Re: Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-19 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 11:08 PM 'Brent Meeker' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> I am well aware that there are huge sections of DNA that just repeat the
>> same thing for hundreds or even thousands of times,  but I don't see the
>> relevance because if they just repeat the same short phrase over and over
>> then they contain no information.  And there are other DNA sections that
>> once were genes but over the eons have been turned off (such as genes in
>> birds that once produced teeth in their ancestors). These sections don't do
>> anything anymore and the way we know they no longer do anything is that the
>> variation from individual to individual in those sections is much much
>> greater than the variation in the parts that still have a purpose. Because
>> they do nothing Natural Selection can't edit out errors in DNA duplication
>> so they accumulate from generation to generation.
>
>
> *> Right.  So if consciousness just supervenes on intelligent computation,
> natural selection couldn't act on it*
>

Natural Selection couldn't act directly on consciousness but it could do so
indirectly through intelligent behavior.

> *and it could persis*t.
>

Yes, a mutated malfunctioning gene that prevented you from being
intelligent would also prevent you from being conscious. But Natural
Selection wouldn't care if a gene that did nothing but give you
consciousness stopped working or not so the errors in it would keep
increasing from generation to generation and degrading consciousness at the
same time until there were so many errors the gene no longer worked at all
and you have a intelligent zombie. And if that is the case then I must be
astronomically lucky in having so few errors in my consciousness gene that
it still works and it is extremely unlikely any of the other 7.6 billion
people on the planet is as lucky as me.


> > I don't think this is particularly likely.
>

Then you would have no alternative but to conclude it is not particularly
likely Charles Darwin was right.


> *> But I do think there may be different kinds of intelligent computation
> and correspondingly different kinds of consciousness. *
>

Of course there are different types of intelligence, and if your
consciousness was the same as mine then we'd be the same person. But the
bottom line is you can have intelligent behavior without consciousness or
you can't. If you *can* then you must take seriously the idea you are the
only conscious being in the universe, if you *can not* then you must
conclude that a intelligent machine is at least as conscious as you are and
perhaps more so.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2jML-zDRPCsA4r5YzrPomY_Toi-7Jv%2BJYSCGDQsSHofw%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-18 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 7:54 PM 'Brent Meeker <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>>Evolution is unlikely to have stumbled upon a complex method of achieving
>> intelligence if there was a much simpler basic procedure to do the same
>> thing
>
>
> *> You must not have looked at how DNA is use to code for proteins.  There
> are huge strecthes DNA that are just unused copies of other segments.*
>

I am well aware that there are huge sections of DNA that just repeat the
same thing for hundreds or even thousands of times,  but I don't see the
relevance because if they just repeat the same short phrase over and over
then they contain no information.  And there are other DNA sections that
once were genes but over the eons have been turned off (such as genes in
birds that once produced teeth in their ancestors). These sections don't do
anything anymore and the way we know they no longer do anything is that the
variation from individual to individual in those sections is much much
greater than the variation in the parts that still have a purpose. Because
they do nothing Natural Selection can't edit out errors in DNA duplication
so they accumulate from generation to generation.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3NnZRkvwJg43YgbcG5AzC8-zsT03sd2odddxjrKhHW5Q%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-18 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 6:19 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

>> It's weird, perhaps it comes from watching too much Star Trek but I
>> don't understand why so many people believe it's inherently more difficult
>> to produce emotion than intelligence when Evolution found the exact
>> opposite to be true.
>>
>
> *> Evolution of humans on Earth combined (synthesized) a very different
> set of materials than that  which computer engineers have used to make what
> is today's conventional computer hardware.*
>

So there is something about the element carbon that makes it conscious that
the element silicon lacks. Well maybe. Any maybe there is something about
men that makes them conscious that women lack.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1QAEBs42zHJrEBq59iuDLK90U0SsBHpmLh_sTzMVfucw%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-18 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 18, 2019 at 9:37 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*A simulated human brain could read the Wikipedia article on pain [
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pain  ]
> and integrate this knowledge into its knowledge base, but it could not
> experience pain.*


It's weird, perhaps it comes from watching too much Star Trek but I don't
understand why so many people believe it's inherently more difficult  to
produce emotion than intelligence when Evolution found the exact opposite
to be true.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0cyiVEvLpdQzNPxjMeDRXmjXZu5X_9Gg6YiFt6RzAeVA%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-18 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 7:12 PM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> Even if we got super mega ultra lucky and Evolution just happened to
>> produce a mutated gene that gave a being consciousness it would be lost in
>> just a few generations due to genetic drift because however much we may
>> value consciousness natural selection can't see it or hear it or touch it
>> or detect it or be effected by it in any way.
>
>
> * > But that assumes consciousness has some cost in terms of survival and
> reproduction. *
>

Even if  it was neutral and the cost was zero a gene that did nothing but
generate consciousness would soon disappear due to genetic drift; errors in
dupacation always happen and the consciousness gene would accumulate such
errors because they would not reduce the survival chances of the animal
that had them , and after a few generations the gene would have so many
errors it would stop working entirely.

Of course it's possible that I won the lottery and out of the 7.6 billion
people on the planet I have the fewest errors in my consciousness gene, I
have the only one that still works. It could be, but somehow I don't think
so.

* > Maybe it's just a spandrel. *
>

I don't think there is any maybe about it. I am conscious and if I am the
product of Darwinian Evolution then consciousness MUST be a spandrel.

*Or maybe it has a function in the way human intelligence is implemented,
> but it wouldn't have a function is some other implementation.*
>

Evolution is unlikely to have stumbled upon a complex method of achieving
intelligence if there was a much simpler basic procedure to do the same
thing, therefore if we use Occam's razor we must conclude if a robot is
intelligent the best hypothesis is it's conscious too. To put it another
way, it would be harder (probably infinitely harder) to make a brilliant
non-conscious AI than to make a brilliant conscious AI.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv01nS_aCR-7bc%3DwtEW-Yz%3Dj%3DWkB4EWs3M6HrZFJeWsWUw%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-18 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 7:26 PM howardmarks  wrote:

> Lots of people have "premonitions" and beliefs they experience telepathy


Richard Feynman has a story about that. One day when he was a undergraduate
out of the blue he suddenly had a premonition that his grandmother had
died, seconds later somebody shouted "Hey Feynman there's a phone call for
you". He walked to the phone in dread only to learn it was just another
student telling him he left his textbook in the classroom. And it turned
out grandma was fine. The moral is premonitions are common but correct
premonitions are rare, however if you ignore the many false ones and
concentrate of the very few correct ones eventually you are bound to find
some remarkable coincidences. And even a stopped clock is correct twice a
day.

It's very easy to fool yourself this way and discover what you very much
want to discover, that's why places like CERN must have at least five sigma
confidence before they can claim a discovery; that means there is only one
chance in 3.5 million that what they saw was due to chance.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3bBdufd5sM%2BH7AsR1q029XjKq5dCQ_ZUSh_xEG6ZkMaQ%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-17 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 6:06 PM 'Brent Meeker' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

On 5/17/2019 4:56 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
>> >> If you somehow knew for a fact a brilliant being was a zombie then
>> you could immediately make one conclusion about it, the being could NOT be
>> the product of Darwinian Evolution because Natural Selection can see
>> intelligence but it can't see consciousness in others any better than we
>> can, and it can't select for something it can't see.
>
>
> * > I don't see how that follows.  If zombies are possible then evolution
> could have produced brilliant zombies.  It might just be an accident that
> evolution took the "consciousness" path at some point. *
>

Even if we got super mega ultra lucky and Evolution just happened to
produce a mutated gene that gave a being consciousness it would be lost in
just a few generations due to genetic drift because however much we may
value consciousness natural selection can't see it or hear it or touch it
or detect it or be effected by it in any way. Genetic Drift is the reason
cave animals have no eyes, their ancestors had eyes but once they got
trapped in pitch dark caves the gene that produced eyes no longer had any
survival value. Outside the cave a mutation that stopped the eye producing
gene from working would be fatal to an animal, but inside the cave it would
be an advantage, expensive resources used to make that eye could be used
for other more productive  things, like having more offspring.

But unlike consciousness natural selection can see and detect and be
effected by behavior, and animals with intelligent behavior get more of
their genes into the next generation than animals with less intelligent
behavior. And it is beyond dispute that random mutation and natural
selection managed to produce a conscious being at least once, and although
unproven it may have done it more than once, perhaps many billions of
times; therefore it is logical for me to conclude that consciousness and
intelligence are linked and consciousness is a unavoidable byproduct of
intelligence, it is just the way data feels like when it is being
processed.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2wY6uFYAOMTVBAorj3xLFqEZYK1qZP8Fr3EfS%2B9w6MmQ%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-17 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 5:37 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> I was referring to the reflexes of your arm, before any signal gets to
> your brain.  So here we have both information processing (small number of
> bits) and intelligent behavior (withdrawing an appendage from a flame), so
> can we rule out the consciousness of the nerves in your elbow? If so, how?*
>

Excellent question! How can we rule out consciousness in something
external? And a related question,  how can we rule consciousness in? The
simple answer is we can't. Maybe rocks are conscious and maybe Einstein
wasn't, but my hunch is that is not true although I'll never be able to
prove it. I do know that information processing is not a all or nothing
matter, it comes in degrees, so another hunch I have is that the same is
true for consciousness. I'll never be able to prove that holds true for you
but I know for a fact sometimes I am more conscious than others and
sometimes I am not conscious at all; my brain is doing something during
those times but I surmise it is not extracting information from data.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2%2Bm8wikBKJuw1uJSqbt%3DRYf-XHCwNhKNbuAc94bG4xYQ%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-17 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 5:22 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Friday, May 17, 2019 at 4:12:24 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>
>>
>> *>>Landing on the Moon is anecdotal, since is only reported by 3 people.
>> Telepathies are reported by 7 billion people all the time, including me, so
>> they are not anecdotal. They are like breathing. Everybody breaths. And if
>> you say you never had telepathies, you lie.*
>>
>
> >What balderdash!
>

I think you're being much too polite, Cosmin Visan is the sort of man who
gives balderdash a bad name. I'd call it pure extra virgin 100% Bullshit.

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0eUAVthsK7USF7ktd0t_K3MsUFmCtuep2nNULa_QjSHQ%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-17 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 5:16 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> You said consciousness is how information feels to be processed. *
>

Yes.


> *> What if that information is only 1 bit (like is my hand being burned or
> not)?*
>

I can't speak with any authority about your hand but if it was my hand I
would be conscious that it was being burned, in fact it would be pretty
much the only thing I was conscious of. Pain focuses the mind wonderfully
as does the prospect of being hanged (apologies to Samuel Johnson).

  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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1djdoDEOab9rvugQ2x7kRZ3fXS%3DLQ-n73YvH3kWo7WpA%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

2019-05-17 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 8:42 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> Also in cases of telepathy and precognitions the "technology" and the
> "motivation" existed at the moment of their occurrence. Actually, it seems
> that the conditions required for paranormal phenomena are being met way
> more often that the conditions required for Moon landing.*
>

If you're right about that then it should be easy to find
ironclad evidence within the month that will convince even the most
skeptical editors of journals like Physical Review Letters, Nature or
Science that telepathy and precognition actually exist. So let's make a bet
and I'll give you 10 to one odds; if a pro ESP article appears before June
17 2019 in any of those journals I'll give you $10,000, if it doesn't you
only have to give me $100. And remember the article doesn't need to explain
why the phenomena exists it just has to show that something exists that
needs explaining, So do we have a bet?

 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv01SmhNhzFt8QfhC-vZdzRc6nayOh%2Bm91yo2NcmUX6Pig%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-17 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 2:51 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:


> *> But what is information processing?*
>

It is the process of extracting information from data, and information is
the resolution of uncertainty. And my unproven assumption (which will never
be proven but is the only thing that prevents me from becoming a solipsist)
is that consciousness is the way data feels when it is being processed.

*> a robot - which is matter - that is doing very advanced, high-level
> information processing - could be a winner on Jeopardy, and talk to you in
> a conversation, could be a zombie.*


If you somehow knew for a fact a brilliant being was a zombie then you
could immediately make one conclusion about it, the being could NOT be the
product of Darwinian Evolution because Natural Selection can see
intelligence but it can't see consciousness in others any better than we
can, and it can't select for something it can't see. But of course there is
no way you could ever know a brilliant being was a zombie or know he was
not a zombie either unless a important assumption is made, intelligent
behavior implies consciousness.

*> Are you a zombie?*


No. But isn't that what you'd expect a philosophical zombie to say?

> *Now I would just way that the jury is out about qualia ⇨ information.*
>

The jury is NOT out over the fact that if your consciousness changes the
informational processing of your brain changes and if the informational
processing of your brain changes your consciousness changes. Regarding all
other matters involving consciousness the jury is still out and will remain
out until the end of time, and that's why complex consciousness theories
are such a complete waste of time.


> *> If the above paper is right, then it's sort of settled, right?*
>

The question of consciousness is as settled as it's ever going to be,
that's why the field of consciousness research has not moved an inch or
even a nanometer in a century. But Artificial *INTELLIGENCE* research is
alive and well.


> > *I still think the phenomenologists are right, that quaia is a
> different type of entity than information,*
>

Obviously they're different things but they're intimately related.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv02QVjF%2B%3DOkjsZs1_EEJizYPxbTX53Qf08hagBra-72mA%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: Is your elbow conscious?

2019-05-16 Thread John Clark
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 1:48 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> Information processing absent actual first-class entities of qualia (or
> experiences) can only produce zombies. One needs information processing
> operating in a material substrate where those entities are available to be
> combined and manipulated.*


So something can behave intelligently but if it is lacking "f*irst-class
entities of qualia*" it can only be a intelligent zombie. But "*first-class
qualia*" sounds like  consciousness to me, so you're basically saying only
conscious things can be conscious. A tautology has the virtue of always being
true but it involves a unnecessary non-required pointless repetition and
reiteration of words where you end up at the exact same place you started
with. And that is typical of all consciousness theories.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv10Uh2KLwA7W0ru3bFkyY_jyOC9x%2BOa3eCbV7qhM_9uEQ%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-16 Thread John Clark
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 4:54 PM Jason Resch  wrote:

*> we need to demonstrate that the elbow isn't consciousness.  E.g., it can
> exhibit reflexes to simuli without involving the brain.*


How would that prove anything? What proof is there that a reflexe or any
other observable behavior has anything to do with consciousness? There is
none. The hard fact is you must forget about proof and just assume there is
a link between intelligent behavior and consciousness because the only
alternative is solipsism.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2MEOXHR-rGFCsLtTNxpdGxDmdhsgrEMEd_yxaU-HJLKg%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-16 Thread John Clark
On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 9:00 AM 'Brent Meeker'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

* > You still need to explain why your elbow isn't conscious.*
>

According to my consciousness theory my elbow is the seat of my
consciousness, specifically my left elbow. I maintain that one armed men
are just intelligent zombies, and I also maintain that my theory is just as
good (or bad) as every other consciousness theory.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2rnNMHo9xN6jaxsKmirfaJAd-fx%3DrhtopX-SbdNdKPPw%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: How separating mind from matter ruined mental health

2019-05-13 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:21 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> *At least now you are saying "brain activity" instead of "mind". That's
> progress.*
>

I think you're talking about the "difference" between 6 and half a dozen.
Mind is what the brain does and you can't **do** anything without the
activity of some thing.

John K Clark

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1jJfh_qThUaHYVAwJhxgBMA9GgJ%2BdUqQHMOkUyv_Nf9g%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

2019-05-12 Thread John Clark
On Sun, May 12, 2019 at 2:08 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> Sorry dude, your ignorance doesn't stand for lack of evidence. There is
> plenty of evidence. And I will not even bother showing it to a woo woo like
> you.*
>

You are a stereotypical internet fool, a dime a dozen "expert" on
consciousness. Paranormal research is a dead field that never advances, if
this list existed in 1919 we'd be using the telegraph instead of the World
Wide Web but other than that nothing would change, we'd be saying the same
things because the evidence for the paranormal stuck in 1919 and it smells
just as bad in 2019. In the last century we've weighed neutrinos, found the
digital code for life, and detected gravitational waves, but not only have
we failed to explain how paranormal stuff works we can't even show that
there is something that needs explaining.

And you don't need a 10 billion dollar particle accelerator to investigate
the existence (or lack of existence) of the paranormal. If these simple
easy experiments that crackpots like you claim are valid then today the
paranormal would not be controversial because its existence would have been
proven to everyone's satisfaction way back in the time of Newton (maybe in
the time of Archimedes) and today high school kids, perhaps grade school
kids, would be repeating these classic 17'th century experiments proving
the existence of the paranormal in their science fair projects. But they're
not.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3-eq%2B1yO5SuXNvx6hCiykO5VjR_2WgFuQxa7SbqTh4fA%40mail.gmail.com.


Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

2019-05-11 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 4:31 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?*
>

That's easily explained. Millions of people are unscientific enough to
believe in the virgin birth, the infallibility of the pope, a picture of
Jesus in a pizza , astrology and the the evils of vaccination; so it's not
surprising that millions of people are unscientific enough to believe in
telepathy and precognition.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1Z7zgfsGshNqsVp8VAy3aKrLS%2BQJ-B2q2ZbnrDGEGwyQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: How separating mind from matter ruined mental health

2019-05-11 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 2:34 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

*> We talk about the sun and solar activities (like fusion, magnetic
> propagation, etc.) but we don't talk about solar activities distinct from
> the sun in any weird way,*


You can't have solar activity without the sun, and there is nothing weird
about that.

>

> *> like people do with brain and mental activities (of the mind).*
>

You can't have brain activity without a brain, and there is nothing weird
about that either.


> *> If "I" is an adjective, so is "you".*
>

Yes.

> *You matter speaks strangely. *
>

My and probably your third grade English teacher is the one that spoke
strangely

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0XAqVx3jTTq%3D-VRU4uzJefBCY1G0ivc_PyKBtOpXNx7Q%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: How separating mind from matter ruined mental health

2019-05-11 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 10:10 AM Philip Thrift 
wrote:


> > "Brain", "mind", "psyche" are nouns. [ Wiktionary ]
>

And my third grade English teacher said "I" was a pronoun, she was entirely
wrong. "I" is an adjective describing how atoms behave when they are
organized in a johnkclarkian way,

*> What word are you referring to as an adjective?*
>

My iMac dictionary says an adjective is a word or phrase naming an
attribute related to a noun that modifies or describes it. This time the
dictionary is correct. Mind, an adjective, describes what a brain, a noun,
does.

 John K Clark






> "Mental" and even "brainial" (uncommon) are adjectives.
> We talk about the *sun* and *solar activities* (like fusion, magnetic
> propagation, etc.) but we don't talk about solar activities distinct from
> the sun in any weird way, like people do with brain and mental activities
> (of the mind).
>
> @philipthrift
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/31648c7d-8e49-4e44-9f3e-774cb9e193b1%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1JHVDw%3DXkBM6KD77-K2w7CdsVOg1bmhzqiBX%3DWeBZDkA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: How separating mind from matter ruined mental health

2019-05-11 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 7:21 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> *That's a start to get away from the Cartesian delusion.*


I agree it's silly to say mind has nothing to do with matter, but it's not
silly to say nouns are not the same as adjectives. Brain and mind do not
mean the same thing.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1M0C_foHZY7%3DTymaH1SzpJMSm8ZjTq9ZupzR0088%3DyWg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: How separating mind from matter ruined mental health

2019-05-11 Thread John Clark
Separating mind from matter is no more ruinous than separating "fast" from
"racing car". Mind is what a brain does.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0LUNNJB_GYnGLonUUnjFNhR-yTfkcKBRVBpjUUHYymvQ%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The religion of AI

2019-05-11 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 6:14 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> *> There are lots of ways through which mind evolves.*
>

There is only one fundamental reason anything evolves, because of random
mutation and natural selection; one factor has a cause and one doesn't.

John K Clark






>
> On Friday, 10 May 2019 21:03:45 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>>
>> So the mind evolves by rational acts of free will (maybe JKC will explain
>> what that means) but that free will is limited by "evolution".
>>
>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/86f2b0c3-f23f-4d72-a1f7-29545975d7ac%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv3_eO4CG0Ro0kT-8%3DThZS6ov1QViXZ_gTLtf8Pz%2BRoxUg%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-10 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 6:25 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> Turing was interested in intelligence and, being a scientist, he knew he
>> couldn't say anything about consciousness unless he made the assumption
>> that observable intelligent behavior implies consciousness.
>
>

*> But that was due to the influence of the young Wittgenstein and the
> whole Vienna philosophy (positivism).*
>
> *Today this is shown false, as there is a theory explains consciousness,
> and verified by facts.*
>

It's false? So you have found a way of detecting consciousness in other
people or things without using the assumption that intelligent behavior
implies consciousness! Wow, this is huge news let's hear all about it! I'm
all ears!


> >> As for Godel, I don't think the philosophical musings he made after
>> about 1955 when his only friend Albert Einstein died are worth much, there
>> is no pleasant way to say this but the poor man went nuts.
>
>

*> Only the late years. Gödel was interested in theology since his youth, *


So even when young Godel was a bit nuts, that seems to be an occupational
hazard of great mathematicians. Godel was one of the greatest
mathematicians in the world but he was the only type of theologian it is
possible to be, terrible.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv26i%3DgZSuF%3DdA1eFzCDWDQNYVqN8WxqADrCQTGqk6iQog%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The religion of AI

2019-05-09 Thread John Clark
On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 4:06 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>>I have no idea what you mean by "free will" and, because you obviously
>> haven't given the matter any serious thought, you don't know what you mean
>> by "free will" either. However I do know there are only 2 posabilities,
>> events happen because of cause and effect or they don't.
>
>
> *> Only because you don't have absolute will it doesn't mean you don't
> have limited will. I see a lot of strawman fallacy around here.*
>

Did you choose to respond to my post for a reason? If you did then your
very response demonstrates the falsehood of the idea you're trying to
convey. On the other hand if you responded for no reason then you are being
irrational and irrational arguments are obviously not to be taken
seriously. And if there is anything in the world we can be absolutely
positively 100% certain of its that you either did or you didn't.

I have said many times before there is no law of logic that demands every
event have a cause and I stand by that, however every argument that claims
to be logical must have a cause.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1p%3DXOTiDk-s08wA_%2BKzpBjxcK-vbMtPETEHVngeMsWQA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The religion of AI

2019-05-09 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 8, 2019 'Cosmin Visan' v 
wrote:

> No. By rationality.
>

If something is rational then there is a reason, a cause, for it doing what
it did. If it was irrational then there was no reason, no cause, for it
doing  what it did. There has long been a word for events without causes,
"random".

> Decisions which are taken using free will.


I have no idea what you mean by "free will" and, because you obviously
haven't given the matter any serious thought, you don't know what you mean
by "free will" either. However I do know there are only 2 posabilities,
events happen because of cause and effect or they don't.

  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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2ZD5JfuN%2BJKnMXHwbt8tM2ZbJXeTpB87%2BTCVWtYfuVCA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The religion of AI

2019-05-07 Thread John Clark
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:54 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*>And how are "rules of the game" not labelled data ?*
>

That's just stating the problem! Nothing, not a person and not a machine,
can give an answer if they don't know the question.  Do you actually think
the above is a good rebuttal??

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv144YHYFtChbYGcD5%3DkRT7w0XS-_9k-UGnWugAXvWa5Sw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The religion of AI

2019-05-07 Thread John Clark
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:53 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> By saying such things you just prove that you have no understanding of
> computer science whatsoever*
>

We do know 2 facts about computer science that you do not, computers exist
and so do computations.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1EgZz6YJjCMubdUV5wtRtJ-qa-QRTWSc%2B6NMQAQarBEw%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: The religion of AI

2019-05-07 Thread John Clark
On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 2:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com>
wrote:

. > A human being can solve an IQ puzzle that he or she has NEVER seen
> before. A computer has to be told how to do it by its programmers


Modern programs can get good enough to beat any human at Chess or GO in
just a few hours (by playing games against itself) starting from knowing
NOTHING about the games except for the basic rules that tell it what moves
are legal. You couldn't do that, no human could, but a computer can.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv26jMCMam%3D8%3DHYUyL7xKSaRBm8%2BLb%3D29KtRdBpu18%2BtuA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: for Cosmin

2019-05-07 Thread John Clark
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:37 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Of course GR is false  [...] Telepathy and recincarnation on the other
> hand are true
>

It turns out I was incorrect when I said Cosmin Visan was a crackpot, based
on the above information I would say he's either crackpot squared or 2 to
the power of crackpot, probably the latter. I no longer think his
crackpotism can be expressed with a polynomial, it's exponential.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv14XxpzeWVE7TzKvuU%3DpX1FJWEGQDkxGuQ4cHC4TTFytA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: for Cosmin

2019-05-06 Thread John Clark
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 11:23 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com>

*> you cherry-pick what to believe in, against all evidence.*


So says the man who doesn't believe that computers or brains or atoms or
even calculations exist, but does believe that reincarnation and telepathy
does. I haven't heard your views on spoon bending, flying saucer men armed
with anal probes, ghosts, bigfoot, virgin birth or astrology yet but I can
make a educated guess.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-06 Thread John Clark
On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 2:19 AM Bruce Kellett  wrote:

*> This is essentially the point that both Turing and Goedel made when they
> pointed out that human consciousness is not Turing emulable -- it involves
> intuitive leaps that are not algorithmic, presumable coming from an
> uncodable environment.*
>

Turing was interested in intelligence and, being a scientist, he knew he
couldn't say anything about consciousness unless he made the assumption
that observable intelligent behavior implies consciousness. And deductive
logic is not the only sort of logic there is, there is also inductive logic
and there is no reason a Turing Machine can't be programed for that too and
they certainly have been, that's how Chess and GO programs are able to make
what any Grand Master would call brilliant intuitive moves. Deductive logic
is reliable but although even more useful than deduction inductive logic is
just a rule of thumb, and that is why a intuitive leap can sometimes turn
out to be brilliant and sometimes it can be dead wrong.

As for Godel, I don't think the philosophical musings he made after about
1955 when his only friend Albert Einstein died are worth much, there is no
pleasant way to say this but the poor man went nuts.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-05 Thread John Clark
On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 7:40 PM  wrote:

*> The Church-Turing thesis is one of the most useless ideas ever invented.*
>

Well...  Bill Gates assumed its true and that gave him confidence to drop
out if Harvard and to put the small amount of money he had into starting
his own small company, and 15 years later that company was a colossus and
Gates was the richest man in the world. I would call that a useful
assumption.

Carol E. Cleland wrote:

*>  there's a more correct way to view consciousness.*


Speaking of usefulness, unlike intelligence theories there is no way to
tell a good consciousness theory from a bad one.

*>  you haven't been clear about what that is, vacillating between "only
> certain kinds of matter can be conscious" and "all matter is conscious".*


I don't know about consciousness but if the logical operation of a
collection of matter particles can't be reduced to that of a Turing Machine
then it won't behave intelligently. As for consciousness all I'll say is
that any argument advanced that a Turing machines can't be conscious can
also be used with little or no modifications to advance the argument that
none of your fellow human beings are conscious.

> * I argue that mundane procedures can be said to be effective in the same
> sense in which Turing machine procedures can be said to be effective. I
> also argue that mundane procedures differ from Turing machine procedures in
> a fundamental way, viz., the former, but not the latter, generate causal
> processes.*


I have no idea what that's supposed to mean

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

2019-05-04 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 9:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


*> What happens in cases of telepathy is [...]. For example, in cases of
> dream telepathy [...] This clearly is a case of dream telepathy.*
>

OK, there was little doubt before but you just made it official, Cosmin
Visan is a crackpot.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-04 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 12:35 PM  wrote:

> *This obviously has nothing to do with Searle's argument*
>

What's that? I've never seen an argument, all I've seen is Searle's Chinese
Room and that's not an argument that's just an exercise in typing.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-04 Thread John Clark
On Sat, May 4, 2019 at 10:58 AM  wrote:

*> It seems people will remain in the delusion that software or programming
> in a conventional computer device - even with many processors - will
> achieve consciousness.*
>

Do you also believe it's a delusion to think a person with a different skin
color or sex than you - even if they behave very intelligently - is
conscious? If not why not?

*> Searle's Chinese Room argument still does apply here, as anyone should
> clearly be able to see.*
>

Searle should be embarrassed for proposing a thought exparament that was as
easy to poke logical holes in  as the Chinese Room. And the only reason
Searle isn't embarrassed is because you are the only one who experiences
qualia, you are the only conscious being in the universe.  If certain
assumptions regarding a linkage between qualia and behavior are not made no
other conclusion is possible.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-04 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 8:19 PM  wrote:

> *As you see in the article on functionalism:*
> *Functionalism developed largely as an alternative to* identity theory
>  ...
> *which is at least in the same ballpark as my view.*
>

Just tell me if you believe you're the only conscious being in the universe
and if not why not.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-03 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 7:50 PM  wrote:

> *I don't believe in the "functional equivalence" principle*
>

If you don't believe in that then logically you must believe you are the
only conscious being in the universe.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-03 Thread John Clark
On Fri, May 3, 2019 at 2:44 PM  wrote:

*> Now one can  generalize "computer":  *
>

Turing could and did generalize a computer and did so way back in 1935.
That's why he's famous, ...well for that and for breaking the German Enigma
code.

*> All software that has ever run has run on computers made of materials
> and assembled in factories.*
>

That's not true for all software. DNA is software and it's run on ribosomes
made of materials assembled in cells.  And a racist judges somebody not by
their actions or the content of their character but by some trivial
characteristic, for some it's if the skin is black or white, for others
it's if the brain is wet and squishy or dry and hard.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Does all computation generate heat?

2019-05-03 Thread John Clark
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 10:41 PM Samiya Illias 
wrote:

> *Considering how vast we have come to realise the Universe to be, do you
> honestly think our praise or our insults affect God in any way?*
>

No I don't think so but the religious do. When I was a grade school kid I
had a Catholic catechism that I was suposed to study, it was a series of
questions and answers. One of the questions was "Who made me?" and the
answer of course was "God made me", that one didn't bother me but even the
next question did "Why did God make me?" I had been taught that God was the
prime mover, God was the ultimate reason for everything, but if God did
things for a reason then obviously He can't be the ultimate reason; and the
answer to that stupid question bothered me even more. It came in 3 parts:

1) to know Him

In other words to believe He exists, and the less evidence there is that He
does the more virtuous the belief. At the time I couldn't figure out why
this would be a good thing and I still can't, it seemed more like a good
definition of stupidity. And besides if an omnipotent being wanted to
convince me He existed He certainly could. The fact that He didn't must
mean He didn't want me to believe He existed.

2) To love Him

I was told I sure as hell had better love Him because if I didn't a good
and loving God would fiendishly torture me for an infinite number of years;
and that is the sort of line I'd expect from a human huckster trying to
convince me to swallow their particular brand of religious snake oil and is
not something I'd expect from a being who was great enough to create the
cosmos.

3) To worship him, sometimes stated as to serve Him.

So I'm supposed to believe the primary motivation of God, the Prime
Motivator, is to get more flattery. Even ignoring the obvious logical
contradiction, if that  was a person's primary motivation (as it is for
Trump for example) it would be considered very small minded, but for a
omnipotent omniscient being it's utterly ridiculous.


> > *Do you even realise how great the Creator of all this must be?*
>

Yes, I know exactly how great God is. 42.


> >  *Do you think God would need any appreciation from us?*
>

I certainly don't think a omnipotent omniscient being, if such a thing
could exist, would be interested in our obsequious flattery, but religious
people think differently and that's why they go to houses of worship once a
week to brown nose God and hope all the flattery will convince Him to give
them stuff, things that range from a better parking space to driving the
infidels into the sea.

> *Our collective crime* [...]
>

Speak for yourself, I've committed no crime. That's another hallmark of
religion, trying to make people feel guilty for existing. Well I don't feel
guilty even if one of my ancestors did eat an apple when told not to, and
if God doesn't like it God can lump it.


> > [...] *is that we abused our free will*
>

Free will? What in the world does that mean?

> *to go against the Universal Laws.*
>

I'm not a perfect person but I always obey Universal Law; for example in my
entire life I have never once violated the commandment to conserve angular
momentum.

*> Remembering God through prayer, and Praising God by repeatedly declaring
> that God is free from all imperfection, helps us to* [...]
>

The religious believe that repeatedly declaring that God is sooo big and
sooo strong and sooo super nice helps you to keep that super nice being
from sticking you into a torture dungeon for eternity. But I don't believe
that, I believe the God described in the Bible or the Koran is far more
evil than the Satan as described in those books because nothing,
absolutely nothing, is more evil than torturing somebody for eternity, not
even if it's for the crime of eating a apple when told not to.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Does all computation generate heat?

2019-05-02 Thread John Clark
On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:54 AM 'Brent Meeker' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> *Islam is a religion based almost entirely on threats.*
>

True, but in all fairness Christianity is also based on threats. It
preaches that faith (believing in something when there is no good reason
for doing so) is not stupidity but is instead the ultimate virtue, and if
you don't believe in all the crap that Christianity (or Islam) says then a
good and loving God will torture you most fiendishly not for 10^100 years
but for an infinite number of years. I'm no saint but I wouldn't do that to
a unrepentant Hitler, and yet another thing we're suposed to do is
constantly flatter God by telling Him how good He is.

 The Meaning of Life: Praise the Lord


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-01 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:24 PM  wrote:

*> I would say that one could have a Jupiter planet-sized network of Intel®
> Core™ processors + whatever distributed program running on it, and it will
> not be conscious. It is not composed of the kind of matter needed for
> consciousness, which could include biochemical alternatives.*
>

Your theory, which you offer without a single particle of evidence, is that
dry and hard things can be intelligent and even super intelligent but only wet
and squishy things can be conscious. My theory, which has exactly as much
supporting evidence as your theory, is that only people with a size 13 shoe
size are conscious. Guess what my shoe size is.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-01 Thread John Clark
Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment is not just wrong it's STUPID. I
say this because it has 3 colossal flaws, just one would render it stupid
and 3 render it stupidity cubed:

1) It assumes that a small part of a system has all the properties of the
entire system.

2) It assumes that slowing down consciousness would not make things strange
and that strange things can not exist. Yes it's strange that a room considered
as a whole can be conscious, but it would also be strange if the grey goo
inside your head was slowed down by a factor of a hundred thousand million
billion trillion.

3) This is the stupidest reason of the lot. Searle wants to prove that
mechanical things may behave intelligently but only humans can be
conscious. Searle starts by showing successfully that the Chinese Room does
indeed behave intelligently, but then he concludes that no consciousness
was involved in the operation of that intelligent room. How does he reach
that conclusion? I will tell you.

Searle assumes that mechanical things may behave intelligently but only
humans can be conscious, and it is perfectly true that the little man is
not aware of what's going on, therefore Searle concludes that consciousness
was not involved in that intelligence. Searle assumes that if consciousness
of Chinese exists anywhere in that room it can only be in the human and
since the human is not conscious of Chinese he concludes consciousness was
not involved. And by assuming the very thing he wants to prove he has only
succeeded in proving that he's an idiot.
And now let me tell you about Clark's Chinese Room: You are a professor of
Chinese Literature and are in a room with me and the great Chinese
Philosopher and Poet Laozi. Laozi writes something in his native language
on a paper and hands it to me. I walk 10 feet and give it to you. You read
the paper and are impressed with the wisdom of the message and the beauty
of its language. Now I tell you that I don't know a word of Chinese; can
you find any deep philosophical  implications from that fact? I believe
Clark's Chinese Room is every bit as profound as Searle's Chinese Room. Not
very.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-01 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:13 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *How is a computer conscious ?*
>

The same way I am and perhaps you are.

> * Are you even aware of the Chinese Room argument ?*
>

Yes, the silliest thought exparament in the history of the world, the only
thing it proves is that Searle is a *very* bad philosopher.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: for Cosmin

2019-05-01 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com>

>> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 16:17:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Unless you can say what kind of fact you could discover that would
>> invalidate your theory, it's a hard no for me.
>>
>

>
> *Since the theory is correct, it cannot be invalidated.*


After that comment can anybody around here have any doubts about the
existence or nonexistence of a brain in Cosmin Visan's head?

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

2019-05-01 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:33 AM  wrote:

> *AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals*
>

I would maintain that question is of no practical importance whatsoever
because AI's won't need our protection. The important question is the one a
AI might ask himself:  Should I give humans the same ethical protection
that I give to other AI's?

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Does all computation generate heat?

2019-05-01 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:24 AM 'Cosmin Visan' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *"Computation" doesn't exist.*
>

I'm sure everybody will find that nugget of wisdom to be enormously helpful
but let me give it a try.

With reversible computing the amount of energy needed to perform a
calculation can be made arbitrarily small, but only at the price of slowing
down the calculation more and more.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: A short and straight to the point speech of Donald Haffman that the brain does not exist

2019-05-01 Thread John Clark
On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 2:24 AM via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> You certainly demonstrated that you are acting like a disrespectful
> frustrated teenager*
>

You made my day by confusing me with a teenager! And I solemnly promise I
will continue to give you all the respect you deserve.

 > *My conversation with you ends here*


Somehow I doubt it.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: A short and straight to the point speech of Donald Haffman that the brain does not exist

2019-04-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:11 PM 'Cosmin Visan' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> the brain does not exist:
>

You have certainly demonstrated more than once that is indeed true, some
people have no brains.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:58 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> To talk about errors is to have a standard of (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚✧ OBJECTIVE
> REALITY
>

Yes, reality has a way of informing one about what is objectively true and
what is not. If you look at a Saber Toothed Tiger and erroneously identify
it as a cute little bunny rabbit then your genes will not make it into the
next generation, but the genes of one of your fellow primates who is better
at pattern recognition will.

> Your problem is that you don't notice the process of creation in action.
>

A better name would be objective reality lessons with a vengeance, but an
even better name would be *Evolution In Action.*

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 1:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com>

>

> *> The duck-rabbit image shows a lot of profound things.*
>

It shows that image identification is a difficult task so it's not
difficult to make a ambiguous image, and it shows that both computers and
humans can make errors. But I know it's something. If I see something that
looks like a duck-rabbit in my sniper scope and pull the trigger on my
rifle I know I will eat tonight, although until I get closer and have a
better look at it I won't know if I will be eating duck or rabbit.


> *> it means you have the ability to create reality.*
>

Then why don't you create the reality that you won the debate and go away
with the knowledge of a job well done?

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:42 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Oh, so now you praise yourself for believing in object permanence ?
> Pfff... you are going down with each post.
>




> Even QM showed by Bell's inequalities that there are no objective
> properties until measurement.
>

No, that is only one possibility. The experimental violation of Bell's
inequality
showed that at least one of the following must be untrue:
1)Determinism
2)Locality
3)Realism

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:31 PM 'Cosmin Visan' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> You are behaving like a 5 years old. *
>

Maybe, but 5 year olds believe in object permanence but infants younger
than 7 months don't and neither do you.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:52 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> All your answers are answered by the duck-rabbit image,*
>

But you've taught me so much! You've taught me that just like computers and
brains the duck-rabbit image does not exist. Sure I can see the duck-rabbit
image but that doesn't mean the duck-rabbit image exists, I need to believe
you not my lying eyes.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:35 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> Aren't you going to answer the things about duck-rabbit image ?*
>

Aren't you going to work up your courage and try to answer all the
questions, or even one, that I asked you in my long post? And I already
answered your question about what the computer would see, in fact I did it
 twice.

 John K Clark





> You are left with no arguments and instead of accepting the truth, you
> just go someplace else to preach your religion ?
>
> On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 17:54:48 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>> *> You* [Cosmin Visan] *need to study what is a digital machine. You
>>> need to read the original paper of Turing,*
>>>
>>
>> Bruno you're wasting your time, Cosmin Visan doesn't think computers
>> exist so he's not going to read a paper about them. And besides papers
>> don't exist either. Cosmin believes he could figure out how the world works
>> by just sitting under a lotus tree and contemplating his navel except that
>> lotus trees don't exist and neither do navels.
>>
>>  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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-30 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> You* [Cosmin Visan] *need to study what is a digital machine. You need
> to read the original paper of Turing,*
>

Bruno you're wasting your time, Cosmin Visan doesn't think computers exist
so he's not going to read a paper about them. And besides papers don't
exist either. Cosmin believes he could figure out how the world works by
just sitting under a lotus tree and contemplating his navel except that
lotus trees don't exist and neither do navels.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-29 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:20 PM 'Cosmin Visan' t <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> Oh, so now when you are faced with a real problem, you start to change
> the subject ?*
>

I humbly submit you're the one changing the subject and pretending I never
wrote a long post that you refuse to respond to. And I've already answered
your question, I learned from you that computers don't exist so obviously
it sees nothing, and I have just as much trouble interpreting that image as
the nonexistent computer does so I don't exist either. Gee, science and
philosophy is so much easier if you can just say "X does not exist"
whenever things get complicated.

But now it's time for you to put on your big boy pants and answer all the
questions I asked you in my long post, and then try to resolve the many
contradictions in your ideas I pointed out; however I think you lack the
courage to do this. Prove me wrong.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-29 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:00 PM 'Cosmin Visan' t <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> *> What does a computer "see" in the duck-rabbit image ?*
>

Nothing, because ducks and rabbits don't exist, and neither do computers or
images.
But don't change the subject, work up your courage and try to knock down
the issues I mentioned in my long post. You'll fail but it will do you good
to try.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-29 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 3:33 AM 'Cosmin Visan' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *there is nothing more to talk about.*


I have lots more to talk about but you don't because you have no counter
argument to my criticisms except for a canned "*fill-in-the-blank* does not
exist" and because you're too cowardly to continue the debate or to admit
you were wrong. In other words you don't have a sincere desire to figure
out how the world works.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-28 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Apr 28, 2019 at 7:05 AM 'Cosmin Visan' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> So you have free will if you feel free, and you feel free if you have
>> free will. And round and round we go! The only definition I know of "free
>> will" that is not circular gibberish is the inability to always know what
>> you will do next even in a unchanging environment. Of course by that
>> definition even a cuckoo clock has free will so it's not a useful
>> definition, but at least it's not circular and it's not gibberish.
>>
>
> *> My definition is not circular. Your is by adding additional things in
> order to attack a strawman.*
>

It is only the second part that I added that gives the thing a meaning, not
a useful meaning I admit but at least it's better than gibberish.

> *All that I said is that free will is the feeling of being free. I didn't
> add the second part.*
>

And klogknee will is the feeling of being klogknee.

> *And a cucko clock is not free since it has no feelings*.
>

I won't bother asking how you know what feelings a cuckoo does or does not
have if you can't determine that through observing behavior because I know
you won't answer my question, you can't. But I will say there are only 2
posabilities, an event happens for a reason or it doesn't. If it happens
for a reason then it's deterministic. If a event happens for no reason then
by definition it's random. So you're either a cuckoo clock or a roulette
wheel, take your pick.

>> How on earth did you determine the college professor has the ability to
>> bring new qualia into existence but the computer did not when they
>> behaved in exactly precisely the same way?
>>
>
> > Really ?
>

Yes really.


> > *The behave in precisely the same way ?*
>

They did unless I missed something, what behavior did you *OBSERVE* the
college professor perform that a computer never could do even in theory?
Before answering please remember ONLY your own consciousness emotions and
qualia are directly detectable.


> >>> *Since computers are deterministic systems* []
>>>
>>
>> >>Then DETERMINE what the atoms in my computer will do after I program
>> it to find the smallest even number that is not the sum of 2 prime numbers
>> and then stop. Come on I'm waiting!
>>
>
> *> They will continue to bang into each others, what else ?*
>

The atoms in the computer will very suddenly start behaving in a radically
different way, if you were plotting the movement of atoms on a graph the
point where the computer found a even number that is not the sum of 2 prime
numbers would be unique, it would be the only point on the curve that was
discontinuous and did not have a tangent line. Will that point ever be
reached? I don't know you don't know nobody knows.  Turing showed that
there are statements in arithmetic that are true but have no proof, if the
Goldbach Conjecture is one of them then a billion years from now
mathematicians will still be looking, unsuccessfully, for a proof to show
it is correct and computers will still be grinding through huge even
numbers looking, unsuccessfully, for a counterexample to show it is
incorrect. Of course it's possible tomorrow somebody could find a proof or
a counterexample, but if Goldbach isn't undecidable we know for a fact
there are an infinite number of other mathematical statements that are true
but have no proof.

*>>> Learning is a property of consciousness*
>>>
>>
>> >>If so then the long debate has been settled at last, computers are
>> conscious.
>>
>
> *>You are again using your upside down logic*
>

You have used that phrase about a dozen times as your only rebuttal point,
a unsophisticated debate bot would do the same.

> in which you deduce the hypothesis from the conclusion.
>

I deduce hypothesis from observation. You have first decided that computers
can not be conscious (and they can't even be intelligent, which is not a
very intelligent thing to say) and only after you've decided what is true
do you bother to look for reasons to support your decision. Ready, Fire,
Aim!


>>> *> >>You not knowing what those atoms will do, and the fact of those
>>> atoms not being determined what will do, are 2 different things. Are you
>>> making these "mistakes" intentionally ?*
>>>
>>
>> >> The above would be a interesting remark on the very cutting edge of
>> physics ... if this was 1927 and not 2019. But a hell of a lot has
>> happened since then and that's the trouble with amature internet
>> philosophers, they know nothing about modern physics and show no desire
>> to learn any. I'll bet you've never even heard of Bell's Inequality or the
>> fact that it's been experimentally proven to be violated.
>>
>

> *Now you just say random things, because you are left without arguments,
> as if computers are quantum systems. And as a matter of fact, I heard about
> Bell, since I'm a physicist by training: *
>

If you believe a mention of Bell's inequality and the fact that it has been
experimentally proven to be violated is a 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-27 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 4:05 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


>>> *>>> I am a consciousness with free will. *
>>>
>>
>> >>Tell me what in hell "free will" is supposed to mean and I'll tell you
>> if I agree with you or not.
>>
>
> *> The feeling of being free.*
>

So you have free will if you feel free, and you feel free if you have free
will. And round and round we go! The only definition I know of "free will"
that is not circular gibberish is the inability to always know what you
will do next even in a unchanging environment. Of course by that definition
even a cuckoo clock has free will so it's not a useful definition, but at
least it's not circular and it's not gibberish.


> >> why is the college professor intelligent but the computer is not even
>> though it has the ability to give gave the exact same answers to your
>> difficult questions?
>>
>
> *> The college professor is intelligent because he is able to bring new
> qualia into existence out of nothing.*
>

How on earth did you determine the college professor has the ability to
bring new qualia into existence but the computer did not when they
behaved in exactly precisely the same way?


> > *Since computers are deterministic systems* []
>

Then DETERMINE what the atoms in my computer will do after I program it to
find the smallest even number that is not the sum of 2 prime numbers and
then stop. Come on I'm waiting!

*> Learning is a property of consciousness*
>

If so then the long debate has been settled at last, computers are
conscious.


> >> The first time It wasn't a picture it was a living person pointing to
>> an animal and saying "dog"; I doubt if I got it the first time but after a
>> few repetitions I eventually got the idea that a sound can represent an
>> object, slightly later I learned a sound can also represent verbs and
>> adjectives. A couple of years after that I learned that certain squiggles
>> written on a paper can take the place of sounds. If you insist that
>> consciousness is required to do this, and perhaps it is, then logically you
>> would have to conclude that computers are conscious because over the last 5
>> years they have demonstrated that they can learn the same way.
>>
>
>
*And a "living person pointing" is some kind of abstract entity ?*
>

I don't understand the question.


> > *Isn't on its own a picture in your own consciousness ?*
>

I don't understand that question either.

>
> *How did you see that picture for the first time ? *
>

With my eyes, computers do the same thing except they don't use my eyes,
they use their own CCD cameras.

> *Learning is a property of consciousness *
>

You already said that, and I say whatever learning is it's irrelevant to
this discussion because whatever it is COMPUTERS CAN LEARN TOO; that wasn't
true just a few years ago but it is now, and in some cases they can learn
better and much faster than humans, and it's only a matter of time before
it's true in all cases.

> *Since computers are deterministic systems* [...]
>

You said that before too, and incorrect statement age like a fine milk, not
well.

> *Learning is a property of consciousness*
>

Dang! I think I'm debating a AI computer program written with early 1980's
technology; just put in a few stock phrases and spit them out at irregular
intervals.


> > *Since computers are deterministic systems* [...]
>

Yep, you're a robot, and a very unsophisticated one.

>> First of all we've known since 1927 that atoms are NOT completely
>> deterministic and only obey probabilistic laws. And a "computer" may be a
>> label for a macroscopic collection of atoms but it is a precise one, I can
>> specify the exact number of atoms that are represented by that label. And
>> even if we ignore Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and assume atoms
>> behaved like billiard balls as Newton thought they did you still couldn't
>> DETERMINE what that collection of atoms will do in the future, all you can
>> do is watch it and see and you might be watching forever. And if
>> something can not be determined then it is nondeterministic.
>>
>
>
> *> You not knowing what those atoms will do, and the fact of those atoms
> not being determined what will do, are 2 different things. Are you making
> these "mistakes" intentionally ?*
>

The above would be a interesting remark on the very cutting edge of physics
... if this was 1927 and not 2019. But a hell of a lot has happened since
then and that's the trouble with amature internet philosophers, they know
nothing about modern physics and show no desire to learn any. I'll bet
you've never even heard of Bell's Inequality or the fact that it's been
experimentally proven to be violated.

> *"computer" is just a label.*
>>
>>
>> So is "Cosmin Visan".
>>
>


> *> Sure, but that label is a quale in consciousness, *
>

So you say, but why should I believe what you say is true?  Prove to me you
have the ability to experience a quale and then prove to me a computer
lacks 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-26 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:36 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


>
> *> I am a consciousness with free will. *
>

Tell me what in hell "free will" is supposed to mean and I'll tell you if I
agree with you or not.

*>>> computers don't get to any answers, they just activate certain pixels
>>> on the screen and you as a conscious being interpret those pixels as an
>>> answer. *
>>>
>>
>> >> College professors don't give any answers in their lectures, they
>> just activate certain sound waves and you as a conscious being interpret
>> those sound waves as an answer.
>>
>
> > *Of course. And you might interpret them correctly or not. *
>

Then why is the college professor intelligent but the computer is not even
though it has the ability to give gave the exact same answers to your
difficult questions?

>>> *a computer (besides the fact that it doesn't even exist, of course) it
>>> doesn't even have qualia,*
>>>
>>
>> >> Two can play this silly game: Qualia doesn't exist. So there!
>>
>
> > *I was sure that you will eventually bring this meaningless assertion
> to the table. Why ?*
>

As I said two can play this silly game. Tables don't exist.

* > Because you are not interested in having a meaningful conversation,*
>

Conversations don't exist.

> you are only interested in preaching
>

Preaching doesn't exist.

* > your religious *
>

Religion doesn't exist.

*> belief in live objects.*
>

Belief doesn't exist and exist doesn't exist either. So there, see what a
great philosopher I am!

> *How did you think you learn to speak in the first place ?*
>

>From examples, same way computers have recently learned how to do.


> >> The first time I saw a dog I knew no language and so would have been
>> unable to put a picture of a dog in the pile marked "dog", but people kept
>> pointing at the animal and saying "dog" and eventually I got the idea. And
>> recently computers have gained the ability to learn from examples the same
>> way humans do,
>>
>
> *> Yeah, and how did you get the picture of "people pointing" ?*
>

The first time It wasn't a picture it was a living person pointing to an
animal and saying "dog"; I doubt if I got it the first time but after a few
repetitions I eventually got the idea that a sound can represent an object,
slightly later I learned a sound can also represent verbs and adjectives. A
couple of years after that I learned that certain squiggles written on a
paper can take the place of sounds. If you insist that consciousness is
required to do this, and perhaps it is, then logically you would have to
conclude that computers are conscious because over the last 5 years they
have demonstrated that they can learn the same way.


> >
> *You can push this "first time" event as far back as you want to try to
> escape the inevitable, but you will not escape it. You still have to
> aknowledge a first point of creation of something out of nothing. *
>

We were debating if computers are intelligent so the above is irrelevant
because  they can now learn the same way humans do.

 if you want to know what it's going to do all you can do is watch it
 and see. It would only take me a few minutes to write a computer program to
 find the smallest even number that is not the sum of 2 prime numbers and
 then stop. Will my computer ever stop? Nobody knows, nobody can determine
 that. Maybe it will stop in the next second, maybe it will stop next year,
 maybe it will stop in a billion years, maybe it will never stop and you
 will be waiting forever.

>>>
>>> * >>> No wonder people start to believe in living objects when they have
>>> no understanding of basic computer science. You have a bad understanding of
>>> determinism.*
>>
>>
>> >> You sir are a phoney. You have demonstrated little understanding of
>> computer science and apparently have never even heard of Turing or the
>> Halting Problem, you sure don't sound as if you have. Make me eat my words,
>> specify exactly what facts I got wrong in the above. Go on, *I DARE YOU!*
>>
>
> *> You personified an object. You named a bunch of atoms "a computer doing
> the halting problem", and you forgot that this is only a label that you
> applied to other causal events that don't happen at the level of the
> "computer doing the halting problem", but at the level of atoms. And there
> you have determinism, regardless of whether the "computer" stops or not,
> since "computer" is just a label*
>

First of all we've known since 1927 that atoms are NOT completely
deterministic and only obey probabilistic laws. And a "computer" may be a
label for a macroscopic collection of atoms but it is a precise one, I can
specify the exact number of atoms that are represented by that label. And
even if we ignore Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and assume atoms
behaved like billiard balls as Newton thought they did you still couldn't
DETERMINE what that collection of atoms will do in the future, all you can
do is watch 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-26 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 6:19 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> *Sorry, if I want to read fairy-tales I read Harry Potter. AI is a rather
> boring fairy-tale.*
>

You've written quite a few posts in the last few days but they can all be
summed up with just 2 sentences, neither of which is backed up with any
evidence let alone proof:

1) AI is a fairy-tale
2) Nothing exists

And your algorithm for generating additional posts is simply to repeat the
above, although sometimes for the sake of novelty you invert the ordering.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-25 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:49 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
 >>  it would be perfectly correct to say I scratched my nose because I
>> wanted to, but it would be equally correct to say the nerves in my nose
>> triggered the nerves in my hand to move.
>>
>
> >
> *Except that this is not what happens. You stretch your nose because you
> want, *
>

If the "nonexistent" nerves in your "nonexistent" hand were not triggered
your "nonexistent" nose would not get scratched. And if the correct
"nonexistent" neurons in your "nonexistent" brain were not triggered you
wouldn't even want to.

> *not because nerves are triggered randomly from "physical laws".*


Gibberish. If something happens because of physical law then obviously it
happens for a reason. and if something happens for a reason it can't be
random


> *> computers don't get to any answers, they just activate certain pixels
> on the screen and you as a conscious being interpret those pixels as an
> answer. *
>

College professors don't give any answers in their lectures, they just
activate certain sound waves and you as a conscious being interpret those
sound waves as an answer.

>> How can you prove to me your wet squishy brain has some sort of magic
>> that a computer's dry hard brain does not? And I don't want to hear about
>> qualia unless you can prove to me you even have qualia.
>>
>
> *> There is no brain, so I don't know what you want me to prove.*
>

I'd like you to prove you can engage in an interesting conversation and can
do more than just repeat that nothing exists.


> > a computer (besides the fact that it doesn't even exist, of course) it
> doesn't even have qualia,
>

Two can play this silly game: Qualia doesn't exist. So there!


> >> The fact is you DO have a method of judging the intelligence in other
>> people and you have made use of it every hour of your waking life from the
>> moment you were born. And that method certainly can't have anything to do
>> with the qualia that other people experience because you have no way of
>> determining that.
>>
>
> *> I'm not judging the intelligence of other people, I'm only looking at
> my own intelligence.*
>

That is a disingenuous thing to say. Every human being who ever lived is
constantly judging the intelligence of the objects in its environment,
that's why we treat puppies differently than rocks.

* > And I see that it means bringing new qualia into existence out of
> nothing. And I use my reason to understand** that *[...]
>

If you use reason then you did it for a reason, there was a cause, and the
qualia that you keep talking about came into existence through a
deterministic process.

>> are you saying a computer could never pick out pictures of dogs from
>> pictures of other animals better than a human could, and if it could that
>> would prove your ideas are wrong? Are you brave enough to come right out
>> and say that?
>>
>
> *> Since you need to specifically put the word "dog" in the database, a
> computer will never identify dogs if you don't specifically put that
> information in the database. *
>

How could you do it any differently if you've never heard the word "dog"
before?

>> Can you do better? If you had never seen a dog and had no information
>> about dogs how on earth could you identify a dog?
>>
>
> *> The way you already did it, how else ? When you first saw a dog, did
> you have any prior information about it ? Of course not. You just did it.*
>

Did what? The first time I saw a dog I knew no language and so would have
been unable to put a picture of a dog in the pile marked "dog", but people
kept pointing at the animal and saying "dog" and eventually I got the idea.
And recently computers have gained the ability to learn from examples the
same way humans do,

>> if you want to know what it's going to do all you can do is watch it and
>> see. It would only take me a few minutes to write a computer program to
>> find the smallest even number that is not the sum of 2 prime numbers and
>> then stop. Will my computer ever stop? Nobody knows, nobody can determine
>> that. Maybe it will stop in the next second, maybe it will stop next year,
>> maybe it will stop in a billion years, maybe it will never stop and you
>> will be waiting forever.
>>
>
> * > No wonder people start to believe in living objects when they have no
> understanding of basic computer science. You have a bad understanding of
> determinism.*


You sir are a phoney. You have demonstrated little understanding of
computer science and apparently have never even heard of Turing or the
Halting Problem, you sure don't sound as if you have. Make me eat my words,
specify exactly what facts I got wrong in the above. Go on, *I DARE YOU!*

> Chess and everything, every moment of our lives, is a moment of
> creativity.
>

Then a computer is creative because even a small computer can now EASILY
beat ANY human Chess player.

By the way, you sound like the sort of person who believes in 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-25 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 3:00 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *it happens all the time. How do you think you move your body if not by
> top-down influence in levels from consciousness ?*


The existence of a top-down explanation does not preclude the existence of
a bottom-up explanation, it's just two different ways of talking about the
same thing. It would be perfectly true to say that a balloon expanded
because there where more collisions of oxygen and nitrogen molecules on the
inner surface of the balloon than on the outer surface, but it would be
every bit as true to say that the balloon expanded because the pressure
inside was greater than the pressure outside. And it would be perfectly
correct to say I scratched my nose because I wanted to, but it would be
equally correct to say the nerves in my nose triggered the nerves in my
hand to move.

>> Free Will?! In the entire history of philosophy or law nothing has
>> generated more fuzzy thinking than "free will", it's so bad it's not even
>> wrong. To be wrong an idea must first convey a thought, an erroneous
>> thought but a thought nevertheless, but like a burp "free will" conveys
>> nothing, it's just a sound made with the mouth.
>>
>
> *> I don't know. I feel free. Don't you ? *
>

Sometimes I feel free but not always, sometimes I want to do something but
can't. And very often I don't know what I'm going to do until I do it, just
as a computer doesn't know what the answer to a calculation will be until
it's finished making the calculation.


*> To think that an AI has "brain" is to have no understanding whatsoever
> of computer science and to believe that magic happens there.*
>

How can you prove to me your wet squishy brain has some sort of magic that
a computer's dry hard brain does not? And I don't want to hear about qualia
unless you can prove to me you even have qualia.

> *You don't even need to talk about the intelligence of other people. Is
> enough to look at how intelligence works in your case.*
>

NO!! The fact is you DO have a method of judging the intelligence in other
people and you have made use of it every hour of your waking life from the
moment you were born. And that method certainly can't have anything to do
with the qualia that other people experience because you have no way of
determining that.


> > *And in your case, it works by bringing new qualia into existence. When
> you first saw a dog, you were able to see it because your consciousness
> brought into existence the quale of "dog" out of nothing. An AI cannot do
> that.*
>

So are you saying a computer could never pick out pictures of dogs from
pictures of other animals better than a human could, and if it could that
would prove your ideas are wrong? Are you brave enough to come right out
and say that?

> I*f you don't specifically put in its database the information "dog", it
> will never identify dogs.*
>

Can you do better? If you had never seen a dog and had no information about
dogs how on earth could you identify a dog?

*> This is because AI are deterministic systems, *
>

A computer is not a deterministic system, that is to say if you want to
know what it's going to do all you can do is watch it and see. It would
only take me a few minutes to write a computer program to find the smallest
even number that is not the sum of 2 prime numbers and then stop. Will my
computer ever stop? Nobody knows, nobody can determine that. Maybe it will
stop in the next second, maybe it will stop next year, maybe it will stop
in a billion years, maybe it will never stop and you will be waiting
forever.


> >
> *consciousnesses are creative entities. *
>

20 years ago Chess required creativity but no longer, 5 years ago GO
required creativity but suddenly that stopped being true too. I would
maintain if a computer can outsmart you at everything it doesn't matter if
it's "creative" (whatever that means) because regardless of how you try to
spin it the fact remains you've been outsmarted.


> >> if conscious AI's are a fantasy then all minds other than my own are a
>> fantasy including yours.
>>
>
> *> This is just twisted logic. I will let you figure it out where you are
> wrong *
>

Translation from the original weaselspeak:  "*You got me, I have no way to
counter that argument *"

>> can you tell me how things would be different if matter DID exist? If
>> you can't then the existence or nonexistence of something is a question of
>> no importance whatsoever. And that road leads to madness. I can tell you
>> that if the atoms in your were to cease to exist and no record was kept
>> about how the atoms were arranged it  would have a rather important effect
>> on your consciousness. And I can also tell you that when atoms of silicon
>> are arranged in certain ways it can beat you at Chess and GO and can solve
>> partial differential equations that you can not. At one time that was
>> considered intelligent but some keep moving the goalpost so that now
>> 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-24 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:57 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> If you obtain consciousness, that consciousness will have free will, so*
> [...]


Free Will?! In the entire history of philosophy or law nothing has
generated more fuzzy thinking than "free will", it's so bad it's not even
wrong. To be wrong an idea must first convey a thought, an erroneous
thought but a thought nevertheless, but like a burp "free will" conveys
nothing, it's just a sound made with the mouth.

>>The "I" in AI stands for intelligence not consciousness, do you believe a
>> AI can be intelligent?  And by "intelligent" I mean whatever you meant
>> when, as I'm sure you've said at some point in your life about another
>> human, "that guy is really smart".
>>
>
> *> Intelligence is the property of consciousness of bringing new qualia
> into existence that never existed before in the entire history of
> existence.*
>

You have no way of directly detecting the qualia experience by other
people, assuming they experience qualia at all, all you can do is assume
without proof that when they behave in ways similar to you they experience
qualia similar to the qualia you experience. And the fact that a AI's brain
is dry and hard and not wet and squishy is no reason to treat them any
differently.  I judge entities, human or otherwise, by the content of their
ideas not the wetness of their brain.

>
> *Don't you think this is quite unlike the fantasy of AI ? *
>

Nope. And if conscious AI's are a fantasy then all minds other than my own
are a fantasy including yours.

> "Matter" doesn't exist.
>

OK, but then can you tell me how things would be different if matter DID
exist? If you can't then the existence or nonexistence of something is a
question of no importance whatsoever. And that road leads to madness. I can
tell you that if the atoms in your were to cease to exist and no record was
kept about how the atoms were arranged it  would have a rather important
effect on your consciousness. And I can also tell you that when atoms of
silicon are arranged in certain ways it can beat you at Chess and GO and
can solve partial differential equations that you can not. At one time that
was considered intelligent but some keep moving the goalpost so that now
intelligence is defined as anything that computers aren't good at, *YET*.


>> What's with this "we" business? I know for a fact I'm conscious but your
>> consciousness is an unproven hypothesis no different from assuming an AI is
>> conscious.
>>
>
> *> Is not at all the same thing.*
>

Tell me the difference! I am quite certain you don't consider your fellow
humans to be conscious all the time, not when they're sleeping or under
anesthesia or dead because they don't behave intelligently then. I can't
think why the same criteria should not be used for an AI. But as a
practical matter it will make little difference if you believe a AI is
conscious or not because in just a few years humanity will no longer be in
the driver's seat. So the important question is will the AI consider you to
be conscious or not.


> > *Other consciousnesses are postulated based on our own consciousness, *
>

Exactly. But how does that show that a computer can't be conscious even
when it's acting intelligently?

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-24 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:08 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *This is not the reason why AI is not conscious.*
>

The "I" in AI stands for intelligence not consciousness, do you believe a
AI can be intelligent?  And by "intelligent" I mean whatever you meant
when, as I'm sure you've said at some point in your life about another
human, "that guy is really smart".


> *> The reason is that AI doesn't even exist, is just an idea in
> consciousness. Consciousness which of course is not made out of atoms.*
>

Consciousness is made of processes, that's why John K Clark is not a noun
but an adjective, I am the way matter behaves when it is organized in a
johnkclarkian way.  A process needs something to process and that something
is atoms. That's why if I change the arrangement of  atoms in my brain my
consciousness changes and if my consciousness changes the arrangement of
atoms in my brain changes.


> > *We are not made out of atoms. *
>

What's with this "we" business? I know for a fact I'm conscious but your
consciousness is an unproven hypothesis no different from assuming an AI is
conscious.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-24 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:54 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> So ultimately they are not "artificial", but natural, grown through
> biological processes, not assembled in a factory. Then they are natural and
> are not made of atoms, but are made by invisible natural processes that are
> also responsible for the workings of consciousness. I think this fact must
> be stated out clearly: biology is not made out of atoms!*
>

I agree that biology is about processes but you have to ask yourself what
is being processed? The only answer is the way atoms are arranged, and it
doesn't make any difference if the atoms are of carbon or silicon if the
process is the same. Saying an AI can't be conscious because its brain is
dry and hard and not wet and squishy is as silly as saying another human
can't be conscious if his skin color is different from mine.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-24 Thread John Clark
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 6:28 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:


> > *Only if you never did some serious thinking you can consider AI can be
> conscious. *
>

What sort of serious thinking did you engage in that enabled you to
conclude any of your fellow human beings were conscious? Or perhaps you
concluded you were the only conscious being in the universe. Without
exception every single argument put forward to support the proposition that
an AI can never be conscious can also be used in support of solipsism.  I
can prove a AI is intelligent but I can never prove it's conscious just as
I can never prove that you are conscious.  That's why artificial
intelligence theories are vastly more interesting and harder to produce
than artificial consciousness theories.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-22 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 3:13 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> A brain is not a heart.*
>

A brain is interesting but a heart is dull as dishwater, it's just a pump.


> *> There are special relations in the brain through which consciousness
> can act upon the world. You cannot copy those relations, since they are not
> material.*
>

Only nouns are material and you are not a noun, you are an adjective  and
adjectives can be copied. Due to technological (not scientific) limitations
at the present time there is only one chunk of matter in the observable
universe that behaves in a Cosminvisanian way, but there is no reason that
will always be true.

*So if you "copy" a brain, you will only end up with a dead piece of
> flesh. And even if you somehow manage to open the doors for consciousness
> to act upon the brain, that consciousness will not have any memory, since
> memories are not stored in the brain, *
>

I just met you but it sounds like you're the type of guy who believes in
the invisible man in the sky theory.  I hope I'm wrong.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-22 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:33 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> The question is about the first person experience,*
>

I don't want to know what the question is about, I want to know precisely
what the question is. And even after all this time you are unable to
unambiguously state the question, so it's not surprising I am unable to
answer it.

>
> *> why do you keep saying that a computation is real only when implemented
> in a primary physical reality?*
>

So you're asking why are things real only when they are real. I don't think
that needs an answer.

> God is defined by
>

God is real unless defined an integer.

> *From Plato came neoplatonism. From this came mathematics and physics.*
>

You always ignore Archimedes, the greatest ancient Greek of them all. If
anyone is the father (or maybe grandfather) of modern physics and
mathematics it's him. Unlike Plato or Aristotle he discovered things that
are just as true today as they were on the day he discovered them.


> *> God is defined by ...*
>

... a grey amorphous blob. With that nifty definition one can state with
confidence that God exists because grey amorphous blobs certainly do.


> *> 2+2 = 5 is grammatically correct in arithmetic,*
>

2+2=5  can not be formed by lawfully manipulating Peano's axioms, if it
could be then arithmetic would be a silly useless enterprise.

> ?
>
!

> >> with no clear referent that a personal pronoun with no clear referent
>> is supposed to answer.
>
>
> *> The referent is the first person experience possible.*
>

Which "the" first person experience is being refers to, the one in Moscow
or the one in Washington? If it's both then stop saying "the". If it's
neither then you're using a personal pronoun with no referent and the word
means precisely nothing.


> *> I will be duplicated, but I know with certainty that I will taste some
> coffee, but I am not sure, nor can I be sure if it will taste like Russian
> coffee or American coffee.*
>

That's 5, count them 5, uses of the personal pronoun "I" in the short
sentence above describing an exparament to be performed in a world that
contains personal pronoun duplicating machines. And Bruno is baffled that
John Clark believes Bruno is talking gibberish, Weird.


> *> You keep denying the first person report of the copies, *
>

I keep insisting there is no such thing as *THE* first person if there is a
copy of it in Moscow and a copy of it in Washington.


> *> that is the reason of the FPI.*
>

You've forgotten IHA.


> >>In a world with people duplicating machines there is no such thing as
>> *THE* first person experience;
>
>
> *> Proof?*
>

"The" is singular and "copy" implies 2 and 2 is greater than 1. QED.
I await the Field Medal with eager anticipation.

> *Just read both diaries.*
>

Oh no, not those goddamn idiot diaries again!!!


> > *You are the only one who have a problem with this,*
>

You say that a LOT and If it was really true I'd have to conclude that I'm
far smarter than I thought I was,  but I don't believe for one nanosecond
that it is true.

>> if you really meant what you said about the Helsinki Man being anyone
>> who remembers being the Helsinki Man yesterday, but of course you didn't
>> really mean it and will now start equivocating.
>
>
> > *I will just distinguish the first person 1 from* [...]
>

Just as I predicted you now start equivocation and that sort of mental mush
and evasion is exactly precisely what I thought would happen. So please
stop saying that we agree on the definition of the Helsinki man because we
most certainly do *NOT*. I have a clear consistent definition and all you
have is gibberish


> >> Everybody correctly predicted that the Moscow Man will see Moscow and
>> the Washington man will see Washington and everybody correctly predicted
>> that both will have a first person experience tomorrow,
>
>
> *>Indeed, and in particular that first person experience is, for both
> copies, I see one city and not the other, *
>

If so then where is this grand indeterminacy that you keep talking about?
Exactly what was NOT correctly predicted yesterday in Helsinki? I now await
an avalanche of personal pronouns in answer to my question not one of which
will have a clear unambiguous referent.


> > *and I could not have written, in Helsinki, which one. *
>

Which *ONE*?? Forget yesterday even today you can't say which one ended up
seeing which city because the question makes no sense. Yesterday in
Helsinki there was only one so it's ridiculous to expect to be able to
point to 2 people and say you will see Moscow but you won't, but anybody
can correctly predict that the Moscow Man will see Moscow only and the
Washington man will see Washington only and

Re: First Picture If A Black Hole

2019-04-11 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Apr 11, 2019 at 5:40 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> I looked up the mass of M87 BH and I find 2.5 billion solar masses.*
>

I believe that figure was from an old measurement, M87's Black Hole is now
thought to be  6.6*10^9 solar masses +- 0.4.

THE BLACK HOLE MASS IN M87 FROM GEMINI/NIFS ADAPTIVE OPTICS OBSERVATIONS


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: First Picture If A Black Hole

2019-04-10 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Apr 10, 2019 at 7:46 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > We will have to see what the Sgr*A image looks like of the Milky Way BH
> that is smaller, 104 thousand solar masses vs 2.5 million solar masses for
> M87*, but is closer only 27K light years, vs 55 million lyrs.
>


Sgr*A is  4.5 million solar masses, the Black Hole in M87 is 6.5 billion
solar masses. From the earth they would have almost the same size even
though one is much closer than the other. And any radio telescope can
observe M87 but only those in the southern hemisphere can see Sgr*A. There
is probably less obscuring dust between us and M87 too because we don't
have to look through the long axis of our galaxy to see it.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


First Picture If A Black Hole

2019-04-10 Thread John Clark
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/10/science/black-hole-picture.html

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


LIGO has ​already found another Gravitational Wave

2019-04-09 Thread John Clark
LIGO has only been back on for a few days but already they have detected a
new gravitational wave from a Black Hole merger slightly under 5 billion
light years away.  They've decided to stop most of the secrecy and report
things as soon as they find them, so they haven't finished calculating how
massive they were yet.

Just after turning back on another wave found


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-08 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Apr 8, 2019 at 3:29 PM Mason Green  wrote:


>
> *> Here’s another idea I just came up with, that doesn’t harness dark
> energy itself so much as the Hawking radiation of the de Sitter horizon.A
> civilization could build a sphere around a cold black hole (I.e., a
> rotating or charged black hole whose Hawking temperature is lower than that
> of the cosmological horizon; such a black hole would need to be very close
> to extremal).The sphere would catch the Hawking radiation from the
> cosmological horizon, and then feed some of it into the black hole in such
> a way as to further decrease its temperature (by pushing it closer to
> extremality). The sphere could use the rest of the energy for its own
> needs. The black hole and the sphere would keep growing over time.*
>


That could work, for a while. As long as you have a temperature difference
you can run a heat engine. The Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is at
2.7K so if you used a solar mass Black Hole as a heat sink you could
extract some work out of it because it has a temperature of only 0006k.
But it wouldn't be much as the efficiency would be very low;  and even that
pitiful trickle of work wouldn't last forever because over time the Cosmic
Microwave Background Radiation will get colder and, as it starts to
evaporate and gets smaller and smaller, the Black Hole will get hotter and
hotter until it explodes and disappears.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-07 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 7:35 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> There are important differences that need to be explained. You can solve
>> the problem of figuring out if Schrodinger's Cat is alive or dead simply by
>> opening the box and looking, but there is no box you can open to figure out
>> what the 8000th Busy Beaver number is.
>>
>
> > You can't compute outcome prior to an observation.
>

Even if you can't compute Schrodinger's Cat you can still find out stuff
about it but that is not the case with non-computable functions, and that
makes me suspect they have no part to play in physics. Computation can not tell
you what the fate of Schrodinger's Cat was however observation can, but you
can't figure out what the 8000th Busy Beaver number is and probably not
even the 5th. And even if I told you what it was you'd have no way of
varying that what I told you was true.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-07 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 2:26 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > there is no comprehensive axiomatic system for Diophantine equations.
> Quantum numbers as Gödel numbers for integer solutions to Diophantine
> equations are then not entirely computable and there can't exist a Turing
> machine (in the classical sense a q → ∞ convex set) that computes quantum
> outcomes.
>

I think the connection between Quantum Mechanics and  Godel's uncertainty
is pretty tenuous. Neither a Quantum Computer or a conventional computer
can compute the 7918th Busy Beaver number, and even though its computable
and finite its very unlikely a Quantum Computer could compute the Ackermann
function in polynomial time which effectively makes it non-computable for
practical purposes.


> > I then maintain the solution to the quantum measurement problem is that
> there can't exist such a solution. It is an unsolvable problem.
>

There are important differences that need to be explained. You can solve
the problem of figuring out if Schrodinger's Cat is alive or dead simply by
opening the box and looking, but there is no box you can open to figure out
what the 8000th Busy Beaver number is.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-07 Thread John Clark
In 1972 Bennet  showed that a universal Turing machine could be made both
logically and thermodynamically reversible,[7]
 and
therefore able in principle to perform arbitrarily much computation per
unit of physical energy dissipated, in the limit of zero speed. In 1982 Edward
Fredkin  and Tommaso Toffoli
 proposed the Billiard ball
computer , a
mechanism using classical hard spheres to do reversible computations at
finite speed with zero dissipation, but requiring perfect initial alignment
of the balls' trajectories, and Bennett's review[8]
 compared
these "Brownian" and "ballistic" paradigms for reversible computation.






On Sun, Apr 7, 2019 at 3:21 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> *To sum up: an infinite physical computation does not require an infinite
> amount of energy*


If you want to perform an infinite number of calculations and you don't
have infinite energy available then you'd better have infinite time
available. In 1972 Bennet showed that a reversible Turing Machine could
make a calculation with an arbitrarily small amount of energy but at the
cost of speed; the less energy used the slower the calculation. And if
we're headed for a Big Rip you will not have infinite time.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-03 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 8:43 AM Mason Green  wrote:

* > It looks like the best hope now might be for a breakthrough or paradigm
> shift in cosmology and/or physics. *


This is certainly no breakthrough but suppose you had a rod and some beads
with holes in them, you thread the beads on the rod and then put some glue
or something on the rod to make it slightly sticky. The chemical bonds in
the rod would keep the atoms in it from getting further apart but the beads
would be free to slide along it, but because the rod was sticky the sliding
would generate heat from friction, and you could run a heat engine with
that and get work out of it. As we got closer to the Big Rip the rod would
get shorter because Dark Energy would start to tare it apart, but that's OK
because even though the rod is shorter the acceleration is greater so the
heat production would (perhaps) be constant.

By the way I got the sticky bead idea from Richard Feynman who used it to
show that Gravitational Waves have energy.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-03 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 2:15 AM Mason Green  wrote:


> *> Actually now that I’m thinking about the spring idea some more, it
> seems like you might be right about it not working. Dark energy will change
> the shape of the potential energy/displacement curve for sure, making the
> spring strongly anharmonic. However it doesn’t look like it will result in
> amplitude increase (negative damping) like I thought. However the
> orbiting-spheres system still seems to work,*


If an electrical charge is moving in a circular orbit it is accelerating,
but if that orbit is one that Quantum Mechanics allows it with not radiate
any electromagnetic waves regardless of what Maxwell says. If Dark Energy
enlarges the radius of that quantum allowable orbit I don't know what would
happen, nobody does because nobody has made a link between Quantum
Electrodynamics and General Relativity. However my hunch is it still
wouldn't radiate, after all a electrical charge in a large orbit
accelerates less than one in a small orbit.


> * > As far as cosmological-scale black holes are concerned, I’ve got a
> hunch. I suspect (but cannot prove) that above a certain mass/radius, the
> Hawking temperature of a black hole would start to increase again, due to
> dark energy helping give particles a “push” out of the hole.*


If Dark Energy is constant with time my hunch is it would have little or no
effect on a Black Hole, but if the acceleration is itself accelerating
toward infinity and we're headed for a Big Rip then it's only a matter of
time before Dark Energy would rip everything apart even the most tightly
gravitationally bound objects in the universe, Black Holes. And even
without Dark Energy or the Big Rip Black Holes only have a finite lifetime.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-02 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green  wrote:

*>So far I’ve thought of two possible classes of device that could do this.
> The first is the “giant atom”, consisting of two spheres of equal but
> opposite charge orbiting each other at an extremely long distance (long
> enough that dark energy becomes significant). At such a distance, dark
> energy would cause the objects’ orbits to spiral further and further apart.
> On the other hand, because the objects are charged, they radiate away
> energy as they orbit, and this radiation provides a braking force that
> would cause the objects to spiral closer together. If the two effects are
> perfectly balanced, the orbits would be stable and the system would keep
> radiating away energy forever—energy extracted from the acceleration in the
> universe’s expansion.*


That would indeed be like a giant atom, so we would have to have a quantum
theory of gravity to know if that would work, and we don't have such a
theory. Quantum theory tells us those orbiting changes could not be in just
any old orbit but can only be in discrete quantized orbits, and the
energy radiated away would not be continuous but would come out in chunks .
Maxwell's equations are only approximately correct.


> *> The second device consists of an extremely long spring. Due to dark
> energy, the spring experiences a fictitious force pulling it apart. This
> force is stronger when the spring is fully extended, due to the longer
> distance between the ends. Thus an oscillating spring would experience an
> oscillating force, and have energy continually added to it, increasing the
> amplitude of its oscillations.*
>

I don't think that would work, if it did then if you hung a spring
vertically from a hook in a gravitational field and gave it a small
oscillation the spring's oscillation would get larger and larger until it
tore itself apart.  But that's not what we observe.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Dark energy-powered devices

2019-04-02 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:23 PM Mason Green  wrote:

*> It appears as though it would indeed be possible to build a device
> powered by dark energy. Such a device could keep running forever (as long
> as the universe keeps expanding forever and vacuum decay doesn’t occur) and
> be able to survive (or prevent) the heat death of the universe. Even proton
> decay would not present a problem; new protons could always be created from
> the energy generated.*


I agree.


> * > As far as I know, neither of these devices has been proposed before in
> the literature; I might have been the first person to come up with them.*
>


Well... on August 4 2012 I sent this to Fabric Of Reality List:

"Could we still extract an infinite amount of energy from the real universe
and thus perform an infinite number of calculations? Perhaps.

Suppose you had 2 spools of string connected together by an axle and you
extended the 2 strings to cosmological distances 180 degrees apart from
each other. As long as the Dark Energy force between the atoms in the
string that were trying to force them apart was not stronger than the
attractive electromagnetic force holding the atoms of the string together
the string would not expand as the universe expanded, so there would be a
tension on the strings, so there would be torque on the spool, so the axle
would rotate. The axle could be connected to an electric generator and it
seems to me you'd get useful work out of it. Of course you'd have to
constantly add more mass-energy in the form of more string to keep it
operating, but the amount of mass per unit length of string would remain
constant, however because the universe is accelerating the amount of energy
per unit length of string you'd get out of it would not remain constant but
would increase asymptotically to infinity. If the theories about the Big
Rip turn out to be true and the acceleration of the universe is itself
accelerating then it should be even easier to extract infinite energy out
of the universe; it would just be a simple matter of cosmological
engineering. What could go wrong?

If you have infinite energy then you can perform an infinite number of
calculations, so you could have an infinite number of thoughts, so you
would have no last thought (the definition of death), so subjectively you
would live forever. Of course the objective universe might have a different
opinion on the matter and insist that everything including you had come to
an end, but that hardly matters, subjectivity is far more important than
objectivity; at least I think so."

  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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


As of today LIGO and VIRGO are back online

2019-04-01 Thread John Clark
LIGO and Virgo gravitational wave detectors are back online


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Supermassive Black Holes

2019-04-01 Thread John Clark
The Event Horizon Telescope is a array of radio telescopes on 4 continents
that forms a virtual telescope with the resolution one telescope as large
as the entire Earth. It was put together for the sole purpose of getting a
picture of the supermassive Black Hole at the center of our galaxy, they've
been working on this since 2006. On April 10 2019 at 9am EST they will have
a press conference and announce what they found. All they will say now is
that the results will be "groundbreaking". The event will be live streamed
here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9=Dr20f19czeE

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: LIGO

2019-04-01 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 7:01 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*>  I am going to think about this. The problem I see is that LIGO detects
> information in a gravity wave and converts that into our electronic
> information. If this information really drops as 1/r then from a Gauss' law
> perspective it means a gravitational wave propagating from its source
> produces information a the rate I(t) ~ r, for r the radius of the wave
> front. I have some problems with that.*


I don't see the problem with transferring information that way, you could
even do it with light although with a different method than LIGO's. The
inverse square law applies only for isotropic emitters, so with a perfect
zero divergent Laser beam the intensity of the beam would be constant and
independent of distance. Of course a real Laser will always have some
divergence and the intensity is proportional to the width of the beam, so
if it went far enough eventually it would start to follow the inverse
square law, but that distance could be large even by cosmological
standards. Blazars are a especially bright type of Quasar and some have
been spotted over 10 billion light years away. But Quasars are not
isotropic emitters and it is now thought that Blazars are fundamentally no
different from regular Quasars it's just that Blazars are so positioned
that we just happen to be looking straight down the throat of the Quasar's
beam.

LIGO gets around the inverse square law in a entirely different way, it
doesn't detect the RMS power of a wave it detects the peak to peak
displacement of a wave.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: LIGO

2019-03-31 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 5:06 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Yes but LIGO detects the peak to peak displacement of a wave not its
>> power or energy as cameras and radios do. And that means LIGO's ability to
>> detect wave producing things is reduced with distance much more slowly than
>> with telescopes that deal with electromagnetic waves. Peak-to peak
>> displacement is proportional to the Root Mean Square of the wave and the
>> RMS is proportional to the square root of the power. So if there is 4 times
>> less power in the gravitational wave (because the source is twice as far
>> away) the peak to peak displacement is only reduced by a factor of 2.
>>
>

> I guess you will have to give a reference on this.
>

>From LIGO's website:

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/page/facts

"*improvements will ultimately make LIGO's interferometers 10 times more
sensitive than their initial incarnation. A 10-fold increase in sensitivity
means that LIGO will be able to detect gravitational waves 10 times farther
away than Initial LIGO, which translates into 'sampling' 1000-times more
volume of space (volume increases with the cube of the distance. So 10
times farther away means 10x10x10=1000 times the volume of space)"*

From:

https://dcc.ligo.org/public//P070082/004/P070082-v4.pdf

"the gravitational wave field strength is proportional to the second time
derivative of the quadrupole moment of the source, and it falls off in
amplitude inversely with distance from the source"

From:

https://archive.briankoberlein.com/2016/02/19/how-close-is-too-close/


*"**The amount of shift caused by a gravitational wave is due to its
amplitude, not its energy. While the energy of gravitational waves follow
the inverse square relation, the amplitude of gravitational waves follows
the inverse distance relation. In other words, if we were half as far away
from the merger we’d have seen four times the energy, but only twice the
shift."*

And note that it is the shift that LIGO detect not energy.

> I can see in one sense what you are saying about RMS, but I don't think
> your quite correct still. The interferometer measures a quadrupole
> displacemement.
>

That just means as one leg of LIGO is moved to a maximum distance the other
leg is moved to a minimum distance, and the difference between the maximum
and minimum is what causes interference in the Laser beam that LIGO
detects. Needless to say that is not the way a radio receiver works and is
not way film detects light either.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Dark Matter

2019-03-31 Thread John Clark
A second galaxy has been found that contains no Dark Matter. These odd
galaxies are about the same size as our Milky Way but contain 200 times
fewer stars. They pretty much rule out the idea that Dark Matter doesn't
exist and our laws of gravity just need to change because unlike every
other galaxy studied these 2 oddballs behave just as Newton says they
should.

Second galaxy without dark matter discovered


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: LIGO

2019-03-31 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Mar 31, 2019 at 8:43 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:


> > An antenna or any receiver of electromagnetic waves in effect measures
> the displacement of electrons or equivalently a current is produced.
>

A radio receiver detects the power in a AC circuit, and that is the Root
Mean Square voltage times the Root Mean Square current. Unlike LIGO radios
don't detect peak to peak values.

> A gravitational wave is measured according to strain, but a strain
> through distance has an energy content as well.
>

Yes but LIGO detects the peak to peak displacement of a wave not its power
or energy as cameras and radios do. And that means LIGO's ability to detect
wave producing things is reduced with distance much more slowly than with
telescopes that deal with electromagnetic waves. Peak-to peak displacement
is proportional to the Root Mean Square of the wave and the RMS is
proportional to the square root of the power. So if there is 4 times less
power in the gravitational wave (because the source is twice as far away)
the peak to peak displacement is only reduced by a factor of 2.

> So gravitational waves have intensities that drops with the square of the
> distance


I'm not disputing that, but that fact is not inconsistent with the fact
that LIGO's ability to detect gravitational wave sources only decreases
linearly with distance because with LIGO the key thing is peak to peak
displacement of the wave not its intensity.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: LIGO

2019-03-30 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 8:05 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:\


> > Weak gravitational waves are very similar to electromagnetic waves,
>

>From a practical point of view there are 2 differences:

1) Our ability to detect electromagnetic waves decreases with the square of
the distance, but LIGO's ability to detect gravitational waves only
decreases linearly with distance because unlike film or CCD cameras LIGO
does not detect the energy in the wave it detects the displacement the wave
produces.

2) It's easy for telescopes to determine the direction electromagnetic
waves are coming from but difficult to determine its distance, with LIGO
it's easy to determine the distance from the gravitational wave source but
hard to determine the direction it's coming from.

 > The graviton is quantum mechanically much the same as biphotons that
> occurs with bunching or Hanbury Brown and Twiss physics.
>

LIGO can not detect gravitons and even if the graviton exists I am
skeptical anyone will ever be able to detect it.

> The main advantage of having a third LIGO is that now the source can be
> triangulated more accurately.
>

It also increases sensitivity. If you get a small jump above the noise
level in just 2 detectors that may not be enough to reach the 5 sigmas
needed to claim a discovery, but if you receive the same small jump in 3
detectors it might do the job.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


LIGO

2019-03-29 Thread John Clark
Unless there is some last second glitch the 2 LIGO gravitational wave
detectors in the USA and the Virgo detector in Italy will go back online on
Monday. The 2 LIGO detectors will be about 40% more sensitive now after the
upgrade and the slightly smaller Virgo detector about 50% better. And,
because their ability to detect waves only decrease linearly with distance
not as distance squared, together they will be able to see gravitational
events in about 3 times the previous volume. They will run for a year
before being shut down for yet another upgrade.

And if we're lucky before the end of the year a fourth detector, KAGRA in
Japan, may join the party; and although smaller than LIGO it might turn out
to be even more sensitive because unlike the other 3 it's built underground
and does not work at room temperature but is cooled down to 20 degrees
Kelvin (-253 C, -425 F) . I think that is very cool, in more ways than one.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-03-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 1:14 PM  wrote:

*> How do the mathematicians prove it?*


Mathematicians can't prove that a physical theory is correct, all they can
do is show that changing the coordinate system (for example by rotating the
X and Y axis) does not result in different physical predictions. Only
exparament can tell you if the predictions is right, or at least mostly
right.

John K Clark






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

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-03-26 Thread John Clark
By the way, just  2 weeks ago the best test ever made of Einstein's
Equivalence Principle was performed in a gravitational field one million
times greater than Earth's and Einstein passed the test with flying
colors.

Test of the Einstein Equivalence Principle near the Galactic Center
Supermassive Black Hole


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-03-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 9:14 AM  wrote:

*>* *although the field equations are claimed to be the same in all frames,
> accelerating or not, how does one prove that*
>

Mathematicians prove things Physicists don't. Physicists show that some
ideas are less wrong than others and they do that by determining how
closely the idea conforms with experimental observation. So far at least
General Relativity has conformed very very well.

 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-03-26 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 4:40 AM  wrote:

>>>Einstein never said everything is relative. Unlike velocity there is
>>> such a thing as absolute acceleration, if that were not true the Twin
>>> Paradox could not be resolved.
>>>
>>
>> *>> But in GR don't the field equations take the same form in all frames,
>> including accelerating frames, which if I understand correctly, IS the
>> Principle of Relativity? TIA, AG*
>>
>
> *> Clark, how about an answer?*
>

*Sir yes sir!* Saying the field equations are the same form in all
reference frames is just another way of saying the fundamental laws of
physics are the same everywhere, and if they weren't the same
everywhere General Relativity would be a very bad theory. It took Einstein
10 years to find equations that fit these invariant requirements so that in
every reference frame the spacetime distance between 2 events is the same,
and in every reference frame absolute acceleration exists but absolute
motion does not, and every frame is accelerating except for one moving
through flat spacetime (aka a zero gravitational field) in a straight path,
and for every curved spacetime path there must be a force being applied
unless that particular spacetime curve happens to be a geodesic.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Quantum Tunneling

2019-03-23 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 7:46 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:


> *> The wave function for a plane wave e^{ikx} has the phase ikx for k =
> 2πp/h, h = Planck's constant, is then real and the total phase ikx - iEt
> then means time is imaginary valued as well. [...]  The imaginary part is
> not time we measure with clocks and so tunneling has no meaning with
> respect to that definition of time.*


The trouble is, to get some sort of intuitive physical understanding of
Quantum Tunneling, as opposed to a purely mathematical understanding, it is
necessary to make a connection between the thing we measure with a clock
and the thing we wish to understand. This is how I think about it, I'm sure
it's not exactly correct but let me know if it's at least approximately
right or if you know of another way that is less wrong:

If I want to send you a electron as a message (attack at dawn for example)
and speed is important I can't use Quantum Tunneling to send it to you
faster than light because only the successful attempts are instantaneous.
If you're on the other side of an energy barrier and I don't have enough
energy to get through it most of my attempts to send you an electron will
be unsuccessful. And the probability of the electron getting through drops
exponentially with the width of the barrier.  Thus although my very rare
successes will be instantaneous if you take into account all my failed
attempts then the time between my desire to send you a message and the time
you receive it will always be longer than if I forgot about Quantum
Tunneling and just flashed a old fashioned low tech beam of light at you
instead.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Quantum Tunneling

2019-03-20 Thread John Clark
A new upper bound on the time it takes for an electron to get through a
barrier by Quantum Tunneling has been found. They discovered it takes less
than 1.8 attoseconds, perhaps 1.8 attoseconds less. They say their
experimental results are "in agreement with recent theoretical findings"
and "present a compelling argument for instantaneous tunneling". One
attosecond is to a second as a second is to 32 billion years.

Quantum Tunneling 

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-03-20 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 3:06 PM 'Brent Meeker'  t <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>> If you were in a elevator with a charged particle accelerating due to
>> gravity
>
>
> > You mean the elevator is stationary relative to the Earth and the
> charged particle is accelerating, i.e. falling, due to gravity?  Or do you
> mean both the elevator, you, and the particle are in free fall?
>

If the elevation is stationary sitting on the surface of the Earth then it
is not accelerating, nor is it in a inertial frame because a force from the
ground is being applied.


> >> or due to a rocket in deep space you would not observe any
>> electromagnetic radiation, although if the elevator were made of glass an
>> outside observer who was not accelerating would.
>
>
> > But in that case the observer in the elevator would see the particle
> mysteriously lose energy without radiating.
>

I'm not sure I know what you mean. If you're accelerating side by side with
a electron by exactly the same amount how could you observe the electron
lose energy? How would that loss of energy manifest itself to you?   It's
true that depending on the reference frame a electric field can look like a
magnetic field and vice versa, but it makes no difference if
the acceleration is caused by a rocket or a gravitational field, you can't
use that effect to tell the 2 situations apart.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-03-20 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Mar 20, 2019 at 9:16 AM  wrote:

* > how does GR establish the Principle of Relativity (for accelerating
> frames)? AG *
>

It doesn't, Einstein never said everything is relative. Unlike velocity
there is such a thing as absolute acceleration, if that were not true the
Twin Paradox could not be resolved.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Questions about the Equivalence Principle (EP) and GR

2019-03-20 Thread John Clark
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 7:54 PM  wrote:

>> Einstein's breakthrough, what he called "the happiest thought of my
>> life" was when he realized a man in a falling elevator will not feel
>> gravity but a man in a accelerating elevator will. In other words an
>> accelerating frame and gravity are the same thing, that's why it's called
>> the Equivalence Principle.
>>
>
> >
> *I think your claim, in response to my question, is that if you have a
> theory of gravity, then via the EP you also have a general theory of how to
> transform from one accelerating frame to another which obeys the Principle
> of Relativity. I tend not to believe this since gravity is only locally
> equivalent to acceleration. AG *
>

Einstein was certainly aware  that the EP was only true for regions that
were very small compared to the curvature of the gravitational field, in
fact working out the consequences of tidal effects was one of the reasons
it took him nearly a full decade of grueling work to go from "the happiest
thought of my life" to a fully developed theory of General Relativity.
Einstein had to master how 4D Tensors work in Non-Euclidean space and was
so obsessed and worked so hard it nearly killed him. When he finished he
lost nearly 50 pounds felt weak and expected to die soon, but fortunately
didn't.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >