Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947? Brent- . Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947, but not ' philosophical progress ' (!). We still haven't answers to the questiohs: What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?, What is the quantum of light ?, What is an electron?, What is entropy ? . . . . . etc. . . . .etc. To create new abstraction ( quarks, big-bang, method of renormalization . . . etc ) is not a progress. ==. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On 08 Feb 2013, at 17:23, John Clark wrote: ... consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence. Consciousness might be the unconscious, i.e. instinctive and automated, belief or bet in a reality, or self-consistency (for machine expressing their beliefs in first order languages), so that new programs can doubt old programs. Its selective advantage is the self-speeding up provided by such bets. That's is useful for self- moving entities, which have to anticipate quickly how their neighborhood evolves relatively to them. This makes all Löbian systems conscious and self-conscious. But it is not the system which is conscious, but the abstract person incarnated and multiplied in all computations going through the systems' states (which exist in arithmetic by Church's thesis). Consciousness accelerates the growing of intelligence, which is needed to develop different competence, and to make competence growing. But consciousness and emotion can make competence having negative feedback on intelligence. Consciousness is the ultimate first person decider in the matter of first person good and bad. Trivially, to be burned would not been first person felt as bad if it was not conscious. Consciousness can perhaps be characterized by the semantical fixed point of an attempt of universal doubting procedure. It is what would remain in case you doubt of (almost) everything. (Slezak defended a similar idea, which is already in the talk of the sound self- referential machine). Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 08 Feb 2013, at 17:54, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote: there is a single result in Bruno's experiment, John K Clark sees Washington and Moscow. But under MWI you agreed you see the photon hit the left or the right plate, not the left side and the right side. So which is it? Yet more confusion and for exactly the same reason, those God damned personal pronouns. H = Helsinki where the person is read and annihilate. M is for Moscow, and W is for washington (the cities or the experience of feeling to be in the cities, according to the context). We have agreed that: - the M-guy is the H-guy. - the W guy is the H-guy - The M-guy is not the W-guy. No problem because pronouns are indexical, and thus modal notions, on which typically the Leibniz identity rule don't applied. We know by comp that the H-guy will survive. The H-guy knows comp, and so knows that the two computerized version s, that is the M-guy and the W-guy , will not have direct access to the memory of their respective doppelganger, and so that whoever the H-guy will become, it can only be felt to be in one city, and that it has two be W or M. The experience, when done, we can get confirmation. If the H-guy predicted W or M, then the W-guy and the M-guy can compare the statement W or M in their diaries (which has been multiplied by definition of first person), then they look at the city, and the W-guy see W, which makes W or M true (by elementary logic). Etc. John K Clark sees the photon hit the left AND the right side of the plate, however John K Clark has been duplicated so the John K Clark who sees the photon hit the left side of the plate sees the photon hit the left side of the plate and the John K Clark who sees the photon hit the right side of the plate sees the photon hit the right side of the plate. In the same way John K Clark sees Washington AND Moscow although the Washington John K Clark sees only Washington and the Moscow John K Clark sees only Moscow. If it is in the same way, it justifies the same use of probability. The only difference then is that in the quantum the 3p duplication is the 3p quantum superposition, and in comp it is the amoeba type, or computer type of classical duplication (a read of code followed by a reconstitution). It is crucial, as this shows, before MGA that to use correctly a physical laws to predict a first person experience (like seeing an eclipse) we have to assume the physical universe is little to apply the laws, if not, we have to take into account the probabilities of having extension in the universal dovetailing, or in some long enough universal dovetailing. Physicalist must bound the physical universe, to keep the brain mind identity thesis they use implicitly in applied physics. Then MGA suggests this does not work either, unless some magic is put in the notion of matter. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Topical combination
On 08 Feb 2013, at 18:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Friday, February 8, 2013 12:02:57 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Feb 2013, at 19:43, meekerdb wrote: On 2/7/2013 8:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Beyond our view of matter, I would guess that both of them would agree that matter is a function of quantum functions, which to me is the same thing as an image of the mind made impersonal. But that is not what people means by quantum, which need to refer to the *assumed* (not derived like in comp) physics. Comp is derived from an assumption. Physics is derived from observation. Comp is the assumption. Physics is partially derived from observation, but makes many assumptions, inclduing comp most of the time, and it becomes pseudo- science when it hides the assumption (like when forgetting to relate the assumption about the existence of a (primary) physical universe. Then both comp laws and physical laws rely on observation to be refuted. Observing, assuming, refuting are all aspects of sense. Observing? Yes. But not assuming and refuting which admits sharable 3p independent of sense, or any notion of truth. Sense cannot be refuted or assumed or observed without using sense. Sense cannot be refuted. It is what makes it uninteresting as a tool in science, even if it is what makes it the most interesting in life. Sense cannot be understood as a logical expectation from comp or an observable mechanism in physics, and in fact both physics and comp owe their epistemology to sense. That statements is theory dependent. Bruno Craig Dennett made clear that he is physicalist, naturalist, and weak materialist. I don't know any scientist being idealist, and even in philosophy of mind, most dictionaries describe it as being abandoned. I agree in the sense that you intend, but I think that functionalism is the same thing as impersonal idealism. You can't provide new meaning to terms having standard definition. That's pretty funny from a guy who redefines God, theology, and mechanism. :-) I use the original and general definition of God by those who created the subject, as I use theology in the general sense used by even contemporaries philosophers. And the use of mechanism for digital mechanism is the standard term, for example used by Judson Webb, Dennett Hofstadter, etc. Then what I derived might astonished those who have prejudices in the field, but we hardly change a definition due to logical consequences of them. Why does atheists defends so much the over-precision brought by the Romans in the subject can only confirm my (perhaps shocking for some) statement that atheism is but a variant of christianism, except that atheists are far more dogmatic on the definitions. I recommend you stringly the reading of Brian Hines: Return to the One: Plotinus' guide to God-realization, which illustrates well the big similarities between Christian metaphysics and the great differences too. It illustrates well the complete similarities on the question and the notions, and the complete difference in the answers. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Topical combination
On 08 Feb 2013, at 23:34, meekerdb wrote: On 2/8/2013 8:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If you talk about God to people not reading this list, they would never come to your meaning, as such your usage is a misuse and leads to confusion. No, you are wrong on this. All theologians I met have no problem at all Of course theologians constitute about 0.01% of the people who have not read this list. I don't understand. All what I see is that only (strong) atheists, and fundamentalist have a problem with the idea of being serious in theology. Serious means accepting we are ignorant, and using the terms in the semi-axiomatic way. By defining God as the ultimate cause, or reason of everything, we can start by being open on all religion, and then we can add this or that second axiom, and with comp we can even interview the machines. Then the machine is almost completely silent on most questions, but in many case can justify why she has to be silent. I recommend that you read the book on Brian Hines: http://www.amazon.com/Return-One-Plotinuss-Guide-God-Realization/dp/0977735214 or even better, the book by Dominic O'Meara on the enneads http://www.amazon.com/Plotinus-Introduction-Dominic-J-OMeara/dp/0198751478#reader_0198751478 Comp shows that the Church-Turing thesis rehabilitates the Pythagorean version of Neoplatonist theologies. But theology will remain the worst of all oppressing tool in everyplace where the doubting modest scientific attitude is not allowed in the field. Literalism, fundamentalism and superstitions in the religions are the result of not being serious in theology. Bruno Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On 09 Feb 2013, at 00:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: Outside of consciousness, there is no possibility of discerning any difference between accidental byproducts and selected products. Only consciousness selects. Only consciousness has accidents. Good point. But this does not make consciousness a good fundamental concept to which we can depart. With computaionalism the number are better. Consciousness is when number relation supports local person's belief in a reality or in a truth. Bruno Craig On Friday, February 8, 2013 5:53:18 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/8/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: I don't know what you mean by that, what I mean is that consciousness is a spandrel, it is the unavoidable result of intelligence. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29 Or it could be an accidental byproduct of the way human intelligence developed - unavoidable only in the sense that it was the only reachable intelligent starting from hominds. Evolution can only move species to local maxima of fitness. In Roland Omnes recent book he imagines an alien race that has enormous memory capacity, so that simply remember everything that has happened and what was done and when the need to make a decision they just do the thing that turned out best in the past. It's Omnes caricature of Hume's theory of cause and effect. But his idea is that such aliens wouldn't develop 'theories' as we do to summarize past events. Would they be conscious? I don't know, but I'd guess they wouldn't be conscious in the way I am (I don't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday...but I have a theory). Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On 09 Feb 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com I totally agree with that, what I don't agree is when you say the moment you're becoming Telmo again, you should lose *all* cat memories/feeling... I totally disagree with that unless you have some proof it should be so. Sure, I have no proof, I'm just speculating. But what I'm speculating is the following: - You need a significant part of the brain of the cat to be able to understand its memories; - You need a significant part of the brain of Telmo to have Telmo feel like he remembers something; - For Telmo to remember cat memories, you need both brains and an interface between them -- this would result in a new entity that is neither Telmo nor the cat. The problem is that we don't know the comp subst level of the cat, but for Telmo to, to have the experience of the cat, would be like a sort of amnesia of what humans learned since they were equivalent to cat in complexity in their past lives, and then having experience like climbing trees, etc. Then, if the amnesia was just a memory dissociation, you can wake up and see it like dream, where you can remember having different memories. We can't be sure that it was a cat experience, but it *might* be, or close enough to make sense to Quentin's proposition. It might be harder for a cat to dream having a human experience, as our brain are reasonably more complex than the cat experience, though. But even this might still be conceptually possible, except that waking up, that cat has become a human (unless he forgets the whole dream). Bruno Quentin My argument is based on abstract CS, not hard drives or other technicalities. write-only does not have to be for everybody. But it's still a technical disgression and it is discussing the number of angels on a pin for now. I think it's a deep question. It's not unless you have good working knowledge of the question. Also, the fact that you can't imagine a solution yourself, doesn't mean there isn't one, lack of imagination is also not an argument. I agree, but it's an intuition. Well... Quentin Regards, Quentin Regards, Quentin For example, to store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing a tree, I would have to access my human representation of a tree to connect the memories to it, but accessing my human representation of a tree would spoil my cat experience. Regards, Quentin And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and that a cat's consciousness differs in both respects. There's consciousness of being an individual and of being located in 3-space and in time. You and the cat have both of those (whereas a Mars rover only has the latter). But there's language and narrative memory that you have and the cat doesn't. There's reflective thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about myself and where I fit in the world. The cat probably doesn't have this because it's not social - but a dog might. But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it just the general property of being conscious instantiated in different contexts? The fact that you believe you can turn me into a cat seems to indicate that ultimately you believe that consciousness is all the same. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this
Re: The Plant Teachers
On 09 Feb 2013, at 15:14, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:15:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote: On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote: Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of LANGUAGE. Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description of something is a dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION. Perception is often throttled by the processes of language. We need to move beyond words. This is the importance of math and music (which is audible math IMO.) That seems contradictory. Mathematics is very restricted language - declaratory sentences, logically consistent. Mathematics is not a language at all. You might be confusing mathematics and the theories used to put some light on some mathematical reality. Then Spanish and French and Italian aren't languages either. People might confuse them with the linguistic theories used to put some light on some semiotic reality. Not at all. Spanish and French and Italian are languages. They define strings of symbols, having meaning, which can be on some subject matter, but they are different from the subject matter. Only non-mathematician confuse the mathematical language (that exists too) and the mathematic subject matter (number, geometrical shapes, algebras, mathematical structures, etc.). Also most mathematicians don't care so much about logical consistency. That notion is studied by logicians, but with few incidence on the doing of mathematicians. Logic is just another branch of math, with its own purpose. It can have application in math, or not. What branches of math contain no logic? What branches of anything does not contain logic? Everyday life is full of logic. But this is different from logic as a branch of math, which is virtually known only by logicians, and some computer scientists. It is a pity as it is a useful tool, but things takes time, and most logicians are not even aware of their ivory tower. They live in the clouds, we would say in french. I got problems because I dare to apply what most mathematicians think to belong to pure math. They don't want people applying their beautiful discoveries. Of course pure math is a myth, provably so with comp. Bruno It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be encoded in binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that the form of representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential way. The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form. The mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in logic, or computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but again, we have to distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the syntactical tools to point on it. Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we assume that it exists independently of them? Math is as different from language than the physical universe is different from a book in cosmology. The referents of math are different from the referents of other specialized languages, but that doesn't mean that it is different from other languages. The referents of mathematics are no more infinite than those of art, literature, poetry, etc. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 09 Feb 2013, at 15:16, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:19 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/8/2013 12:04 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/7/2013 3:15 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 10:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 2/7/2013 12:01 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: “A secular purpose” is a nice ruse, because it is “theology-free”, right? Yes it is. It's not dependent on any ultimate foundation of the universe (per Bruno's definition of 'theology') or even any agreement about what that might be. It only depends on the public subjective non-religious values of society as expressed in their laws. That's what 'secular' means. By what mechanism does a value become non-religious? How did marriage become secular for instance? Can you define non-religious values? I can where religions are certified by the state. Care to share an example of a secular value stripped of all religious and transcendental connotations? Sure, murder is bad. Of course this may be incoporated into many different religions as a value imposed by some transcendental force - but it's constancy across many cultures and religions, it's obvious relation to evolutionary survival makes it pretty clear that it's a secular value. You take negation murder to be a secular value? Ok, I'll go along with this even though I believe no state or individual sees that, as an ethical end to strive for in the sense of a negative intrinsic value. Not murder is, along with all these cultural and evolutionary factors, transcendental, as it follows from valuing life in the simpler self-referential statement: I live, hence I don't want to die. I live, therefore I wouldn't want to be killed, therefore murder is bad. You ask why, and you'll get a transcendental answer: Because my life is not worth killing. = simply belief, as the person in question could be a Hitler type, with a Stauffenberg waiting in the next room. Human life appears as the primary, intrinsic value even here, and not not murder, which is merely instrumental negative value implied by the primary value of affirming human life. The negative instrumental value can be overridden, to assert the intrinsic one. I value human life in the general intrinsic, affirmative sense is much harder to override. Value human life is common sense with transcendental roots; not some naive nonsense imposed onto religions by their arbitrary transcendental false deity. Additionally, some mystics, theologians, and religions were able to nail this point without recourse to historical appearance of cultural consistency and religions, evolutionary survival, in which you've obscured the transcendental quality to make your point: these are imho just sophisticated justifications (still products of science's narrative of seeking truth; a truth beyond our reach = transcendental smiles back at us again anyway, if you ask why? enough times) of something much simpler: the will to live, including the irrational belief bit we can't wrap our minds around, as we could also be evil and our value of life misplaced at times. If you make evolution set the standard, then you have to buy the darker side of its theology: Good Tsunami, asteroid, CO2, mass extinctions of life forms; as these shocks will create a stronger forcing function on populations and individuals to adapt in the long term; good my family got killed in that last quake. Good points. In fact some people seem to have hard to understand that physics is not theology, as they bear on different questions. But saying there is no theology, makes physics (usually) into a theology. It is no more physics: it is physics + a theological assumption. It becomes *a* theology. Not saying it makes it authoritative, which is, provably with comp, the theological trap. In science, locally, we can still tolerate an amount of authority and conservatism, but in religion we can't. The contrary can happen, and that's we have not really begin to do science. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: HOW YOU CAN BECOME A LIBERAL THEOLOGIAN IN JUST 4 STEPS.
On 09 Feb 2013, at 17:28, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: you agree that if I ask you the question in the MWI context, what is the probability that you see the photon hit the left plate, you'll say 50%, As I've said before the primary weakness of the MWI is how to consistently assign probabilities to observers seeing things, particularly if the number of universes is infinite and not just very large. All the probabilities need to add up to 100% or it's nonsense, ... making your W and M prediction into nonsense. (with W and M being respectfully denoting the corresponding subjective experience of being in the city W, or, exclusively, the city M, as you cannot be in both cities from the first person point of view. and there is considerable debate about how well Many World's has managed to do that, some say pretty well but others say not so much. yet you say that in the duplication experience of Bruno, it 100% you see left, 100% you see right which is of course false... the correct one either in MWI or with Bruno's experiment is 50%. If you can do a prediction in MWI so can you *the same way* in Bruno's experiment, only bad faith prevent you to admit it. In Many Worlds everything is completely deterministic, everything is determined by Schrodinger's wave equation; or at least that's it's goal if it can get over the infinity problem mentioned above. But Bruno claims to have found a brand new type I just make my case. I have never brag on new and things like that. That is not relevant, and the fact that you insist on this illustrate an ad hominem kind of argument. of indeterminacy never seen before when all he has really discovered is the less than astonishing fact that the guy who well see the photon go to the left is the guy who sees the photon go to the left. And this miss the point that the act of prediction is asked to the guy in Helsinki. That if he said W or M, all his successors will agree, and that if he said W and M, all its successors will refute the prediction, assuming of course that he has the cognitive ability to understand the definition of first person and third person given in comp, at the start of UDA. Bruno John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 09 Feb 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote: But then doesn't that leave subjectivity fundamentally mysterious? I think that human subjectivity is a range of qualities of experience, some rooted in the sub-personal, some in the super- personal, and some reflected from the impersonal ranges. From this island of possible personal sensitivities, the influences arising from beneath, behind, or beyond us does seem mysterious, but from an absolute perspective, the only thing mysterious is why we should assume that it is not fundamental. Because we want to explain it from something simpler. That's what make comp interesting, it allows at least the search (and then computer science illustrates that it works indeed). Bruno If form/geometry is first and math second (which fits my own understanding at this time) the what is it that is apprehending math? And does it have form? I wouldn't say that one is first or second to the other, only that there is no path from one to the other without the commonality of the third - which is personal sense. What it is that apprehends math and form is, by triangulation, the common opposite of both. Not formless nor irrational, but trans-rational and form-seeking. I throw around pretentious terms like Trans-Rational algebras, or apocatastatic gestalts, but what I mean is that we see whole images in spite of the disjunct pixels which are presumed to compose them. We jump to conclusions and bridge cognitive gaps, we anticipate teleologically rather than only passively react. Craig ~Simon On 2/9/13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 1:31:55 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: If geometry did not exist. Could you invent it with mathematics alone? Mathematicians have invented geometries of 5, 6, 7, or even a infinite number of dimensions as in Hilbert space even though they have no tactile experience of such things. I missed it at first, but actually your example makes my point exactly. If the universe were primitively arithmetic, it also would not require any tactile experience to support its computations in 1, 2, 3, or four dimensions. This is a great topic for me because even people with very Western orientations should be able to see that sensory distinctions are more primitive than mathematical universalities this way, without getting into any deep philosophical discussions about subjectivity. The simple and unavoidable truth is: Geometry is mathematically impossible. Mathematics has no power to generate points in space, or lines, shapes, volumes, etc. These forms are not mathematical, they are sensory experiences, and experiences of the visual-tangible channels of public awareness at that. You can't get a body out of math, unless you are already expecting a body to be possible, and you have real bodies to use to project simulated bodies onto. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- My blog: http://firequery.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/SimonForman http://www.dendritenetwork.com/ The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity. -- H. P. Wells, A Short History of the World -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit
Re: context, comp, and multiverses
On 09 Feb 2013, at 22:47, Telmo Menezes wrote: Let's say Wr is a world But this might be ambiguous. If by Wr you mean the real physical world, it can only mean, when we assume comp, that Wr is the real sum on all simulation or computations which exist in arithmetic (by UDA). That real world is typically not emulable by a computer, as it is an infinite actual sum on infinities of emulations/computations. No prob. I just meant a world. I chose r (poorly) because it comes before s, so Wr, Ws. I wasn't trying to imply that Wr is _the_ real world. OK. I took r = real, and s = simulated. But then we did agree. and Ws is a world simulated in a computer within Wr. OK. (with the precision just above). There's the system S, which can be instantiated in the real world (Sr) or in the simulation (Ss). Then there's Bruno (B). Finally, part of what we mean by S is the ability to perform some function by interacting with Bruno, let's say F(S, B). I'm saying that: if F(Ss, B) then Ss is an emulation for B, otherwise it's a simulation. I would say: if F(Ss, B) = F(Sr, B) then there is a sense to say that relatively to B, Ss is an emulation. Even better. But I am not sure emulation/simulation should be thought in that relative way. This is an interesting idea, but it does not bear on the the original emulation/simulation idea. basically an emulation is just an exact imitation. This makes sense for digital processes. Ok, but exact imitation still feels a bit ambiguous to me. The technical exact imitation can be defined with the compiler theorem. For any bases phi_i and phi'_i you can find a computable function F such that for all i if phi'_(F(i)) = phi_i for all inputs. And an intensional version, with the notion of equivalent algorithm can be given too (but is much longer to describe). You can write a fortran program emulating a game of life pattern, and you can find a game of life pattern emulating a fortran program. A fortran user would not see the difference (except in time execution). (By a base phi_i, I mean an enumeration P1, P2, P3, ... of all programs in some Turing universal system, with the corresponding phi_1, phi_2, phi_3 ... functions (from N to N, say)). Of course we can consider F(Ss, Br) and F(Ss, Bs), but it's still relative to what B we're talking about. Furthermore, for F(Ss, Br) to be true there must exist some interface between Ws and Wr -- which can be uni or bidirectional depending on F. OK. Again with the proviso that there are no real Wr. Wr is only what B can expect from its first person indeterminacy, which bears only on the many arithmetical computations, be them simulation or emulation (of what?), going through its relevant (from the 1p perspective) computational state. OK? Ok. OK. Bruno http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emulator It just means that there is an exact simulation. The intensional Church thesis (which is a simple consequence of the usual Church's thesis) makes all programs emulable by all universal programs. With a mac, you can emiulate a PC, but you can also emulate a complete PC with the keyboard, and if comp is correct you can emulate the PC, its keyboard, and the user. You can emulate fire on a MAC, and it can burn anyone emulated on that mac and interacting with the emulated fire (again assuming comp). The correct level of comp is defined by the one which make yourself being emulated by the artificial brain or body, or local universe. Ok, I agree with what you say here. You can turn a very good simulation into an emulation (for me) iff you emulate my mind inside the simulation. Yes. And this might help to understand why we don't need a primary (assumed) physical reality, as the number relations contains all possible emulations. Note that the MGA says something stronger: it says that not only we don't need a physical primary reality, but that even if that existed, we can't use it to relate any form of consciousness to it. By the usual Occam, weak-materialism is made into a sort of useless principle, a bit like vitalism in biology. Ok. I have no resistance to the idea to begin with but I'm looking forward to fully understanding the argument. Materialism feels like a cop-out, similar to a god-creator. Yes. Indeed. After MGA, (UDA step 8), substratum-matter can be introduced with the purpose of single out one reality, with unique conscious state in it, but only by making it both non Turing emulable and non first person indeterminacy recoverable (which is already not Turing emulable). This is asking a lot for just being unique and material. It is like invoking a God to select one branch of a quantum universal wave. It makes us very special, just to avoid a much simpler type of explanation. It does not mean that the idea of God is bad, but that type of God use is just contrary to the usual weak
Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On 09 Feb 2013, at 23:38, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: snip If you're still want to go on the technical detail, then give real technical insight of how the mind works and what can really prevent that One insight is that the human brains stores information in an associative, decentralised memory. The way it retrieves information is by walking through a network of associations. Every new information I experience is stored in relation to my personal diary. Me and the cat have different personal diaries. What I'm proposing -- and it's not a technical argument -- is that to _know_ how it feels to be a cat you would have to receive information in relation to the cat's personal diary, and that the presence of your own personal diary would spoil the experience, because then you also see things from you perspective and not the pure 1p cat perspective. I'm not saying, however, that it is impossible to somehow inject memories into my brain that are translations of the cat's memory into my own context. (no, you're lack of knowledge is not argument against it). I never used my lack of knowledge as an argument -- although it's abundant in many ways. I said I don't know of an algorithm that can write new information to a coherent memory without also reading it. But I was being polite. I believe nobody can produce such an algorithm. But you can read memory and forget it, or even read memory without making it personal, and so disconnect them from other memories. In practice, we can't both do it and prove that we have done it, but that's different. It can be done in principle. I would say. Bruno Cheers, Telmo. Regards, Quentin this would result in a new entity that is neither Telmo nor the cat. Quentin My argument is based on abstract CS, not hard drives or other technicalities. write-only does not have to be for everybody. But it's still a technical disgression and it is discussing the number of angels on a pin for now. I think it's a deep question. It's not unless you have good working knowledge of the question. Also, the fact that you can't imagine a solution yourself, doesn't mean there isn't one, lack of imagination is also not an argument. I agree, but it's an intuition. Well... Quentin Regards, Quentin Regards, Quentin For example, to store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing a tree, I would have to access my human representation of a tree to connect the memories to it, but accessing my human representation of a tree would spoil my cat experience. Regards, Quentin And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and that a cat's consciousness differs in both respects. There's consciousness of being an individual and of being located in 3-space and in time. You and the cat have both of those (whereas a Mars rover only has the latter). But there's language and narrative memory that you have and the cat doesn't. There's reflective thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about myself and where I fit in the world. The cat probably doesn't have this because it's not social - but a dog might. But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it just the general property of being conscious instantiated in different contexts? The fact that you believe you can turn me into a cat seems to indicate that ultimately you believe that consciousness is all the same. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message
Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On 09 Feb 2013, at 23:44, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 08 Feb 2013, at 13:45, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Well, yes... with computer you could imagine doing just that... so why not ? Also, the fact that you can't imagine a solution yourself, doesn't mean there isn't one, lack of imagination is also not an argument. I agree. This can happen in dreams. I have personally experience this a number of times, and I have read similar reports. Actually Louis Jouvet, the discoverer of the REM dreams, has studied that phenomenon, in the case of people relating simultaneous unrelated dreams, and he attributed this to the disfunctionning of the corpus callosum during the dream phase. It makes momentarily the two hemisphere independent. It looks like we can integrate different identities in different past. The result is a bit troubling ... unless we are already aware of the relative nature of personal identity. This happens also when using dissociative drugs. Of course, if Telmo wakes up with the memory of a cat experience, he will only access of the memory of cat + Telmo, which might biase the original experience of the cat, That's exactly all I'm saying. OK. but not necessarily so much for a short period of time. This makes possible to conceive waking up and memorizing more than one past threads. I have no problem with this, but I'm proposing that for you to have the 1p experience of another entity, the only solution is to become the other entity. If a merged 1p of the two entities is achieved, a new entity with a new 1p is, in fact, created. OK. But this still makes it possible to agree with Quentin too, as you can disconnect different memories. The present memory always biases older memories, so you can live a cat experience, and when you awake as a human, still have a pretty good idea of what it was like to be a cat, even if now, you can only live the experience of being a human remembering what it was like to be a cat, and thus introducing the unavoidable bias, which does not need to be so great, thanks to local dissociation. In case you live the experience of a bee, there is the difficulty that although you might get new qualia for the seeing of the ultraviolet, you will find hard to relate it with any human memories, etc. Bruno If the many past threads are equivalently realist and coherent, it leads to a direct understanding of the relative nature of identity, and the possibility of sharing initial consciousness of ... who? I let you ponder on this. Bruno Regards, Quentin Regards, Quentin For example, to store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing a tree, I would have to access my human representation of a tree to connect the memories to it, but accessing my human representation of a tree would spoil my cat experience. Regards, Quentin And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and that a cat's consciousness differs in both respects. There's consciousness of being an individual and of being located in 3- space and in time. You and the cat have both of those (whereas a Mars rover only has the latter). But there's language and narrative memory that you have and the cat doesn't. There's reflective thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about myself and where I fit in the world. The cat probably doesn't have this because it's not social - but a dog might. But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it just the general property of being conscious instantiated in different contexts? The fact that you believe you can turn me into a cat seems to indicate that ultimately you believe that consciousness is all the same. 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- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to
Re: The Plant Teachers
On 10 Feb 2013, at 02:04, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:54:38 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote: What an extraordinarily interesting idea, Craig! I'll have to let Brian Eno know about this. Eno was recently talking about the possibilities of a new kind of inaudible music. Actually, John Cage already invented that in the '50s with his infamous piece 4'. 33 - where the pianist walks to the keyboard, sits there for 4 minutes and 33 seconds (without playing anything) and then gets up and leaves. The music is in fact all the little reactionary giggles, guffaws, sighs etc. of the audience's outraged reaction. Also the tweets of the little birdies in the trees outside etc. It qualifies as music because each and every performance of 4'. 33 is different. The environment interprets the score; the performer is merely the catalyst. And I can assure you, good old John Cage was no stranger to the odd hallucinogenic experience. Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The history of art and music is full of conceptual provocations, from Malevich to Duchamp, Shoenberg to Zappa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACCAF04wSs While I agree that these can be very interesting and imaginative, they hardly disprove my point. Music is in no danger of being replaced by silent representations of music. Can we encode the music of silence in binary? We can't encode any music in binary, we can only encode instructions for an instrument to stimulate human ears in a way that we find musical, or silent. OK. But then if you accept this for music, why not accept it for math. Bruno Craig Kim On 09/02/2013, at 10:45 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If music were just an audible math though, then people should enjoy watching oscilloscope renditions of songs with no sound as much as they do listening to them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 10 Feb 2013, at 07:46, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: How to describe the Universe as it really is ? You should always be clear if you talk about the physical universe (that we can observe), and the real universe, that we are searching. If you assume that the Universe = the physical universe, we already adopt a strong axiom of Aristotelian theology, and it happens to be incompatible with another widespread assumption, which is that we are Turing emulable (like the laws of physics used in the brain in all appearance). =. In his Scientific Autobiography Max Planck wrote : ' The outside world is something independent from man, something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific pursuit in life. ' What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ? ==.. In the beginning Planck wrote, that From young years the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute, seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life. And after some pages Planck wrote again, that the search for something absolute seemed to me the most wonderful task for a researcher. And after some pages Planck wrote again, that “ the most wonderful scientific task for me was searching of something absolute. ==.. And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute” Planck wrote, that the fact of relativity assumes the existence of something absolute ; the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.” Planck wrote that the phrase all is relative misleads us, because there is something absolute . And the most attractive thing was for Planck “to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.” 3. And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics: a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,. b) The negative 4D continuum, c) The speed of light quanta, d) The maximum entropy which is possible at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K. If computationalism is true, and if Planck is true, then a) b) ... d) must be derived from elementary arithmetic. ==. I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science. if comp is true, they are not fundamental. They have to be derived from computer science (and thus from arithmetic, by Church's thesis). And some are already partially derived, notably a). The universe is in the head of all universal numbers. So to speak. This makes comp testable. Bruno =. socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947? Brent- . Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947, but not ' philosophical progress ' (!). We still haven't answers to the questiohs: What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?, What is the quantum of light ?, What is an electron?, What is entropy ? . . . . . etc. . . . .etc. To create new abstraction ( quarks, big-bang, method of renormalization . . . etc ) is not a progress. Good. So you might open your mind on the consequences of computationalism. It needs to backtrack on Plato, for the theological/ fundamental matter. The physical reality becomes the border of the (Turing) universal mind, in some verifiable way. The Aristotelian *assumption* that there is a physical reality, although fertile, seems to be wrong once we assume consciousness to be invariant for some digital transformation. Eventually it leads to new invariant in physics. Physics does no more depend on the choice of the computational base, notably. Bruno ==. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Consciousness might be the unconscious Okey dokey, and if you allow that X is not X you can prove or disprove anything you like. Consciousness accelerates the growing of intelligence Then it would be easier to make a intelligent conscious computer than a intelligent unconscious computer, so if you see a smart computer it's safest to assume it's conscious, just like with people. But consciousness and emotion can make competence having negative feedback on intelligence. So consciousness accelerates and decelerates intelligence. Huh? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: They [mathematicians] are just elaborating existing concepts of geometry, not creating it from mathematical scratch. But all those concepts of geometry, like the trigonometric functions, can be derived from one dimensional numerical sequences with no pictures or diagrams involved and if told that a particle with N degrees of freedom changes in a certain way and then changed again in a different way but one that is still consistent with those functions a one dimensional geometer could still specify what the coordinates of that particle will now have in N space. It doesn't matter how many dimensions you make the machine, the tape is still one dimensional Yes but it can make calculations in N dimensional space, and a Turing Machine might not even know that it is one dimensional, or even that it is a Turing Machine. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 1:55:15 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: They [mathematicians] are just elaborating existing concepts of geometry, not creating it from mathematical scratch. But all those concepts of geometry, like the trigonometric functions, can be derived from one dimensional numerical sequences with no pictures or diagrams involved and if told that a particle with N degrees of freedom changes in a certain way and then changed again in a different way but one that is still consistent with those functions a one dimensional geometer could still specify what the coordinates of that particle will now have in N space. That's my point. There is never any need to have more than one dimension. All there need be is numerical sequences. It doesn't matter how many dimensions you make the machine, the tape is still one dimensional Yes but it can make calculations in N dimensional space, and a Turing Machine might not even know that it is one dimensional, or even that it is a Turing Machine. The N dimensions are figurative though. Literal geometric dimensions are inaccessible to mathematics unless we correlate them ourselves. We have access to multiple spatial dimensions of geometry through our sensory-motor participation as a body in a universe of bodies, but mathematics has no such access. Thus comp fails by overconfidence. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:16:31 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Feb 2013, at 22:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 3:32:52 PM UTC-5, Simon Forman wrote: But then doesn't that leave subjectivity fundamentally mysterious? I think that human subjectivity is a range of qualities of experience, some rooted in the sub-personal, some in the super-personal, and some reflected from the impersonal ranges. From this island of possible personal sensitivities, the influences arising from beneath, behind, or beyond us does seem mysterious, but from an absolute perspective, the only thing mysterious is why we should assume that it is not fundamental. Because we want to explain it from something simpler. That's what make comp interesting, it allows at least the search (and then computer science illustrates that it works indeed). It may not have any choice but to prove it works. If comp has no access to geometry, why would it have access to subjectivity? In either case, there will be tautological internal consistency, but only because it comp is a closed-circuit echo chamber. Craig Bruno If form/geometry is first and math second (which fits my own understanding at this time) the what is it that is apprehending math? And does it have form? I wouldn't say that one is first or second to the other, only that there is no path from one to the other without the commonality of the third - which is personal sense. What it is that apprehends math and form is, by triangulation, the common opposite of both. Not formless nor irrational, but trans-rational and form-seeking. I throw around pretentious terms like Trans-Rational algebras, or apocatastatic gestalts, but what I mean is that we see whole images in spite of the disjunct pixels which are presumed to compose them. We jump to conclusions and bridge cognitive gaps, we anticipate teleologically rather than only passively react. Craig ~Simon On 2/9/13, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 1:31:55 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: If geometry did not exist. Could you invent it with mathematics alone? Mathematicians have invented geometries of 5, 6, 7, or even a infinite number of dimensions as in Hilbert space even though they have no tactile experience of such things. I missed it at first, but actually your example makes my point exactly. If the universe were primitively arithmetic, it also would not require any tactile experience to support its computations in 1, 2, 3, or four dimensions. This is a great topic for me because even people with very Western orientations should be able to see that sensory distinctions are more primitive than mathematical universalities this way, without getting into any deep philosophical discussions about subjectivity. The simple and unavoidable truth is: Geometry is mathematically impossible. Mathematics has no power to generate points in space, or lines, shapes, volumes, etc. These forms are not mathematical, they are sensory experiences, and experiences of the visual-tangible channels of public awareness at that. You can't get a body out of math, unless you are already expecting a body to be possible, and you have real bodies to use to project simulated bodies onto. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- My blog: http://firequery.blogspot.com/ http://twitter.com/SimonForman http://www.dendritenetwork.com/ The history of mankind for the last four centuries is rather like that of an imprisoned sleeper, stirring clumsily and uneasily while the prison that restrains and shelters him catches fire, not waking but incorporating the crackling and warmth of the fire with ancient and incongruous dreams, than like that of a man consciously awake to danger and opportunity. --H. P. Wells, A Short History of the World -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit
Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:15:00 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: You are convinced that computers and other machines don't have consciousness, but you can't say what test you will apply to them and see them fail. I'm convinced of that because I understand why there is no reason why they would have consciousness... there is no 'they' there. Computers are not born in a single moment through cell fertilization, they are assembled by people. Computers have to be programmed to do absolutely everything, they have no capacity to make sense of anything which is not explicitly defined. This is the polar opposite of living organisms which are general purpose entities who explore and adapt when they can, on their own, for their own internally generated motives. Computers lack that completely. We use objects to compute for us, but those objects are not actually computing themselves, just as these letters don't actually mean anything for themselves. Why would being generated in a single moment through cell fertilization have any bearing on consciousness? Because consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time, or rather through which time is created. Why would something created by someone else not have consciousness? Because it is assembled rather than created. It's like asking why wood doesn't catch on fire by itself just by stacking it in a pile. Why would something lacking internally generated motives (which does not apply to computers any more than to people) lack consciousness? Why would computers have an internally generated motive? It doesn't care whether it functions or not. We know that people have personal motives because it isn't possible for us to doubt it without doubting our ability to doubt. To make these claims you would have to show either that they are necessarily true or present empirical evidence in their support, and you have done neither. You would have to show that these criteria are relevant for consciousness, which you have not, and you cannot. As long as you fail to recognize consciousness as the ground of being, you will continue to justify it against one of its own products - rationality, logic, empirical examples, all of which are 100% sensory-motor. Consciousness can only be explained to consciousness, in the terms of consciousness, to satisfy consciousness. All other possibilities are subordinate. How could it be otherwise without ending up with a sterile ontology which prohibits our own participation? So if, in future, robots live among us for years and are accepted by most people as conscious, does that mean they are conscious? This is essentially a form of the Turing test. I don't think that will happen unless they aren't robots. The whole point is that the degree to which an organism is conscious is inversely proportionate to the degree that the organism is 100% controllable. That's the purpose of intelligence - to advance your own agenda rather than to be overpowered by your environment. So if something is a robot, it will never be accepted by anyone as conscious, and if something is conscious it will never be useful to anyone as a robot - it would in fact be a slave. You don't think it would happen, but would you be prepared to say that if a robot did pass the test, as tough as you want to make it, it would be conscious? It's like asking me if there were a test for dehydrated water, would I be prepared to say that it would be wet if it passed the test. No robot can ever be conscious. Nothing conscious can ever be a robot. Heads cannot be Tails, even if we move our heads to where the tails side used to be and blink a lot. Craig -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Bruno, you write mystique. First you mention THE REAL UNIVERSE (who said ther IS one?) then you line up a series of IF-s. What about IF NOT? You seem to justify the 'truth' of arithmetics on the basis of human logic (prime #s, 2+2=4, etc.) which may be a flimsy dependence of the Natural Logic building up the World. Maybe an illogicalistics? We are restricted in our tiny mindset and think That's IT! Looking at those 10 millennia of human evolution: we gradually get smarter and know about more and more (rightly or wrongly). But we still have no idea whether ANYTHING we think is real, of just a fantasy in our effort to EXPLAIN the unknowables? You wrote you are more agnostic than myself. Does it apply to those if-s? On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 1:46 AM, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: How to describe the Universe as it really is ? =. In his Scientific Autobiography Max Planck wrote : ' The outside world is something independent from man, something absolute, and the quest for the laws which apply to this absolute appeared to me as the most sublime scientific pursuit in life. ' What are these ' laws which apply to this absolute ' world ? ==.. In the beginning Planck wrote, that From young years the search of the laws, concerning to something absolute, seemed to me the most wonderful task in scientist’s life. And after some pages Planck wrote again, that the search for something absolute seemed to me the most wonderful task for a researcher. And after some pages Planck wrote again, that “ the most wonderful scientific task for me was searching of something absolute. ==.. And as for the relation between “relativity and absolute” Planck wrote, that the fact of relativity assumes the existence of something absolute ; the relativity has sense when something absolute resists it.” Planck wrote that the phrase all is relative misleads us, because there is something absolute . And the most attractive thing was for Planck “to find something absolute that was hidden in its foundation.” 3. And Planck explained what there is absolute in the physics: a) The Law of conservation and transformation energy,. b) The negative 4D continuum, c) The speed of light quanta, d) The maximum entropy which is possible at temperature of absolute zero: T=0K. ==. I think that these four Planck's points are foundation of science. =. socratus -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Plant Teachers
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 11:49:56 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2013, at 02:04, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:54:38 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote: What an extraordinarily interesting idea, Craig! I'll have to let Brian Eno know about this. Eno was recently talking about the possibilities of a new kind of inaudible music. Actually, John Cage already invented that in the '50s with his infamous piece 4'.33 - where the pianist walks to the keyboard, sits there for 4 minutes and 33 seconds (without playing anything) and then gets up and leaves. The music is in fact all the little reactionary giggles, guffaws, sighs etc. of the audience's outraged reaction. Also the tweets of the little birdies in the trees outside etc. It qualifies as music because each and every performance of 4'. 33 is different. The environment interprets the score; the performer is merely the catalyst. And I can assure you, good old John Cage was no stranger to the odd hallucinogenic experience. Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The history of art and music is full of conceptual provocations, from Malevich to Duchamp, Shoenberg to Zappa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LACCAF04wSs While I agree that these can be very interesting and imaginative, they hardly disprove my point. Music is in no danger of being replaced by silent representations of music. Can we encode the music of silence in binary? We can't encode any music in binary, we can only encode instructions for an instrument to stimulate human ears in a way that we find musical, or silent. OK. But then if you accept this for music, why not accept it for math. I don't deny the richness of math beyond the associated symbols, nor do I deny the pervasiveness of its reach. I only say that is a motive of sense, not a generative source of sense or motive. As rich as math is though, it is one layer deep. Its power derives especially from the constraint on quality and interiority. I think the problem with comp is that it mistakes this lowest denominator uniformity for an essence, when in fact it is the very inversion of essence: it is the essence of the existential void - the default, the test pattern. The actual essence is in the fertility of direct participation, of significance and motive. By betting on comp, we bet on insignificance and entropy. Craig Bruno Craig Kim On 09/02/2013, at 10:45 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: If music were just an audible math though, then people should enjoy watching oscilloscope renditions of songs with no sound as much as they do listening to them. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 2/10/2013 9:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2013, at 11:13, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Why? And why do you think science has made no progress since 1947? Brent- . Science made great technological ( !) progress since 1947, but not ' philosophical progress ' (!). We still haven't answers to the questiohs: What is the negative 4D Minkowski continuum ?, What is the quantum of light ?, What is an electron?, What is entropy ? . . . . . etc. . . . .etc. To create new abstraction ( quarks, big-bang, method of renormalization . . . etc ) is not a progress. Good. So you might open your mind on the consequences of computationalism. It needs to backtrack on Plato, for the theological/fundamental matter. The physical reality becomes the border of the (Turing) universal mind, in some verifiable way. The Aristotelian *assumption* that there is a physical reality, although fertile, seems to be wrong once we assume consciousness to be invariant for some digital transformation. Eventually it leads to new invariant in physics. Physics does no more depend on the choice of the computational base, notably. So does comp answer socratus questions? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
On 2/10/2013 12:14 PM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno, you write mystique. First you mention THE REAL UNIVERSE (who said ther IS one?) then you line up a series of IF-s. What about IF NOT? You seem to justify the 'truth' of arithmetics on the basis of human logic (prime #s, 2+2=4, etc.) which may be a flimsy dependence of the Natural Logic building up the World. Maybe an illogicalistics? We are restricted in our tiny mindset and think That's IT! But we wouldn't be so quick to say, That's IT! if we remembered that we just made it up, including the mathematics to talk about it. Sure, we think it has *something* to do with the real universe, but we can't be sure; we can only know what's worked so far. Brent Looking at those 10 millennia of human evolution: we gradually get smarter and know about more and more (rightly or wrongly). But we still have no idea whether ANYTHING we think is real, of just a fantasy in our effort to EXPLAIN the unknowables? You wrote you are more agnostic than myself. Does it apply to those if-s? -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The Plant Teachers
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 9:43:06 AM UTC-5, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 8:06 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote: It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be encoded in binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that the form of representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential way. The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form. The mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in logic, or computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but again, we have to distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the syntactical tools to point on it. Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we assume that it exists independently of them? Because virtually every creative person... I'll just let Steve Jobbs make the point (Wired, 1995): *Creativity is just connecting things. When you ask creative people how they did something, they feel a little guilty because they didn’t really do it, they just saw something. It seemed obvious to them after a while. That’s because they were able to connect experiences they’ve had and synthesize new things. And the reason they were able to do that was that they’ve had more experiences or they have thought more about their experiences than other people. Unfortunately, that’s too rare a commodity. A lot of people in our industry haven’t had very diverse experiences. So they don’t have enough dots to connect, and they end up with very linear solutions without a broad perspective on the problem. The broader one’s understanding of the human experience, the better design we will have.* Now, I assume Jobbs doesn't mean that creative people connect material things physically with strings, and that we're talking concepts that have assumed the same form, for millions of mathematicians, musicians, engineers, painters etc.over the ages, regardless of the particular configurations of their sensory apparatuses as biological beings. Arithmetic and the major scale don't depend on the senses- this is backwards. Arithmetic and the major scale do depend on the senses. Do you use the major scale to build things? You would if you were building melodies. You cannot create the major scale without an aural sensation, Aural sensation could be some infinite sum input, the magnitude of which we feel, more or less accurately, depending on our histories. That is possibly a valid analysis about aural sensation, but it is neither necessary nor sufficient to produce it. You could have quantitative inputs and magnitudes and histories without feelings or sensations. and you cannot conceive of arithmetic concepts without sensory examples and meta-sensory correlations of those examples. Those sensory examples and correlations are implied by arithmetic and thus the major scale. I use this in very, by your standards, sensory realist concrete terms as well, not just in discussions such as these: when teaching music theory I relate/map harmonies and interval studies, to human stereotype imagery, as a starting point for ear-training/music appreciation. Something to grab onto at the start, that becomes superfluous as the arithmetic ratios become more visible in introspection. I don't doubt the harmonic and arithmetic aspects of music, I only say that without the sensory experience of hearing sound they are conceptual noodlings that would be of no general interest. We all feel hungry, for example, because we all have stomachs, not because there is some Platonic hunger that exists independently of stomach ownership. Hunger is also a linguistic marker for insufficiency of a value. You never encountered a music that was lacking in some respect or the other? Never an equation unbalanced? If you work with sound, then orchestration problems, appropriacy of gesture and phrase are already visible on the score before it gets played. Even before that, in the composers mind coding it. You don't need a physical orchestra, or even a simulated one to state things like with this program: brass too f, more mf, or track 17 plus 3.8 db, or needs marimba. Both in hunger, and physical orchestration to digital mixing and composition, you have some value of a program that's insufficient. In addition to this, I do not, as your above statement implies, hold that physical and platonic realms are as separable as you imply. Body is merely an emanating structure, not platonically false in some alien realm, from machine's consciousness, so very real, but as one possible consequence of mind rather than primitive, as with your thinking. You are using hunger in a figurative sense though - projecting the pathetic fallacy onto inanimate structures. It is our sense of
Re: The Plant Teachers
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 10:41:23 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Feb 2013, at 15:14, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Saturday, February 9, 2013 8:15:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Feb 2013, at 21:38, meekerdb wrote: On 2/8/2013 12:31 AM, Kim Jones wrote: Which is a profound problem that we can lay right at the door of LANGUAGE. Language is indeed a self-serving thing. A description of something is a dance of language, not a dance of PERCEPTION. Perception is often throttled by the processes of language. We need to move beyond words. This is the importance of math and music (which is audible math IMO.) That seems contradictory. Mathematics is very restricted language - declaratory sentences, logically consistent. Mathematics is not a language at all. You might be confusing mathematics and the theories used to put some light on some mathematical reality. Then Spanish and French and Italian aren't languages either. People might confuse them with the linguistic theories used to put some light on some semiotic reality. Not at all. Spanish and French and Italian are languages. They define strings of symbols, having meaning, which can be on some subject matter, but they are different from the subject matter. Only non-mathematician confuse the mathematical language (that exists too) and the mathematic subject matter (number, geometrical shapes, algebras, mathematical structures, etc.). That just makes a straw man of non-mathematical language. The romance language subject matter (description, instruction, nouns, articles, adjectives, literary structures, etc) are also not limited to their immediate syntax. I never said that math referred only to it's own expression, but neither does any language. Also most mathematicians don't care so much about logical consistency. That notion is studied by logicians, but with few incidence on the doing of mathematicians. Logic is just another branch of math, with its own purpose. It can have application in math, or not. What branches of math contain no logic? What branches of anything does not contain logic? Color, flavor, pain, pleasure, love, imagination, feeling, intuition, etc. Everyday life is full of logic. But it isn't necessarily full of math (as tribes like the *Pirahã* reveal). Craig But this is different from logic as a branch of math, which is virtually known only by logicians, and some computer scientists. It is a pity as it is a useful tool, but things takes time, and most logicians are not even aware of their ivory tower. They live in the clouds, we would say in french. I got problems because I dare to apply what most mathematicians think to belong to pure math. They don't want people applying their beautiful discoveries. Of course pure math is a myth, provably so with comp. Bruno It seems to be an interesting fact that all information can be encoded in binary numbers, but that is the antithesis of you view that the form of representation, painting, dance, music matters in an essential way. The content of the information is usually not encoded, in any form. The mathematical study of that content can be done with some tools in logic, or computare science (with the UM building the meaning), but again, we have to distinguish the content (usually infinite) and the syntactical tools to point on it. Since we can only infer the content through the tools, how can we assume that it exists independently of them? Math is as different from language than the physical universe is different from a book in cosmology. The referents of math are different from the referents of other specialized languages, but that doesn't mean that it is different from other languages. The referents of mathematics are no more infinite than those of art, literature, poetry, etc. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript: . Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Why would being generated in a single moment through cell fertilization have any bearing on consciousness? Because consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time, or rather through which time is created. That's not an explanation. Why would something created by someone else not have consciousness? Because it is assembled rather than created. It's like asking why wood doesn't catch on fire by itself just by stacking it in a pile. That's not an explanation. Why would something lacking internally generated motives (which does not apply to computers any more than to people) lack consciousness? Why would computers have an internally generated motive? It doesn't care whether it functions or not. We know that people have personal motives because it isn't possible for us to doubt it without doubting our ability to doubt. You're saying a computer can't be conscious because it would need to be conscious in order to be conscious. To make these claims you would have to show either that they are necessarily true or present empirical evidence in their support, and you have done neither. You would have to show that these criteria are relevant for consciousness, which you have not, and you cannot. You make claims such as that a conscious being has to arise at a moment of fertilization, which is completely without basis. You need to present some explanation for such claims. Consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time is not an explanation. As long as you fail to recognize consciousness as the ground of being, you will continue to justify it against one of its own products - rationality, logic, empirical examples, all of which are 100% sensory-motor. Consciousness can only be explained to consciousness, in the terms of consciousness, to satisfy consciousness. All other possibilities are subordinate. How could it be otherwise without ending up with a sterile ontology which prohibits our own participation? Again, you've just made up consciousness is the ground of being. It's like saying consciousness is the light, light is not black, so black people are not conscious. You don't think it would happen, but would you be prepared to say that if a robot did pass the test, as tough as you want to make it, it would be conscious? It's like asking me if there were a test for dehydrated water, would I be prepared to say that it would be wet if it passed the test. No robot can ever be conscious. Nothing conscious can ever be a robot. Heads cannot be Tails, even if we move our heads to where the tails side used to be and blink a lot. So you accept the possibility of zombies, beings which could live among us and consistently fool everyone into thinking they were conscious? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:23:52 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Why would being generated in a single moment through cell fertilization have any bearing on consciousness? Because consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time, or rather through which time is created. That's not an explanation. It's a hypothesis. Why would something created by someone else not have consciousness? Because it is assembled rather than created. It's like asking why wood doesn't catch on fire by itself just by stacking it in a pile. That's not an explanation. It's a hypothesis that is consistent with my model and with observation. Why would something lacking internally generated motives (which does not apply to computers any more than to people) lack consciousness? Why would computers have an internally generated motive? It doesn't care whether it functions or not. We know that people have personal motives because it isn't possible for us to doubt it without doubting our ability to doubt. You're saying a computer can't be conscious because it would need to be conscious in order to be conscious. I'm saying that a computer is not physically real. We are using a collection of physical objects of various sizes as a machine to serve our motives to do our computations for us. It is not a structure which reflects an interior motive. What makes computers useful is that they have no capacity to object to drudgery. That is the capacity which is inseparable from unconsciousness. To make these claims you would have to show either that they are necessarily true or present empirical evidence in their support, and you have done neither. You would have to show that these criteria are relevant for consciousness, which you have not, and you cannot. You make claims such as that a conscious being has to arise at a moment of fertilization, which is completely without basis. You need to present some explanation for such claims. Consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time is not an explanation. I don't think that a conscious being arises at a moment of fertilization, I say that fertilization is just one milestone within biological stories. The stories are what is physically real, the private presentation. The cellular fusion is a public representation. I see nothing wrong with observing the singular nature of consciousness and its role in providing a private perspective in creating time as an explanation. I don't see that anything that physics has produced is more explanatory than that. What is energy? What is space? What is quantum? As long as you fail to recognize consciousness as the ground of being, you will continue to justify it against one of its own products - rationality, logic, empirical examples, all of which are 100% sensory-motor. Consciousness can only be explained to consciousness, in the terms of consciousness, to satisfy consciousness. All other possibilities are subordinate. How could it be otherwise without ending up with a sterile ontology which prohibits our own participation? Again, you've just made up consciousness is the ground of being. Not at all. I have eliminated all other possibilities through rational consideration. It's very simple. A universe which contains only matter or only information has not possible use for participating perceivers. If you can provide a reason why or how this would occur, then I would be very interested and happy to consider your position. It's like saying consciousness is the light, light is not black, so black people are not conscious. Nope. It's like saying that both light and dark are aspects of visual sense, and that visual sense cannot arise from either light or dark. You don't think it would happen, but would you be prepared to say that if a robot did pass the test, as tough as you want to make it, it would be conscious? It's like asking me if there were a test for dehydrated water, would I be prepared to say that it would be wet if it passed the test. No robot can ever be conscious. Nothing conscious can ever be a robot. Heads cannot be Tails, even if we move our heads to where the tails side used to be and blink a lot. So you accept the possibility of zombies, beings which could live among us and consistently fool everyone into thinking they were conscious? I don't even believe in the possibility of the word zombie. It is a misconception based on a misplaced expectation of consciousness in something which deserves no such expectation - like a puppet or a cartoon. Do I accept the possibility of puppets or cartoons who could be mistaken by everyone into thinking they were conscious? In a limited context, sure. There could be a
