
 timing was wonderful my dear, you sweet fragile thing (voice of Edgar in
 the flavour of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w)

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone



On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way  
that it
 is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it  
stop
 being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight?  
ass


 Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks
 to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on
 (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab  
over
 days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't  
return

 to normal until all the REM is made up for)
 i
 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue
 to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging
 ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc
 kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep?  
Such

 that 'a change is as good as a rest'.
 ion
 If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious
 in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the
 heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other  
organs
 where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected  
with

 our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
 experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what
 object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that  
stable?

 If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?

 If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
 experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically
 conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which
 hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of
 software, such that the experience is able to think the next
 thought? The processor? RAM?

 Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes  
running,
 and given these processes, and their footprint through the  
hardware

 can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it
 be updated to include predictions for what an emergent  
consciousness

 would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is
 intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint  
of

 our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
  of that code?
 ,
 Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over  
the

 past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all
 having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer
 runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling  
little

 consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,
 only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner?  
Why
 is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been  
done

 on the footprint issue?


A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of  
explaining
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the  
derivation of

the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.

I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in  
arithmetic

suggest the following answer.

Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a
person, a first person notion.

Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness  
intrinsic of computation?


You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the  
contrary. Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist  
in Platonia, out of time and space and physics, which arises from  
their views from inside.
It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like  
consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost  
equate it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it  
affirmatively, we do it because we *hope* we get a level right,  
but the theory will explain that we are invoking God implicitly  
in the process, and that is why I insist it is a theology.


Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then.


OK.



I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I  
do totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad,  
in which case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you!


Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use expression  
like a machine can think or even computation can be conscious in  
some context, as a shortening for a machine can support  
consciousness, or a computation can make possible for a conscious  
person to manifest

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread meekerdb


On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious


But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a computation (or some 
computation) are conscious. But only a first person is conscious, and a first person is 
nothing capable of being defined in any 3p way.


For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a computer cannot think, 
a computation cannot think, I would say. But I can still say yes to the doctor, because 
I can believe that my consciousness is related to an infinity of number relation in 
arithmetic, and that a brain or a machine might make it possible for that consciousness 
to be manifestable here and now, with hopefully the right relative measure.


If it were not manifested here and now, what would it be conscious of?

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread John Clark

On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:26 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


   Why do we need to sleep?


  Probably because we're primarily visual animals and Evolution weeded
 out individuals who didn't get sleepy because they wasted energy wandering
 around at night and got themselves into serious trouble when they ran into
 an animal that was better adapted to the night than they were.



  Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery?


No, I'm saying you're wasting energy and are unlikely to accomplish
anything important wandering about at night when your eyes aren't well
adapted to it, and you might run into a Saber Toothed Tiger who's eyes word
better than yours at night and that would be the end of genes that produce
no sleep.

  Why not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota?


It we really were intelligently designed we probably would have another set
of eyes specialized for night vision, but we weren't, and Evolution has no
foresight and never finds the perfect solution to any problem, it just
finds something that works very slightly better than the competition.

 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to
 specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones?


  Because we have determined that some mental tasks are boring. Boredom
 is a vitally important emotion, I don't believe any intelligence,
 electronic or biological, could exist without boredom because it prevents
 us from getting stuck in infinite loops. But it's critical the boredom
 point be set correctly, in fact this may be the most difficult part of
 making an AI. Set too low and we can't pay attention (I don't want to
 listen while you tell me how to properly pack my parachute, it's boring),
 set too high and we get stuck in infinite loops (weee.. I love the way that
 red rubber ball bounces up and down, I could watch it forever, one, two,
 three, four)



 It's a thought, but like the visual explanation for sleep, it seems a
 little thin. Before I have a go at expressing why I think this, could I
 just ask how seriously you personally take this explanation?


I'm dead serious! In one of the greatest mathematical discoveries of the
20th century  Alan Turing found there is no sure fire algorithm to
determine if you are in a infinite loop or not, and this has profound
implications for AI and also for the way our brains must work. When we get
board we stop working on a problem, but when should that point be? There is
no perfect answer to that so AI makers and Evolution must come up with
rules of thumb that work, not perfectly all the time, but pretty well most
of the time.  Sometimes we give up too soon and sometimes we become
obsessed with completing a hopeless task but most of the time it's about
right.

  John K Clark

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread Russell Standish

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be
 willing to answer ). Does Russell
 (a) agree with you completely
 
 Only Russell can answer this. I would use understand instead of
 agree, because I don't think it i a question of agreeing. It is

I didn't respond earlier, because I wasn't actually all that clear
what was being asked.


 question of acknowledging the validity of a reasoning, or of showing
 something missing or some flaws, or some unclarity.
 from our conversation, I would say that Russell agrees with the
 FPI, and probably UDA1-7, but as some reservation on the step 8.

That is a fair summary. UDA 1-7 looks straightforward to me, and in
any case, the conclusion to me accords with my world view (that
physics emerges from some underlying theory, such as arithmetic), so
that I have no problems accepting COMP as a potential working theory
of consciousness.

I do have reservations about step 8, which partly come from not being
clear what the step actually addresses (ie what the problem is). In
part, that is because I don't actually see a problem, so in some
senses step 8 is redundant, but I have attempted to figure out what
the step is trying to address, and have achieved some understanding of
it. I intend to try to write that up as a paper that could help
others, or at least act as a discussion point, as often the subtleties
get lost in the mail archives.

 
 
 (b) think computation is intrinsically conscious
 
 But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a
 computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first
 person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of being
 defined in any 3p way.
 
 For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
 computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say. 


This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for the
purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can be
quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to get,
but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread meekerdb


On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be
willing to answer ). Does Russell
(a) agree with you completely

Only Russell can answer this. I would use understand instead of
agree, because I don't think it i a question of agreeing. It is

I didn't respond earlier, because I wasn't actually all that clear
what was being asked.



question of acknowledging the validity of a reasoning, or of showing
something missing or some flaws, or some unclarity.
from our conversation, I would say that Russell agrees with the
FPI, and probably UDA1-7, but as some reservation on the step 8.

That is a fair summary. UDA 1-7 looks straightforward to me, and in
any case, the conclusion to me accords with my world view (that
physics emerges from some underlying theory, such as arithmetic), so
that I have no problems accepting COMP as a potential working theory
of consciousness.

I do have reservations about step 8, which partly come from not being
clear what the step actually addresses (ie what the problem is). In
part, that is because I don't actually see a problem, so in some
senses step 8 is redundant, but I have attempted to figure out what
the step is trying to address, and have achieved some understanding of
it. I intend to try to write that up as a paper that could help
others, or at least act as a discussion point, as often the subtleties
get lost in the mail archives.




(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious

But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a
computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first
person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of being
defined in any 3p way.

For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.


This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for the
purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can be
quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to get,
but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.


How is that different than saying a given machine performing a certain computation is 
thinking?  Bruno seems to be saying that no matter whether it's abstract or concrete it's 
a 3p notion and so cannot be thinking.  When I've asked Bruno what it takes, on his 
theory, for a machine to be conscious, he has answered that it be Lobian, which is an 
attribute of the functions it can compute and which seems 3p to me.


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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread Russell Standish

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:41:51PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
 On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
 On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
 computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.
 
 This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for the
 purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
 probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
 consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
 reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can be
 quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to get,
 but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.
 
 How is that different than saying a given machine performing a
 certain computation is thinking?  Bruno seems to be saying that no
 matter whether it's abstract or concrete it's a 3p notion and so
 cannot be thinking.  When I've asked Bruno what it takes, on his
 theory, for a machine to be conscious, he has answered that it be
 Lobian, which is an attribute of the functions it can compute and
 which seems 3p to me.
 

I did, at one stage, get Bruno to agree with me that a program is
conscious is shorthand for consciousness supervenes on a running
program of some reference machine.

In such a way, one should also say that a brain is conscious (or
thinking) is shorthand for the consciousness supervenes on a brain.

What Bruno purports to show is that consciousness cannot supervene on
a primitive physical reality, whereas what I think is really shown
is that observed physical reality (ie phenomena) cannot be
primitive. Phenomena must be derivable from properties of computation.

What is not shown by the MGA (and if it did, it would be empirically
invalidated) is that consciousness does not supervene on physical
reality. Brains are part of phenomena, and indeed, it would appear
(empirically) that consciousness does supervene on brains.

More on this no doubt when I get to write my fabled paper on the
MGA. Sorry for so many vaccuous promises - but I really have several
projects ahead of it in the queue, so I cannot promise when I'll get
to it.

-- 


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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone



On 06 Mar 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious


But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a  
computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first  
person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of being  
defined in any 3p way.


For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a  
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say. But  
I can still say yes to the doctor, because I can believe that my  
consciousness is related to an infinity of number relation in  
arithmetic, and that a brain or a machine might make it possible  
for that consciousness to be manifestable here and now, with  
hopefully the right relative measure.


If it were not manifested here and now, what would it be conscious of?


Well, either in some other here and now, as this is an indexical, or  
of something else (in some altered state of consciousness which might  
have nothing to do with here and now), or it might just not be  
conscious at all.


What I am saying here is just that 3p things can only be conscious in  
some metaphorical way, like when we say that a machine can think,  
which really means only that a machine can support a thinking/ 
conscious first person agent. The conscious-thinker has to be a first  
person, not a body. The first lesson of computationalism is that I  
am not my body, I own or borrow it only. In principle, I can get  
another one.


Bruno




Brent

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

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:54:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

 On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: 
  
  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
 is? If its 
  exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about 
 motivation and 
  becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to 
 be precise 
  amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
 when people are 
  prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more 
 and more easily, 
  and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
 specific mental 
  activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this 
 strongly correlated 
  with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused 
 on since last 
  sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in 
 the vast majority 
  of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? 
  Why aren't we 
  conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation takes 
 place, and is 
  connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why 
 aren't I 
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what object 
 and experiences 
  what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my 
 twin, why don't I 
  sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness 
 experienced? How is 
  facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
 parts are 
  consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
 conscious experience 
  of software, such that the experience is able to think the next 
 thought? The processor? 
  RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and 
 given these 
  processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
 known, why is the 
  old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for 
 what an emergent 
  consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation 
 is intrinsically 
  consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely 
 in terms of, and 
  exactly 
   of that code? 

 Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, 
 as I experience 
 it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based on 
 perceptions and 
 memories, about what happens in my life.  I think the evolutionary reason 
 for this is that 
 in order learn from experience one must remember things; but there is too 
 much to remember 
 in any detail.  So the brain creates this story which is a condensation of 
 the events in 
 order to store the information in a retrievable way.  At least that's the 
 way I would 
 design a robot if I wanted to exhibit human-like behavior and I think that 
 would entail 
 that it would be conscious. 


  , 
  Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the 
 past 50 
  years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been 
 done in this 
  area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize 
 that isn't 
  sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and 
 struggling to 
  survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance 
 tuner? Why is even a 
  chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done on the 
 footprint issue? 

 ?? You're worked up because flashes of consciousness might be occaring in 
 computers?  Why 
 would you care?  Do you care about bacteria, insects, plants?  First, you 
 need a theory of 
 consciousness - then you can decide whether it has ethical implications. 

 Brent 

 
Hi Brent - I don't care because I don't think it's true. But if I thought 
it was, or might be, I would care. 
 
But whether consciousness is 'how it feels like to be processed' or not, I 
still find it hard to understand why no work has been done on the 
'footprint' issues, as illustrated above. Surely that's a legitimate line 
of enquiry? In your opinion, for example, Turing Test aside, what other 
ways might consciousness look different in terms of hardware signature? 
 
Assuming you buy that conventional hardware could run consciousness with 
the right software.
 
 

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:


 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 

  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it   
  is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop   
  being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
  to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
  (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over   
  days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return   
  to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
  to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
  ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
  kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such   
  that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
  in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
  heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs   
  where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with   
  our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
  object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?   
  If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
  experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
  conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
  hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
  software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
  thought? The processor? RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,   
  and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware   
  can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
  be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness   
  would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
  intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of   
  our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
   of that code? 
  , 
  Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the   
  past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
  having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
  runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little   
  consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
  only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why   
  is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done   
  on the footprint issue? 


 A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 

 And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining   
 consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of   
 the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 

 I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic   
 suggest the following answer. 

 Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
 an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
 person, a first person notion. 

  
 Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness 
 intrinsic of computation?


 You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary. 
 Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia, out of 
 time and space and physics, which arises from their views from inside. 
 It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like 
 consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost equate 
 it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it affirmatively, we do it 
 because we *hope* we get a level right, but the theory will explain that we 
 are invoking God implicitly in the process, and that is why I insist it 
 is a theology. 

 
Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then. I was very sure, but I'm too 
lazy to go look, since intuitively I do totally trust your word. However, 
like me you may be a bit mad, in which case, if I do see a quote I'll be 
sure to come get you! 

-- 
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.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:54:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

 On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: 
  
  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
 is? If its 
  exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about 
 motivation and 
  becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to 
 be precise 
  amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
 when people are 
  prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more 
 and more easily, 
  and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
 specific mental 
  activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this 
 strongly correlated 
  with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused 
 on since last 
  sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in 
 the vast majority 
  of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? 
  Why aren't we 
  conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation takes 
 place, and is 
  connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why 
 aren't I 
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what object 
 and experiences 
  what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my 
 twin, why don't I 
  sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness 
 experienced? How is 
  facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
 parts are 
  consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
 conscious experience 
  of software, such that the experience is able to think the next 
 thought? The processor? 
  RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and 
 given these 
  processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
 known, why is the 
  old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for 
 what an emergent 
  consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation 
 is intrinsically 
  consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely 
 in terms of, and 
  exactly 
   of that code? 

 Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, 
 as I experience 
 it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based on 
 perceptions and 
 memories, about what happens in my life.  I think the evolutionary reason 
 for this is that 
 in order learn from experience one must remember things; but there is too 
 much to remember 
 in any detail.  So the brain creates this story which is a condensation of 
 the events in 
 order to store the information in a retrievable way.  At least that's the 
 way I would 
 design a robot if I wanted to exhibit human-like behavior and I think that 
 would entail 
 that it would be conscious. 

 
IMHO reasonable speculations. Are you possibly also saying then, there's a 
processing advantage to an architecture with a conscious component? Like 
for example, you get some UI patterns that build in a lot of complexity 
upfront, but in so doing, maybe, halve the ongoing complexity, say click 
action on a button or whatever. 
 
What would the on-going natural selection driver be for something like 
that? Wouldn't it be significant constraint on processing? We talk a lot 
about the infinite capability of the brain. Certainly there's a lot of 
complexity. But in understanding that, wouldn't the first principle be that 
strong forces of natural selection where necessary to sort all that out? 
But for strong forces of natural selection there have to be strong 
limitations in play. 
 
The most obvious limitation in the frame seems to be that processing is 
hard to secure. 

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:47:22 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:

 On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

 John - thanks for having a bash at the questions :o) 
 

  why do we get tired


 Because we run out of fuel or because of lactic acid buildup in our 
 muscles.

 
Hi John, mental tiredness isn't resolved anything like as clearly as for 
muscles. Back in the 60's they were talking in terms of it being about 
glucose for instance. That's long since been thrown out.  
 
Physical fatigue is a lot easier to override via training and  motivation 
than mental fatigue. On the mental side, your performance goes down, and a 
few days up, it gets almost impossible to think straight and stay awake, no 
matter training. Yet we don't have a good explanation why that is. 


   Why do we need to sleep?


 Probably because we're primarily visual animals and Evolution weeded out 
 individuals who didn't get sleepy because they wasted energy wandering 
 around at night and got themselves into serious trouble when they ran into 
 an animal that was better adapted to the night than they were.

Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? Why 
not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like a 
legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and another 
pair of night eyes. 
 
The ubiquitous and so regimented/stringent character of sleep seems to need 
a major explanation. Especially given the huge fitness cost. 
 


  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
 specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones?


 Because we have determined that some mental tasks are boring. Boredom is a 
 vitally important emotion, I don't believe any intelligence, electronic or 
 biological, could exist without boredom because it prevents us from getting 
 stuck in infinite loops. But it's critical the boredom point be set 
 correctly, in fact this may be the most difficult part of making an AI. Set 
 too low and we can't pay attention (I don't want to listen while you tell 
 me how to properly pack my parachute, it's boring), set too high and we get 
 stuck in infinite loops (weee.. I love the way that red rubber ball bounces 
 up and down, I could watch it forever, one, two, three, four) 

 
 
It's a thought, but like the visual explanation for sleep, it seems a 
little thin. Before I have a go at expressing why I think this, could I 
just ask how seriously you personally take this explanation? 
 



   John K Clark




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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:20:17 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 On 4 March 2014 13:04, spudb...@aol.com javascript: wrote:

  I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation of 
 everything must be arithmetic as you say. The more I read papers and 
 research about the holographic universe, the more it seems like 
 consciousness might be a program (for want of a better word) in physics, 
 which somehow itself, emanates, from some kind of  2D space, which I guess 
 might be a...database?
  
 DB2 ?!

 I'm sure I used to use a database by that name back in about 1985.

 
lol Liz - the first time I saw DB2 I thought exactly the same thing! Who 
hasn't named a backup or development database DB2. I'm not even a developer 
and I've named them that. 
 
Not a developer but learned how to because these days everyone in business 
should do that IMHO. Also it's actually not hard to learn a large amount of 
basic stuff...that pays you back if you have to pay the buggers to do 
stuff. That said, I've learned enough to respect the profession a great 
deal. Developing is a bit like driving a car. It doesn't take long to learn 
to do it well enough to pass a driving test. But that don't mean you can 
race formula 3. 
 
 

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:31:03 PM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:54:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
  
  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
 is? If its 
  exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about 
 motivation and 
  becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to 
 be precise 
  amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
 when people are 
  prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more 
 and more easily, 
  and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
 specific mental 
  activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this 
 strongly correlated 
  with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused 
 on since last 
  sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in 
 the vast majority 
  of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? 
  Why aren't we 
  conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation takes 
 place, and is 
  connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, 
 why aren't I 
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what object 
 and experiences 
  what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my 
 twin, why don't I 
  sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness 
 experienced? How is 
  facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
 parts are 
  consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
 conscious experience 
  of software, such that the experience is able to think the next 
 thought? The processor? 
  RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, 
 and given these 
  processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
 known, why is the 
  old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for 
 what an emergent 
  consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation 
 is intrinsically 
  consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely 
 in terms of, and 
  exactly 
   of that code? 

 Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, 
 as I experience 
 it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based 
 on perceptions and 
 memories, about what happens in my life.  


 You have to be conscious already to have perceptions, memories, and make 
 up stories. Why would unconscious processes become conscious just to tell a 
 story to itself that it already knows?

 Craig 

 
Hear hear Craig. IMHO not only a legitimate question, but also the right 
sort of asking-of-questions. That assumes there's a major reason for things 
first, before the more trivial. 
 
As an aside, could it be a sort of misunderstanding of 'Occam' that people 
look first for the more trivial explanation? Doing that, would imply 
Occam says things are 'simple to happen'...but Occam only says the 'all 
else being equal, the simpler explanation is better'. Totally different, 
and one definitely does not imply the other. 
 

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread Russell Standish

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? Why 
 not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like a 
 legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
 benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and another 
 pair of night eyes. 
  

Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a
time, so they don't drown in their sleep.

-- 


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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 6 March 2014 11:57, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? Why
  not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like
 a
  legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the
  benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and
 another
  pair of night eyes.
 

 Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a
 time, so they don't drown in their sleep.

 Birds do it too, possibly evolution has operated so as to stop them
falling of telephone wires :-)

I think this is quite common amongst the animal kingdom, plus is makes
sense for anything that can't afford to sleep (and explains why two brain
hemispheres, perhaps). Of course this implies that sleep is necessary for
some reason. Presumably to get the hardware back into a working state
because it gradually degrades or accumulates wastes or something.

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread John Mikes

Ghibsa and honored discussioneers:
you can say about that darn conscousness anything you like, as long as you
cannot identify it. Attribute of a 1st person? that would leave out lots
of smilar phenomena - not even assigned to 'a' 1st person.

When I tried to collect opinions about Ccness of several authors I found
that most speak about 'processes' rather than attributes. Around
'awareness'. That was in 1992 and I boiled down the essence of THOSE
opinions into some more and more general understanding just to arrive at my
DEFINITION-PROPOSAL (not like: 'something attributed to') - streamlined
since then into:---  Response to relations. 
Now: 1st persons may have that, but ANYTHING else as well.
(That also changed my observer into ANYTHING reacting to -well -
relations: maybe a person, maybe an ion 'observing an electric charge, or a
stone rolling down a slope.

What I tried to do was (then, and mostly now as well) to get away of the
anthropic view of the world - explaining phenomena by HUMAN reactivity and
effect. We are not NATURE,  nor do we direct Her changes in every respect.
We are consequence. Of more - much much more than we know about (what I
call our 'inventory'). Computation (cum+putare) is definitely a human way
and the quantitative side of it is math (IMO). No matter if the facts
underlying such inventory-items preceded the 'humans' or arose with/after
them.

So in my vocabulary (what I do not propose for everybody: I am no
missionary) there is an infinite complexity (The World, or Nature?) of
which we are a tiny part only. There are relations (everybody may
identify some) extended over the totality - way beyond our knowledge.
I do not propose a definition for consciousness either. Nor a site for it
(definitely not the brain, especially restricted to ours). Just as I claim
agnosticism for 'life' (definitely more than the bio or wider Earthbound,
not even carried on 'physical' material substrate.

Your questions are well formulated and interesting. I have no answer, but
SOME you got in the discussion make lots of sense. What I enjoyed was the
2D mentioned by Liz as the database.

Best regards

John Mikes


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is?
 If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about
 motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass

 Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be
 precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong
 evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they
 begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until
 all the REM is made up for)
 i
 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to
 specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is
 this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has
 already been focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as
 a rest'.
 ion
 If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in the
 vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting
 goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant
 computation takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a
 piece of code and run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of
 the code?  What decides what object and experiences what consciousness,
 and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes
 wake up him?

 If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
 experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious,
 which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are
 required by the conscious experience of software, such that the experience
 is able to think the next thought? The processor? RAM?

 Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and
 given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be
 precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to
 include predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its
 footprint, CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can
 we account for the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
  of that code?
 ,
 Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past
 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been
 done in this area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts
 to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into
 existence and struggling to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the
 Norton performance tuner? Why is even a chance of that acceptable...why
 hasn't any work been done on the footprint issue?

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote: 
   
  Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? 
 Why 
  not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like 
 a 
  legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
  benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
 another 
  pair of night eyes. 


 Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a 
 time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 

 -- 

 
Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 24 
hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm in 
that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and preserves a 
degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
swimming forwards not to suffocate. 
On the other hand if it was a case of full-on functioning day and night, 
things become much more interesting. However from a standpoint of the 
issues being raised here, a full on day and night dolphin reality would 
only be in a position to refute or support certain hypothesis, if it wasn't 
a case of whole hemisphere swapping. In the case it was, all the same 
questions would be applicable to each hemisphere as in both cases sleep was 
a fundamental requirement. It could possibly rule out the fact mammals have 
this largely duplicated structure in two hemispheres as directly related. 
I'll have to ask that old mucker queegeuc on his return anyway, from 
nantuckat with that other fella.  

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:55:47 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 March 2014 11:57, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:
  wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote:
  
  Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? 
 Why
  not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
 like a
  legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the
  benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
 another
  pair of night eyes.
 

 Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a
 time, so they don't drown in their sleep.

 Birds do it too, possibly evolution has operated so as to stop them 
 falling of telephone wires :-)

 I think this is quite common amongst the animal kingdom, plus is makes 
 sense for anything that can't afford to sleep (and explains why two brain 
 hemispheres, perhaps). Of course this implies that sleep is necessary for 
 some reason. Presumably to get the hardware back into a working state 
 because it gradually degrades or accumulates wastes or something.

We could make play-time predictions based on what we suspect the 
explanation ultimately is. My prediction - stated without knowledge - is 
that no complex animal is fully functional all the time. Functioning during 
sleep, on the other hand, all life must accomplish. It reasonable that the 
precise details of sleep mode would be open to selection per niche. There'd 
presumably be a range of sophistication necessary for that. 
But full functioning would be desirable for pretty much any niche at any 
stage in history. So if its possible to do, it ought to be ubiquitous, 
hence I'm predicting against.
 

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread Russell Standish

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
 
  On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
  javascript:wrote: 

   Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? 
  Why 
   not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like 
  a 
   legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
   benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
  another 
   pair of night eyes. 
 
 
  Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a 
  time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
 
  -- 
 
  
 Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
 issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 24 
 hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
 hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm in 
 that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and preserves a 
 degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
 swimming forwards not to suffocate. 

Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy
sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as
they're nocturnal.

Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so
need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a
bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the
time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on
autonomous breathing via their gills.

This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with
the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses.

-- 


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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

Another suggestion, which I would say is (more or less) discredited by the
existence of animals that switch brain hemispheres to stay awake, was the
idea that it's simply *safer *to spend some of your time inactive,
especially for a prey animal.

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:37:48 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote: 
  
  On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
   
   On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, 
   ghi...@gmail.comjavascript:wrote: 
 
Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual 
 machinery? 
   Why 
not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
 like 
   a 
legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
   another 
pair of night eyes. 
  
   
   Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a 
   time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
   
   -- 
  

  Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
  issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 24 
  hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
  hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm 
 in 
  that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and 
 preserves a 
  degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
  swimming forwards not to suffocate. 

 Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy 
 sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as 
 they're nocturnal. 

I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.


 Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
 need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
 bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
 time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
 autonomous breathing via their gills. 

Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with 
the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses. 
 
good ones as ever from Liz. But do you mean 'to do with the brain' as in 
not to do with the conscious component? We're all agreeing about something 
here, because I'm saying sleep is due to something in the brain too.


-- 

 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
Principal, High Performance Coders 
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au javascript: 
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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:20 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:37:48 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
  
  On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
   
   On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, 
   ghi...@gmail.comjavascript:wrote: 
 
Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual 
 machinery? 
   Why 
not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
 like 
   a 
legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
   another 
pair of night eyes. 
  
   
   Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at 
 a 
   time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
   
   -- 
  

  Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
  issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 
 24 
  hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
  hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm 
 in 
  that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and 
 preserves a 
  degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
  swimming forwards not to suffocate. 

 Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy 
 sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as 
 they're nocturnal. 

 I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
 oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
 kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
 room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
 Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
 to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.


 Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
 need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
 bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
 time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
 autonomous breathing via their gills. 

 Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
 that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

 This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with 
 the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses. 
  
 good ones as ever from Liz. But do you mean 'to do with the brain' as in 
 not to do with the conscious component? We're all agreeing about something 
 here, because I'm saying sleep is due to something in the brain too.


 -- 

  

 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
 Principal, High Performance Coders 
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
  


 
p.s. The breathing strategy of a dolphin or whale. It's easy to see that a 
more complex strategy would be necessary, but  would that be a 
difference in degree, or a difference in kind? Certainly the mammal 
needs to surface and submerge. But once surfaced the exhaust/inhale seems 
to be normal in sleep. Going down then back upI don't have the skills 
to say really. Interesting question to follow up though. I'll try to and 
get back at some point. 

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:45:11 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 Another suggestion, which I would say is (more or less) discredited by the 
 existence of animals that switch brain hemispheres to stay awake, was the 
 idea that it's simply *safer *to spend some of your time inactive, 
 especially for a prey animal.

 
IMHO it's a really good point and not necessarily discredited by instances 
of animals that switch hemisphere because there are feasibly (I don't know) 
questions around that phenomenon. For example, how well understood/observed 
it actually is. Also, if only a small subset of species evolve to be awake 
most or all of the time, given the advantage of doing so is reasonably on a 
wider scale, the reason it doesn't happen on a wider scale 
could suggest major play-offs are involved in going down that route, in 
terms also of the brain. The argument for that would just be, why isn't a 
solution like that more widespread? Given that, for any competitive niche, 
the species that becomes 24 hour would have some sort of new advantage, if 
there were no costs involved for going that way. 
 
What I would come back to is (a) sleep is ubiquitous or near so (b) not 
sleeping has ubiquitous value or near so 
 
But how to navigate the complexity productively looks to be a 
methodological type problem. I'm replying to JohnM's post with a personal 
idea about that FWIW (which ain't much admittedly)

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread Russell Standish

On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:52:20PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
 oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
 kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
 room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
 Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
 to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.

The sharks in question are 2-2.5 metres in length, so they're by no means
small fish.

But fish, in general, have lower metabolic requirements than say a
mammal of the same body mass, as they're ectothermic.

In terms of the caves, these are open to the ocean, so with the swell,
I expect the oxygen concentration inside to be similar to that of the
open ocean.

 
 
  Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
  need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
  bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
  time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
  autonomous breathing via their gills. 
 
 Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
 that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.


-- 


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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:20 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:37:48 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
  
  On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
   
   On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, 
   ghi...@gmail.comjavascript:wrote: 
 
Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual 
 machinery? 
   Why 
not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
 like 
   a 
legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
   another 
pair of night eyes. 
  
   
   Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at 
 a 
   time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
   
   -- 
  

  Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
  issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 
 24 
  hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
  hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm 
 in 
  that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and 
 preserves a 
  degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
  swimming forwards not to suffocate. 

 Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy 
 sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as 
 they're nocturnal. 

 I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
 oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
 kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
 room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
 Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
 to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.


 Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
 need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
 bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
 time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
 autonomous breathing via their gills. 

 Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
 that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

 This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with 
 the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses. 
  
 good ones as ever from Liz. But do you mean 'to do with the brain' as in 
 not to do with the conscious component? We're all agreeing about something 
 here, because I'm saying sleep is due to something in the brain too.


  
as an aside to this, from memory a lot of the 'living fossils' - forms 
alive today that don't seem a lot changed from Cambrian fossils, though 
very different in form, seem to have commonality in that they integrate 
movement and oxygen getting more closely. One model for this is the 'jet 
turbine' that gets movement from sucking water in one end and blowing it 
out the other. Squid/octopus do this I think, and then there's that little 
critter Davie 'crocket' Attenborough wheels out on the origin of life 
story...forget the name but you'd recognize it straight away. I thought 
sharks also had a solution this way that prevents them sucking water 
through their gills like fish. The survivability argument, I think, relates 
to some of the larger mass extinctions such as the Permian that saw periods 
of extreme oceanic hypoxia, or evidence thereof. 
 

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Thursday, March 6, 2014 2:47:15 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:52:20PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote: 
   
  I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get 
 the 
  oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
  kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
  room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
  Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't 
 seem 
  to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills. 

 The sharks in question are 2-2.5 metres in length, so they're by no means 
 small fish. 

 But fish, in general, have lower metabolic requirements than say a 
 mammal of the same body mass, as they're ectothermic. 

 In terms of the caves, these are open to the ocean, so with the swell, 
 I expect the oxygen concentration inside to be similar to that of the 
 open ocean. 

  
   
   Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
   need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
   bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
   time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
   autonomous breathing via their gills. 
   
  Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
  that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

 Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep 
 moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not. 

 
If it's a myth someone should tell them they don't have to die like that 
when the fishermen lasso and pull 'em backward :o) 

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 6 March 2014 15:47, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
 moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.

 As ever, the fount of all knowledge has the answer!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Respiration
Respiration

Like other fish, sharks extract oxygen from seawater as it passes over
their gills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill. Unlike other fish, shark
gill slits are not covered, but lie in a row behind the head. A modified
slit called a spiracle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiracle lies just
behind the eye, which assists the shark with taking in water during
respiration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_respiration and plays a
major role in bottom-dwelling sharks. Spiracles are reduced or missing in
active pelagic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic
sharks.[21]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-Gilbertson-21While
the shark is moving, water passes through the mouth and over the
gills in a process known as ram ventilation. While at rest, most sharks
pump water over their gills to ensure a constant supply of oxygenated
water. A small number of species have lost the ability to pump water
through their gills and must swim without rest. These species are *obligate
ram ventilators* and would presumably
asphyxiatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxiateif unable to
move.Obligate ram ventilation is also true of some pelagic bony fish
species.
[32] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-32


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-32

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 6 March 2014 15:47, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

 and then there's that little critter Davie 'crocket' Attenborough wheels
 out on the origin of life story...


Davie 'crocket' Attenborough?!?! I've never heard him called that before.
(The Whispering Voice of Television Documentaries, yes...)

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:16:03 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 March 2014 15:47, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:
  wrote:

 Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
 moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.

 As ever, the fount of all knowledge has the answer!

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Respiration 
 Respiration 

 Like other fish, sharks extract oxygen from seawater as it passes over 
 their gills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill. Unlike other fish, shark 
 gill slits are not covered, but lie in a row behind the head. A modified 
 slit called a spiracle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiracle lies just 
 behind the eye, which assists the shark with taking in water during 
 respiration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_respiration and plays 
 a major role in bottom–dwelling sharks. Spiracles are reduced or missing in 
 active pelagic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic 
 sharks.[21]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-Gilbertson-21While 
 the shark is moving, water passes through the mouth and over the 
 gills in a process known as ram ventilation. While at rest, most sharks 
 pump water over their gills to ensure a constant supply of oxygenated 
 water. A small number of species have lost the ability to pump water 
 through their gills and must swim without rest. These species are *obligate 
 ram ventilators* and would presumably 
 asphyxiatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxiateif unable to move.Obligate 
 ram ventilation is also true of some pelagic bony fish species.
 [32] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-32

obligate ram ventilators are the original and TRUE shark and it's pure 
Political Correctness gone mad those gill suckers - those SINO's - get same 
named. The agenda of diversity and equality has reached sharks now and you 
buy every word like a little sheep bah bah bah to you.
 
 
alternatively, I do so like a happy ending...where everyone gets a salty 
little slice of the sticky 'Right' cake (in the voice of dame edna 
Everett ) 
 
more generally, it's kinda fun not googling to the end, and we all seem to 
have tacitly partook. Someone had to google in the end of course, and your 
timing was wonderful my dear, you sweet fragile thing (voice of Edgar in 
the flavour of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w)

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-04 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 04 Mar 2014, at 01:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation  
of everything must be arithmetic as you say.


If computationalism is correct, yes. And the base theory can be be any  
logical specification or axiomatization of any universal system, and  
arithmetic is enough.


The technical way to extract physics from arithmetic extends Gödel's  
extraction of meta-arithmetic from arithmetic. I will explain this  
(again) soon.



The more I read papers and research about the holographic universe,  
the more it seems like consciousness might be a program (for want of  
a better word) in physics, which somehow itself, emanates, from some  
kind of  2D space, which I guess might be a...database?


That is interesting but not yet extracted from computationalism. There  
are resemblance with the distinction between the UD, UD* (the infinite  
running of the UD) and the first person indeterminacy domain (that is  
his 3-1 view actually). But with computationalism we get an  
explanation from a 0-dimensional theory of the way an Hilbert space  
(infinitely dimensional, normally) appears, and the cosmology is more  
difficult to extract.
Note that the goal is to solve the mind-body problem, not to propose a  
new theory of physics. It just happens that explaining physics from a  
theory of mind (comp) happens (by UDA) to be a necessary part of the  
mind-body problem, and this makes also the comp hypothesis refutable/ 
testable.


Bruno






-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 1:19 am
Subject: Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics.



What do you mean by this? It is more that we can't separate physics  
from consciousness.
Are you aware that if we (in the third person view) are machine,  
then physics emerge from arithmetic?

Do you have a problem with the UD Argument, and if yes, which one?

Bruno






What this implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy.
-Original Message-
From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am
Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that  
it is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it  
stop being about motivation and becomes that we can't think  
straight? ass


Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks  
to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on  
(strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab  
over days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't  
return to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue  
to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging  
ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc  
kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such  
that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the  
heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs  
where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with  
our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I  
experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what  
object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?  
If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?


If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness  
experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically  
conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of  
software, such that the experience is able to think the next  
thought? The processor? RAM?


Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,  
and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware  
can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it  
be updated to include predictions for what an emergent  
consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If  
computation is intrinsically consciousness why can we account for  
the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly

 of that code?
,
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over  
the past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at  
all having been done in this area, for all we know when the  
computer runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a  
darling little consciousness flashing into existence and struggling  
to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-04 Thread spudboy100

Thanks, Professor Marchal, I shall be purchasing your newly, translated, book 
on Amazon, and a hat tip to professor Standish for the alert on this. 

Mitch

-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 4, 2014 9:07 am
Subject: Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 04 Mar 2014, at 01:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation of 
everything must be arithmetic as you say. 

If computationalism is correct, yes. And the base theory can be be any logical 
specification or axiomatization of any universal system, and arithmetic is 
enough.

The technical way to extract physics from arithmetic extends Gödel's 
extraction of meta-arithmetic from arithmetic. I will explain this (again) 
soon.

The more I read papers and research about the holographic universe, the more it 
seems like consciousness might be a program (for want of a better word) in 
physics, which somehow itself, emanates, from some kind of  2D space, which I 
guess might be a...database?

That is interesting but not yet extracted from computationalism. There are 
resemblance with the distinction between the UD, UD* (the infinite running of 
the UD) and the first person indeterminacy domain (that is his 3-1 view 
actually). But with computationalism we get an explanation from a 0-dimensional 
theory of the way an Hilbert space (infinitely dimensional, normally) appears, 
and the cosmology is more difficult to extract. 
Note that the goal is to solve the mind-body problem, not to propose a new 
theory of physics. It just happens that explaining physics from a theory of 
mind (comp) happens (by UDA) to be a necessary part of the mind-body problem, 
and this makes also the comp hypothesis refutable/testable.

Bruno

-Original Message-
 From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 1:19 am
 Subject: Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics. 

What do you mean by this? It is more that we can't separate physics from 
consciousness.

Are you aware that if we (in the third person view) are machine, then physics 
emerge from arithmetic?

Do you have a problem with the UD Argument, and if yes, which one?

Bruno

What this implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy.

-Original Message-
 From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am
 Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If its 
exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about motivation 
and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 

Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be 
precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass 
out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until all the REM is made 
up for)

i

Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to specific 
mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this strongly 
correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been 
focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 

ion

If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in the vast 
majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on?  
Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation 
takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and 
run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides 
what object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I 
lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?

If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness experienced? 
How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
parts are consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
conscious experience of software, such that the experience is able to think the 
next thought? The processor? RAM? 

Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and given 
these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include 
predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its footprint, 
CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can we account for 
the footprint of our code, purely in terms

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-03 Thread John Clark

On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

 why do we get tired


Because we run out of fuel or because of lactic acid buildup in our muscles.

  Why do we need to sleep?


Probably because we're primarily visual animals and Evolution weeded out
individuals who didn't get sleepy because they wasted energy wandering
around at night and got themselves into serious trouble when they ran into
an animal that was better adapted to the night than they were.

 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to
 specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones?


Because we have determined that some mental tasks are boring. Boredom is a
vitally important emotion, I don't believe any intelligence, electronic or
biological, could exist without boredom because it prevents us from getting
stuck in infinite loops. But it's critical the boredom point be set
correctly, in fact this may be the most difficult part of making an AI. Set
too low and we can't pay attention (I don't want to listen while you tell
me how to properly pack my parachute, it's boring), set too high and we get
stuck in infinite loops (weee.. I love the way that red rubber ball bounces
up and down, I could watch it forever, one, two, three, four)

  John K Clark

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-03 Thread spudboy100


I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation of 
everything must be arithmetic as you say. The more I read papers and research 
about the holographic universe, the more it seems like consciousness might be a 
program (for want of a better word) in physics, which somehow itself, emanates, 
from some kind of  2D space, which I guess might be a...database?


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 1:19 am
Subject: Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone




On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


 
Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics. 





What do you mean by this? It is more that we can't separate physics from 
consciousness.
Are you aware that if we (in the third person view) are machine, then physics 
emerge from arithmetic?
Do you have a problem with the UD Argument, and if yes, which one?


Bruno










What this implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy.
 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am
 Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone
 
 
 
 
So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If its 
exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about motivation 
and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
 
 
 
Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be 
precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass 
out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until all the REM is made 
up for)
 
i
 
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to specific 
mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this strongly 
correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been 
focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
 
ion
 
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in the vast 
majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on?  
Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation 
takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and 
run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides 
what object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I 
lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?
 
 
 
If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness experienced? 
How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
parts are consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
conscious experience of software, such that the experience is able to think the 
next thought? The processor? RAM? 
 
 
 
Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and given 
these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include 
predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its footprint, 
CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can we account for 
the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
 
 of that code?
 
, 
 
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past 50 
years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been done in 
this area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize that 
isn't sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and 
struggling to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance 
tuner? Why is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done 
on the footprint issue?
 
 
 -- 
 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.
 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.
 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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-03 Thread LizR

On 4 March 2014 13:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

 I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation of
 everything must be arithmetic as you say. The more I read papers and
 research about the holographic universe, the more it seems like
 consciousness might be a program (for want of a better word) in physics,
 which somehow itself, emanates, from some kind of  2D space, which I guess
 might be a...database?

 DB2 ?!

I'm sure I used to use a database by that name back in about 1985.

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

consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-02 Thread ghibbsa

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If 
its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about 
motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
 
Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be 
precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong 
evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they 
begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until 
all the REM is made up for)
i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is 
this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has 
already been focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as 
a rest'. 
ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in the 
vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting 
goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant 
computation takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a 
piece of code and run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of 
the code?  What decides what object and experiences what consciousness,  
and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes 
wake up him?
 
If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness 
experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, 
which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are 
required by the conscious experience of software, such that the experience 
is able to think the next thought? The processor? RAM? 
 
Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and 
given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be 
precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to 
include predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its 
footprint, CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can 
we account for the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
 of that code?
, 
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past 
50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been 
done in this area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts 
to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into 
existence and struggling to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the 
Norton performance tuner? Why is even a chance of that acceptable...why 
hasn't any work been done on the footprint issue?

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone



On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it  
is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop  
being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass


Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks  
to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on  
(strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over  
days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return  
to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue  
to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging  
ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc  
kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such  
that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the  
heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs  
where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with  
our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I  
experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what  
object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?  
If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?


If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness  
experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically  
conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of  
software, such that the experience is able to think the next  
thought? The processor? RAM?


Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,  
and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware  
can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it  
be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness  
would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is  
intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of  
our code, purely in terms of, and exactly

 of that code?
,
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the  
past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all  
having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer  
runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little  
consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,  
only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why  
is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done  
on the footprint issue?



A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining  
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of  
the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.


I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic  
suggest the following answer.


Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not  
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a  
person, a first person notion.


Comp leads to an hard theory, arithmetic. Intensional arithmetic, as  
elementary arithmetic is Turing universal, and any universal system  
will do. It is computer science: what can a machine prove, know,  
observe, and feel about itself.


What happens is that any honest universal machine searching the truth  
is confronted at the start with conflicting ways to experience it.  
You get them from arithmetic by defining them by using the Theaetetus  
definition of knowledge (true justified belief), and its weakening  
(consistent, consistent and true) variant.


Consciousness, like truth, remains undefinable by the correct machine,  
but can be approximated by level of self-knowledge and ignorance  
awareness.


More on this in my explanation  to Liz. The interest in comp is not in  
its (plausible or not) truth, but it is in the fact that it makes  
possible to translate the problem in arithmetic.


Hard science indeed. Risk of head explosion.

With p arithmetic and sigma_1 (and free or true)

ptruth
[]pbeliefs
[]p  pknowledge
[]p  p  observations
[]p  p  p  sensations

provides 8 person pov that you can attribute to the universal number  
defining the [].
8, because three of them splits into effective and non effective part  
yet true.
(So that theory explains something about consciousness by relating a  
correct obvious part to non justifiable truth) (It makes also  
consciousness into a fixed point of the doubt, like in Descartes).


You must study a bit of computer science and mathematical logic, and  
philosophical logic, to see that with Gödel's discovery, we have  
discovered a person, and infinitely of them, in arithmetic.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-02 Thread spudboy100

Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics. What this 
implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy.

-Original Message-
From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am
Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If its 
exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about motivation 
and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 

Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be 
precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass 
out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until all the REM is made 
up for)
i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to specific 
mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this strongly 
correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been 
focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in the vast 
majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on?  
Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation 
takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and 
run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides 
what object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I 
lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?

If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness experienced? 
How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
parts are consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
conscious experience of software, such that the experience is able to think the 
next thought? The processor? RAM? 

Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and given 
these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include 
predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its footprint, 
CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can we account for 
the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
 of that code?
, 
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past 50 
years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been done in 
this area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize that 
isn't sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and 
struggling to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance 
tuner? Why is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done 
on the footprint issue?

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-02 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 11:34:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:




 ptruth 
 Bpbeliefs 
 Bp  pknowledge 
 Bp  p  observations 
 Bp  p  p  sensations 


I would invert this of course. We do not know that the universe begins with 
'truth'. Truth is a belief about what a sensation represents.

s sense
s-x distance (insensitivity, entropy-negentropy, information)
s(s-x)(s-x) local sensation (qualia, aesthetic presence)
s(s-x)^n nested local sense (emotion, images, beliefs, beliefs of 
knowledge, thoughts, communications, meanings)

The idea idea that truth simply exists or that observations are more 
primitive than sensations doesn't make sense to me. They reveal a bias 
toward human intellectual products rather than the deep roots of psyche and 
nature. Modal logic is a toy model of the intellect that has only to do 
with a kind of cold reading mentalism, not the experiences of the mind.

Craig
 


 Bruno 


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





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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-02 Thread ghibbsa


On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: 

  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it   
  is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop   
  being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
  to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
  (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over   
  days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return   
  to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
  to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
  ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
  kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such   
  that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
  in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
  heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs   
  where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with   
  our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
  object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?   
  If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
  experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
  conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
  hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
  software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
  thought? The processor? RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,   
  and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware   
  can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
  be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness   
  would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
  intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of   
  our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
   of that code? 
  , 
  Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the   
  past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
  having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
  runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little   
  consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
  only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why   
  is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done   
  on the footprint issue? 


 A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 

 And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining   
 consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of   
 the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 

 I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic   
 suggest the following answer. 

 Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
 an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
 person, a first person notion. 

 
Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness intrinsic 
of computation?
 
Leaving that to one side, what is the sequence then in your logic that comp 
carries no attribute of consciousness, yet as you define comp for your 
input assumption, from within itself it produces trina replacement device 
seamlessly continuing a conscious existence? As your starting point - 
which is now in the frame for a flaw, because the attribute of 
consciousness must be attached to comp in a step coming before.
 


 Comp leads to an hard theory, arithmetic. Intensional arithmetic, as   
 elementary arithmetic is Turing universal, and any universal system   
 will do. It is computer science: what can a machine prove, know,   
 observe, and feel about itself. 

 What happens is that any honest universal machine searching the truth   
 is confronted at the start with conflicting ways to experience it.   
 You get them from arithmetic by defining them by using the Theaetetus   
 definition of knowledge (true justified belief), and its weakening   
 (consistent, consistent and true) variant. 

 Consciousness, like truth, remains undefinable by the correct machine,   
 but can be approximated by level of self-knowledge and ignorance   
 awareness. 

 More on this in my explanation  to Liz. The interest in comp is not in   
 its (plausible or not) truth, but it is in the fact that it makes   
 possible to translate the problem in

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-02 Thread meekerdb

On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If its
exhaustion, maybe up a couple of days, why does it stop being about motivation and
becomes that we can't think straight? ass

Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be precise
amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence when people are
prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more and more easily,
and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to specific mental
activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this strongly correlated
with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused on since last
sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious in the vast majority
of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? Why aren't we
conscious in our other organs where sigtinificant computation takes place, and is
connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
experiencing the consciousness of the code? What decides what object and experiences
what consciousness, and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I
sometimes wake up him?

If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness experienced? How is
facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware parts are
consciousness, and/or which hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience
of software, such that the experience is able to think the next thought? The processor?
RAM?

Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and given these
processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely known, why is the
old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for what an emergent
consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is intrinsically
consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and
exactly

of that code?

Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, as I experience
it, has to do with language and images. It is a story I make up, based on perceptions and
memories, about what happens in my life. I think the evolutionary reason for this is that
in order learn from experience one must remember things; but there is too much to remember
in any detail. So the brain creates this story which is a condensation of the events in
order to store the information in a retrievable way. At least that's the way I would
design a robot if I wanted to exhibit human-like behavior and I think that would entail
that it would be conscious.

,
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past 50
years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been done in this
area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't
sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to
survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why is even a
chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done on the footprint issue?

?? You're worked up because flashes of consciousness might be occuring in computers? Why
would you care? Do you care about bacteria, insects, plants? First, you need a theory of
consciousness - then you can decide whether it has ethical implications.

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-02 Thread Craig Weinberg



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:54:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: 
  
  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
 is? If its 
  exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about 
 motivation and 
  becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to 
 be precise 
  amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
 when people are 
  prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more 
 and more easily, 
  and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
 specific mental 
  activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this 
 strongly correlated 
  with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused 
 on since last 
  sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in 
 the vast majority 
  of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? 
  Why aren't we 
  conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation takes 
 place, and is 
  connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why 
 aren't I 
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what object 
 and experiences 
  what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my 
 twin, why don't I 
  sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness 
 experienced? How is 
  facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
 parts are 
  consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
 conscious experience 
  of software, such that the experience is able to think the next 
 thought? The processor? 
  RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and 
 given these 
  processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
 known, why is the 
  old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for 
 what an emergent 
  consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation 
 is intrinsically 
  consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely 
 in terms of, and 
  exactly 
   of that code? 

 Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, 
 as I experience 
 it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based on 
 perceptions and 
 memories, about what happens in my life.  


You have to be conscious already to have perceptions, memories, and make up 
stories. Why would unconscious processes become conscious just to tell a 
story to itself that it already knows?

Craig 

 I think the evolutionary reason for this is that 
 in order learn from experience one must remember things; but there is too 
 much to remember 
 in any detail.  So the brain creates this story which is a condensation of 
 the events in 
 order to store the information in a retrievable way.  At least that's the 
 way I would 
 design a robot if I wanted to exhibit human-like behavior and I think that 
 would entail 
 that it would be conscious. 


  , 
  Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the 
 past 50 
  years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been 
 done in this 
  area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize 
 that isn't 
  sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and 
 struggling to 
  survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance 
 tuner? Why is even a 
  chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done on the 
 footprint issue? 

 ?? You're worked up because flashes of consciousness might be occuring in 
 computers?  Why 
 would you care?  Do you care about bacteria, insects, plants?  First, you 
 need a theory of 
 consciousness - then you can decide whether it has ethical implications. 

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone



On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics.



What do you mean by this? It is more that we can't separate physics  
from consciousness.
Are you aware that if we (in the third person view) are machine, then  
physics emerge from arithmetic?

Do you have a problem with the UD Argument, and if yes, which one?

Bruno






What this implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy.
-Original Message-
From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am
Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it  
is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop  
being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass


Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks  
to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on  
(strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over  
days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return  
to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue  
to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging  
ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc  
kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such  
that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the  
heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs  
where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with  
our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I  
experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what  
object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?  
If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?


If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness  
experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically  
conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of  
software, such that the experience is able to think the next  
thought? The processor? RAM?


Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,  
and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware  
can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it  
be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness  
would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is  
intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of  
our code, purely in terms of, and exactly

 of that code?
,
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the  
past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all  
having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer  
runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little  
consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,  
only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why  
is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done  
on the footprint issue?

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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone



On 02 Mar 2014, at 18:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:


Truth is a belief about what a sensation represents.


Not at all. By definition, truth is independent of belief. Arithmetic  
truth does explain where the belief come from. If not you fall into  
solipsism.


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

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone



On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it
 is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop
 being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass

 Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks
 to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on
 (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over
 days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return
 to normal until all the REM is made up for)
 i
 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue
 to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging
 ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc
 kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such
 that 'a change is as good as a rest'.
 ion
 If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious
 in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the
 heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs
 where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with
 our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
 experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what
 object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?
 If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?

 If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
 experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically
 conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which
 hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of
 software, such that the experience is able to think the next
 thought? The processor? RAM?

 Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,
 and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware
 can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it
 be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness
 would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is
 intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of
 our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
  of that code?
 ,
 Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the
 past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all
 having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer
 runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little
 consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,
 only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why
 is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done
 on the footprint issue?


A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of
the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.

I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic
suggest the following answer.

Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a
person, a first person notion.

Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness  
intrinsic of computation?


You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary.  
Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia,  
out of time and space and physics, which arises from their views from  
inside.
It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like  
consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost  
equate it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it  
affirmatively, we do it because we *hope* we get a level right, but  
the theory will explain that we are invoking God implicitly in the  
process, and that is why I insist it is a theology.






Leaving that to one side, what is the sequence then in your logic  
that comp carries no attribute of consciousness, yet as you define  
comp for your input assumption, from within itself it produces trina  
replacement device seamlessly continuing a conscious existence? As  
your starting point - which is now in the frame for a flaw, because  
the attribute of consciousness must be attached to comp in a step  
coming before.


On the contrary. The weak version of comp I am studying does not make  
any link between my consciousness and my brain, but only on a bet of  
its invariance for some substitution.
This will break the usual mind-brain identity thesis, and the brain is  
only a device which make my platonic consciousness able to manifest  
itself relatively to possible others.








Comp leads to an hard theory, arithmetic. Intensional arithmetic, as
elementary arithmetic

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone