Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2019-05-14 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 12 May 2019, at 20:38, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 12:31:12 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Concerning mathematical logic and theology, an incredible book is:
> 
> Cohen J. Daniel, 2007. Equations from God, Pure Mathematics and Victorian 
> Faith, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
> 
> That book shows that the whole field of mathematical logic is born from 
> Victorian Faith. I suspected this from my reading of Lewis Carroll, but I did 
> not suspect it to be so historically true. Then, it explains the way this has 
> been hidden, for the professional benefits of the whole of Mathematics, but 
> that did not help for the field of theology, alas.
> 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
> Now that book I have never heard of before!
> 
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Equations_from_God.html?id=eYtfAQAACAAJ 
> 
> 
> Incredible. (No pun intended.) 
> 
> Throughout history, application rather than abstraction has been the 
> prominent driving force in mathematics. From the compass and sextant to 
> partial differential equations, mathematical advances were spurred by the 
> desire for better navigation tools, weaponry, and construction methods. But 
> the religious upheaval in Victorian England and the fledgling United States 
> opened the way for the rediscovery of pure mathematics, a tradition rooted in 
> Ancient Greece.
> 
> In "Equations from God," Daniel J. Cohen captures the origins of the rebirth 
> of abstract mathematics in the intellectual quest to rise above common 
> existence and touch the mind of the deity. Using an array of published and 
> private sources, Cohen shows how philosophers and mathematicians seized upon 
> the beautiful simplicity inherent in mathematical laws to reconnect with the 
> divine and traces the route by which the divinely inspired mathematics of the 
> Victorian era begot later secular philosophies.
> 
> Thank you. This made my day.
> 
> @philipthrift  (Ph.D., Applied Mathematics)


You are welcome. 

Bruno




> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/29a7c08e-4570-44ff-b11b-ff76e21f8882%40googlegroups.com
>  
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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/4A312105-580C-452B-97C4-230A7714CEBD%40ulb.ac.be.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2019-05-12 Thread Philip Thrift


On Sunday, May 12, 2019 at 12:31:12 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Concerning mathematical logic and theology, an incredible book is:
>
> Cohen J. Daniel, 2007. Equations from God, Pure Mathematics and Victorian 
> Faith, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.
>
> That book shows that the whole field of mathematical logic is born from 
> Victorian Faith. I suspected this from my reading of Lewis Carroll, but I 
> did not suspect it to be so historically true. Then, it explains the way 
> this has been hidden, for the professional benefits of the whole of 
> Mathematics, but that did not help for the field of theology, alas.
>
>
> Bruno
>
>

Now that book I have never heard of before!

https://books.google.com/books/about/Equations_from_God.html?id=eYtfAQAACAAJ

Incredible. (No pun intended.) 

Throughout history, a*pplication rather than abstraction* has been the 
prominent driving force in mathematics. From the compass and sextant to 
partial differential equations, mathematical advances were spurred by the 
desire for better navigation tools, weaponry, and construction methods. But 
the religious upheaval in Victorian England and the fledgling United States 
opened the way for* the rediscovery of pure mathematics*, a tradition 
rooted in Ancient Greece.

In "Equations from God," Daniel J. Cohen captures the origins of the 
rebirth of abstract mathematics in the intellectual quest to rise above 
common existence and touch the mind of the deity. Using an array of 
published and private sources, Cohen shows how philosophers and 
mathematicians seized upon the beautiful simplicity inherent in 
mathematical laws *to reconnect with the divine* and traces the route by 
which the divinely inspired mathematics of the Victorian era begot later 
secular philosophies.

Thank you. This made my day.

@philipthrift  (Ph.D., Applied Mathematics)


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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/29a7c08e-4570-44ff-b11b-ff76e21f8882%40googlegroups.com.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2019-05-12 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 10 May 2019, at 15:38, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:53 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>> On 8 May 2019, at 17:44, Jason Resch > > wrote:
>> 
>> 


SNIP



>> 
>> OK.
>> 
>> It is just that this is verified by “mind”, but “mind” and informational 
>> pattern, or number are immaterial, but still admit third person description. 
>> The soul, or consciousness , or first person, is not only immaterial, but is 
>> not identifiable to anything having a third person description. The soul 
>> like god has no “name” (that is no third person description at all). Yet, 
>> with mechanism, it admits meta-description, quasi-axiomatic definition, and 
>> then it can be proved it has no third person description, a bit like the 
>> notion of truth in Tarski theory of truth (which I am using all the time, 
>> explicitly or implicitly).
>> 
>> Would a single observer-moment/experience admit a third-person description? 
>> Is it only the time-evolution of experience that is not definable?
> 
> The expression “observer-moment” is ambiguous. It is often used in a first 
> person sense, then confused with third person sense. 
> 
> In the third person sense, it is equivalent with the notion of instantaneous 
> state description. It is the state of a computer, at some moment of its 
> computation/running.
> 
> A first person observer moment is just a conscious state, lived as 
> here-and-now, like when you open the box in Washington, and get the 
> experience “I am in Washington”. That cannot be formalised or predict in any 
> way, but is still amenable to a metamathematical treatments when we assume 
> mechanism.
> 
> The []p & p definition, makes the first person notion non formalisable. We 
> can come back on this (it is not easy to understand, nor to explain).
> 
> To be sure, to get the immediacy of the observer-moment, []p & <>t & p is 
> better (this suppress the transitivity). []p & p is the logic of 
> knowledgeable. []p & <>t & p is closer to the logic of known-here-and-now.
> 
> 
> Interesting. Might one say "[]p & p" is analagous to the world-soul / Atman 
> from Hinduism


Yes.





> as "[]p & <>t & p" is to the observer/thought moment as in Buddhist's concept 
> of Anatta (no-self)?


May be. (It is not entirely “no-self”, For Anatta, as far as I understand, you 
might need to useat least  the dual diamond, which here will be <>p v []f v p). 
In my long text, that is the “actual/curren/immediate” dream state.

I am glad you got the bible!  I mean Davis’ “The undecidable”. It is the best 
beginning for the machine mathematical theology.

Concerning mathematical logic and theology, an incredible book is:

Cohen J. Daniel, 2007. Equations from God, Pure Mathematics and Victorian 
Faith, John Hopkins Press, Baltimore.

That books shows that the whole field of mathematical logic is born from 
Victorian Faith. I suspected this from my reading of Lewis Carroll, but I did 
not suspect it to be so historically true. Then, it explains the way this has 
been hidden, for the professional benefits of the whole of Mathematics, but 
that did not help for the field of theology, alas.


Bruno




> 
> Jason
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "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/CA%2BBCJUhUUddaRD0rS%3D2ZS%2By9hCTyfzqNA8Vy%3Dzqw76c8%2BL26WQ%40mail.gmail.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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2B116352-480E-47A8-A40A-15FFB987DABA%40ulb.ac.be.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2019-05-10 Thread Jason Resch
On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:53 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 8 May 2019, at 17:44, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:57 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 26 Apr 2019, at 02:50, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:57 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 03:32, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>


 On 4/22/2019 4:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



 On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson 
> wrote:
>
> Consciousness is a program.
>
>
> Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a program,
> that would identify a first person notion with a third person notion, like
> a glass of bear and its price.
>
>
>
> It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and becomes that
> creature's awareness of the world. For humans it becomes the identity or
> soul which responds to anything that affects the organism. It can be
> uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it dissipates with death.
>
>
>
> How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot attach
> its soul to any particular computations, only to the infinity of 
> (relative)
> computations, and there is at least aleph_zero one, of not a continuum.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
 The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:

 Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with
 matter but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe it
 possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from
 our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that
 this would be a contradiction in terms. It is possible however but unlikely
 that such universes may exist.
 Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body
 I consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´
 and hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two are
 firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but
 when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is
 gone and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately.


 It seems otiose to postulate a separate spirit.  A pitiful attempt to
 grasp immortality.  Isn't it plain that what is "immaterial" and
 distinguishes a brain of a rock is that the brain instantiates processes
 which incorporate memory, purpose, perception, and action.

>>>
>>>
>>> Is it otiose to make a distinction between a "story" and a "book”,
>>>
>>>
>>> ?
>>>
>>> You might be too quick here. A book can instantiate a description of a
>>> story, but a story is a sequence of events (be them relative computation in
>>> arithmetic, or in some “universe”).
>>>
>>>
>> You might be misinterpreting my point. I was attempting to show that
>> there is an important distinction between "mind" and "brain", (as there is
>> between "story" and "book", and "program" and "computer”).
>>
>>
>>
>> I was a bit splitting the air, with respect to what you were trying to
>> convey. Sorry.
>>
>
> No worries, greater clarification is always appreciated.
>
>
> I appreciate.
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> BTW, I forget to mention that Post Anticipation has really anticipated
>> the whole things, from Gödel up to immaterialism. In fact Post is the real
>> first person to discover both the Church-Turing thesis, the incompleteness
>> implied by it (something almost forgot since Gödel!, but clearly
>> re-explained by Kleene and Webb later).
>>
>> Emil Post was very sick all its life, and has been a math teacher in High
>> school almost all his life, but eventually, thanks to his paper of 1944
>> (which led to Recursion theory) he will be recognised, and get a position
>> in a university, for a short time before death.
>>
>> I think that Emil Post was the deepest thinker here.
>>
>>
> Interesting I didn't know anything about Post's life or contributions
> before. I will look more into this.
>
>
>
> He found everything, just a bit too much early for his time. He found
> Gödel’s theorem, even the “simple” proof from “Church’s thesis”. He found
> the argument of Lucas-Penrose using “Gödel” against Mechanism. He found the
> deep error that such argument illustrates, he get the understanding that
> materialism is at stake, and the difficulties, etc.
>
> He is at the origin of "Recursion Theory” (theoretical computer science, a
> branch of mathematical logic). That is not in his anticipation, but in his
> paper, which is also in Davis Anthology:
>
> POST E., 1944 , Recursively Enumerable Sets of Positive Integers and their
> Decision Problems, Bull. Am. Math. Soc. 50, pp. 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2019-05-10 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 8 May 2019, at 17:44, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:57 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>> On 26 Apr 2019, at 02:50, Jason Resch > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:57 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>> 
>>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 03:32, Jason Resch >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/22/2019 4:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
 
 
 On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal >>> > wrote:
 
> On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson  > wrote:
> 
> Consciousness is a program.
 
 Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a program, that 
 would identify a first person notion with a third person notion, like a 
 glass of bear and its price.
 
 
 
> It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and becomes that 
> creature's awareness of the world. For humans it becomes the identity or 
> soul which responds to anything that affects the organism. It can be 
> uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it dissipates with death.  
 
 
 How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot attach its 
 soul to any particular computations, only to the infinity of (relative) 
 computations, and there is at least aleph_zero one, of not a continuum.
 
 Bruno
 
 
 
 The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:
 
 Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with matter 
 but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe it 
 possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from 
 our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that 
 this would be a contradiction in terms. It is possible however but 
 unlikely that such universes may exist.
 Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body I 
 consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´ 
 and hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two 
 are firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens 
 but when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit 
 is gone and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps 
 immediately.
>>> 
>>> It seems otiose to postulate a separate spirit.  A pitiful attempt to grasp 
>>> immortality.  Isn't it plain that what is "immaterial" and distinguishes a 
>>> brain of a rock is that the brain instantiates processes which incorporate 
>>> memory, purpose, perception, and action.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Is it otiose to make a distinction between a "story" and a "book”,
>> 
>> ?
>> 
>> You might be too quick here. A book can instantiate a description of a 
>> story, but a story is a sequence of events (be them relative computation in 
>> arithmetic, or in some “universe”).
>> 
>> 
>> You might be misinterpreting my point. I was attempting to show that there 
>> is an important distinction between "mind" and "brain", (as there is between 
>> "story" and "book", and "program" and "computer”).
> 
> 
> I was a bit splitting the air, with respect to what you were trying to 
> convey. Sorry.
> 
> No worries, greater clarification is always appreciated.

I appreciate.


> 
>  
> 
> BTW, I forget to mention that Post Anticipation has really anticipated the 
> whole things, from Gödel up to immaterialism. In fact Post is the real first 
> person to discover both the Church-Turing thesis, the incompleteness implied 
> by it (something almost forgot since Gödel!, but clearly re-explained by 
> Kleene and Webb later).
> 
> Emil Post was very sick all its life, and has been a math teacher in High 
> school almost all his life, but eventually, thanks to his paper of 1944 
> (which led to Recursion theory) he will be recognised, and get a position in 
> a university, for a short time before death.
> 
> I think that Emil Post was the deepest thinker here.
> 
> 
> Interesting I didn't know anything about Post's life or contributions before. 
> I will look more into this.


He found everything, just a bit too much early for his time. He found Gödel’s 
theorem, even the “simple” proof from “Church’s thesis”. He found the argument 
of Lucas-Penrose using “Gödel” against Mechanism. He found the deep error that 
such argument illustrates, he get the understanding that materialism is at 
stake, and the difficulties, etc.

He is at the origin of "Recursion Theory” (theoretical computer science, a 
branch of mathematical logic). That is not in his anticipation, but in his 
paper, which is also in Davis Anthology:

POST E., 1944 , Recursively Enumerable 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2019-05-08 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:57 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 26 Apr 2019, at 02:50, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:57 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 03:32, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/22/2019 4:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>>

 On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson 
 wrote:

 Consciousness is a program.


 Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a program, that
 would identify a first person notion with a third person notion, like a
 glass of bear and its price.



 It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and becomes that
 creature's awareness of the world. For humans it becomes the identity or
 soul which responds to anything that affects the organism. It can be
 uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it dissipates with death.



 How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot attach its
 soul to any particular computations, only to the infinity of (relative)
 computations, and there is at least aleph_zero one, of not a continuum.

 Bruno



>>> The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:
>>>
>>> Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with matter
>>> but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe it
>>> possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from
>>> our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that
>>> this would be a contradiction in terms. It is possible however but unlikely
>>> that such universes may exist.
>>> Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body I
>>> consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´ and
>>> hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two are
>>> firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but
>>> when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is
>>> gone and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately.
>>>
>>>
>>> It seems otiose to postulate a separate spirit.  A pitiful attempt to
>>> grasp immortality.  Isn't it plain that what is "immaterial" and
>>> distinguishes a brain of a rock is that the brain instantiates processes
>>> which incorporate memory, purpose, perception, and action.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Is it otiose to make a distinction between a "story" and a "book”,
>>
>>
>> ?
>>
>> You might be too quick here. A book can instantiate a description of a
>> story, but a story is a sequence of events (be them relative computation in
>> arithmetic, or in some “universe”).
>>
>>
> You might be misinterpreting my point. I was attempting to show that there
> is an important distinction between "mind" and "brain", (as there is
> between "story" and "book", and "program" and "computer”).
>
>
>
> I was a bit splitting the air, with respect to what you were trying to
> convey. Sorry.
>

No worries, greater clarification is always appreciated.



>
> BTW, I forget to mention that Post Anticipation has really anticipated the
> whole things, from Gödel up to immaterialism. In fact Post is the real
> first person to discover both the Church-Turing thesis, the incompleteness
> implied by it (something almost forgot since Gödel!, but clearly
> re-explained by Kleene and Webb later).
>
> Emil Post was very sick all its life, and has been a math teacher in High
> school almost all his life, but eventually, thanks to his paper of 1944
> (which led to Recursion theory) he will be recognised, and get a position
> in a university, for a short time before death.
>
> I think that Emil Post was the deepest thinker here.
>
>
Interesting I didn't know anything about Post's life or contributions
before. I will look more into this.


>
>
> In all cases, the brain, book, computer, are physical, and can have
> specific physical incarnations.  However, despite differing physically,
> they can be used to implement the same (potentially identical) abstract
> patterns (minds, stories, programs).
>
> Because the latter category refers to abstract, informational, duplicable,
> patterns, they are in a sense immaterial. Many attributes you might
> attribute to a "soul" you could apply to these abstract informational
> patterns, such as:
>
>
>- No physical location
>- No mass or energy
>- Indestructible (at least always recoverable, in theory - ability to
>resurrect)
>- Ability to cross between different physical embodiments (ability to
>reincarnate)
>- Ability to exist in different physical universes/realms/planes
>(ability to transmigrate)
>
>
> OK.
>
> It is just that this is verified by “mind”, but “mind” and informational
> pattern, or number 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2019-05-08 Thread Jason Resch
On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:47 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 26 Apr 2019, at 02:38, Jason Resch  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:45 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 01:24, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Consciousness is a program.
>>>
>>>
>>> Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a program, that
>>> would identify a first person notion with a third person notion, like a
>>> glass of bear and its price.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and becomes that
>>> creature's awareness of the world. For humans it becomes the identity or
>>> soul which responds to anything that affects the organism. It can be
>>> uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it dissipates with death.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot attach its
>>> soul to any particular computations, only to the infinity of (relative)
>>> computations, and there is at least aleph_zero one, of not a continuum.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:
>>
>> Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with matter
>> but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe it
>> possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from
>> our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that
>> this would be a contradiction in terms. It is possible however but unlikely
>> that such universes may exist.
>> Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body I
>> consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´ and
>> hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two are
>> firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but
>> when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is
>> gone and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately.
>>
>>
>>
>> This shows also how much Turing was blinded by its belief in some primary
>> matter. If, he would have understood at once that our consciousness follows
>> the differentiating computations in arithmetic.
>>
>
> True, he did not appear to reach the conclusion regarding the primacy of
> computation, however, is what he says above all that dissimilar from what
> you have said regarding "souls falling" and becoming entangled with matter
> (the material/physical) world?
>
> It appears Turing was a "mechanist" if not a "primitive arithmetical
> mechanistic”.
>
>
> Turing was a “indexical digital mechanist", I agree.
>
> But he was also a naturalist, and as such he was inconsistent on this. You
> can’t have both mechanism and naturalism/materialism/physicalism.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>
>> Emil Post eventually got the immateriality”, but change its mind after
>> reading … Turing.
>>
>>
> I am interested in learning more about what Emil Post said on
> immateriality. Do you recall the reference?
>
>
>
> Yes, it is his famous “anticipation”, that you can find in Martin Davis’s
> book “The undecidable” (now at Dover, with all key original papers (except
> for the important contribution of Tarski-Mostowki and Robinson, which is
> another thin Dover book). Precisely:
>
> “Absolutely Unsolvable Problems and Relatively Undecidable propositions,
> Account of an Anticipation”.
>
> Published by Martin Davis in the book “The Undecidable”. Dover 1993,
> (First edition: Raven Press, 1965).
>
> Martin Davis wrote : < Journal in 1941 and was rejected. Certainly the speculative (not to say
> metaphysical) “Appendix” is not what one ordinarily expects to find in a
> mathematics paper. So it appears in print for the first time in this
> anthology>>.
>
>
>
Thank you! I have ordered a copy of Davis's book.

Jason



>
>
>
>
>
>> With mechanism, it is simpler to not assume bodies and primitively
>> material bodies unless we get some evidences for them. Yet, until now, the
>> evidences gathered from the observation of nature confirms mechanism, and
>> refute physicalism. For anyone remembering dreams, seeing is not a valid
>> way to attribute any ontological existence, others than a subject, which we
>> already have in arithmetic.
>>
>
> This seems to be the normal pattern in human science.  It was 40-50 years
> between QM and the serious consideration of relative state.  Likewise the
> computational theory of mind began in the 1950s and 1960s, and it wasn't
> until your work that the consequences of this idea, when taken seriously,
> were fully appreciated.
>
>
> Thanks for telling this.
>
>
> Perhaps there are times it takes a new generation growing up with the
> problems uncovered by the previous generation, to make significant leaps.
>
>
> Yes, we perish if we don’t publish, but publishing does not make you
> immune to perishing, especially if the finding does not fit the mentality
> of 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-05-08 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 5 May 2019, at 21:56, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/5/2019 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 3 May 2019, at 01:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/2/2019 8:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take 
 into account all what is relevant.
>>> But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.??
>> Indeed. But I did not use a definition to claim any truth (of existence, 
>> or else). Mechanism assumes that you have a brain, that computer exists 
>> physically, that doctors exist, etc.
>> 
>> It does not assume that the physical existence is primary, though, and 
>> eventually, the reasoning shows that the physical existence (which is 
>> never doubted) is not primary.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> By definition God is omnipotent.??
>> By *some* definition. 
>> 
>> 
>>> But that doesn't mean there's an omnipotent being.
>> On the contrary indeed. Nothing is omnipotent. Omnipotence and 
>> omniscience are two inconsistent notions, even when taken in isolation.
>> 
>> I am not sure what was your point here Brent?
> 
> You wrote, "By definition, the substitution level take into account all 
> what is relevant."  My point is that Holevo's theorem entails that there 
> is lower bound on the incompleteness of the substitution; so it is not at 
> all clear that there is a substitution level that takes into account all 
> that is relevant.  Simply saying there is a definition of the term 
> doesn't mean it refers.
 
 Yes, so Mechanism might implied that we (as abstract immaterial 
 computational object) are above the Holevo bound. Simply. But now, this is 
 incorrect. Even if we need to go below that bound, like if we have a 
 quantum brain, there is still a possibility that we don’t use the 
 continuous information related to it, so we will still be “reconstituted” 
 in the arithmetical reality, and the reversal physics/psychology-theology 
 still occurs.
 
 Mechanism would be false, if not only we are quantum machine, but some 
 infinite information is relevant, and if that infinite information is not 
 recoverable by the first person indeterminacy in arithmetic. In that case 
 mechanism is false, and materialism is against consistent (but not yet 
 necessarily true, note).
>>> 
>>> There is nothing in Holevo's theorem that implies the information is 
>>> infinite. 
>> 
>> I agree, but it grows quickly by entanglement diffusion, even toward 
>> infinity in an infinite physical universe.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Only that it is unobtainable.  Mechanism might still be true. 
>> 
>> Yes, that is why a QC cannot violate Church’s thesis. But the non cloning is 
>> still a consequence of mechanism, and the non cloning inferred from 
>> observation is a confirmation of Mechanism.
>> 
>> 
>>> We don't know what detail is needed so that one "feels the same" after 
>>> replacing part or all ones brain by some Turing machine.  It might be be 
>>> very little.
>> 
>> OK.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>   One the other hand it might makes the fact that one has been duplicated 
>>> obvious even if you still "felt" ("reported"?) you were the same person.  
>>> So I'm not clear on why you think your duplication scenario is significant.
>> 
>> To understand that to make any prediction we need to take into account all 
>> our “reconsistitutions” in the arithmetical reality. We cannot use on 
>> ontological commitment (God or Universe) to select some computation. Or we 
>> need to say “yes” to the doctor, and pray that God to intervene to make that 
>> selection, but that is no more “mechanism”: it is usual invocation of a god 
>> (personal or non personal). That is what the physicists do all the time, 
>> when they do a prediction and verify it. With mechanism, the measure “one” 
>> (say) has to be derived from the statistics on all first person experience 
>> supported by all computations. That works well at the propositional level, 
>> thanks to the Gödel-Löb-Solovay G*.
> 
> That sounds completely circular attempt to define the individual.  All our 
> reconstitutions are derived from as our statistic from all experiences.  

That is made intuitively clear, and easy for the kids, with the mechanist 
thought experience.

The mathematical definition of “our” is circular, but the circularity is 
eliminated by using the second recursion theorem, like in the proof by Solovay 
of the arithmetical completeness of the logic of self-reference.

I recall the second recursion theorem. Let phi_i be a 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-05-05 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 5/5/2019 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 3 May 2019, at 01:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 5/2/2019 8:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into 
account all what is relevant.

But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.??

Indeed. But I did not use a definition to claim any truth (of existence, or 
else). Mechanism assumes that you have a brain, that computer exists 
physically, that doctors exist, etc.

It does not assume that the physical existence is primary, though, and 
eventually, the reasoning shows that the physical existence (which is never 
doubted) is not primary.





By definition God is omnipotent.??

By*some*  definition.



But that doesn't mean there's an omnipotent being.

On the contrary indeed. Nothing is omnipotent. Omnipotence and omniscience are 
two inconsistent notions, even when taken in isolation.

I am not sure what was your point here Brent?


You wrote, "By definition, the substitution level take into account all what is 
relevant."  My point is that Holevo's theorem entails that there is lower bound on 
the incompleteness of the substitution; so it is not at all clear that there is a 
substitution level that takes into account all that is relevant.  Simply saying there is 
a definition of the term doesn't mean it refers.


Yes, so Mechanism might implied that we (as abstract immaterial 
computational object) are above the Holevo bound. Simply. But now, 
this is incorrect. Even if we need to go below that bound, like if 
we have a quantum brain, there is still a possibility that we don’t 
use the continuous information related to it, so we will still be 
“reconstituted” in the arithmetical reality, and the reversal 
physics/psychology-theology still occurs.


Mechanism would be false, if not only we are quantum machine, but 
some infinite information is relevant, and if that infinite 
information is not recoverable by the first person indeterminacy in 
arithmetic. In that case mechanism is false, and materialism is 
against consistent (but not yet necessarily true, note).


There is nothing in Holevo's theorem that implies the information is 
infinite.


I agree, but it grows quickly by entanglement diffusion, even toward 
infinity in an infinite physical universe.





Only that it is unobtainable.  Mechanism might still be true.


Yes, that is why a QC cannot violate Church’s thesis. But the non 
cloning is still a consequence of mechanism, and the non cloning 
inferred from observation is a confirmation of Mechanism.



We don't know what detail is needed so that one "feels the same" 
after replacing part or all ones brain by some Turing machine. It 
might be be very little.


OK.



  One the other hand it might makes the fact that one has been 
duplicated obvious even if you still "felt" ("reported"?) you were 
the same person.  So I'm not clear on why you think your duplication 
scenario is significant.


To understand that to make any prediction we need to take into account 
all our “reconsistitutions” in the arithmetical reality. We cannot use 
on ontological commitment (God or Universe) to select some 
computation. Or we need to say “yes” to the doctor, and pray that God 
to intervene to make that selection, but that is no more “mechanism”: 
it is usual invocation of a god (personal or non personal). That is 
what the physicists do all the time, when they do a prediction and 
verify it. With mechanism, the measure “one” (say) has to be derived 
from the statistics on all first person experience supported by all 
computations. That works well at the propositional level, thanks to 
the Gödel-Löb-Solovay G*.


That sounds completely circular attempt to define the individual. All 
/*our*/ reconstitutions are derived from as /*our*/ statistic from all 
experiences.


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


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-05-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 3 May 2019, at 01:08, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/2/2019 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I guess you meant “clonable”; On the contrary, with mechanism matter is not 
>> clonable for all its aspect belonging below our substitution level,
> It's merely your supposition that the not clonable (I quoted your "coinable") 
> is below the level at which substitution effects consciousness. 


Not at all. It is the consequence of step 1-6. Or the consequence of the fact 
that a machine cannot know which machine she is, or which computations support 
her in arithmetic. 


> But I wonder what effect we are worrying about. Suppose we did this 
> duplication and the Moscow man and the Washington man both then denied they 
> were conscious, yet still behaved exactly as before?

?

How could they behave exactly the same, and denied that they were conscious. 
When?  I do not understand.

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
> 
>> which has to exists (due to the infinity of computations going through or 
>> relevant finite state), so that the non cloning theorem confirms mechanism.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "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

2019-05-05 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 3 May 2019, at 01:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/2/2019 8:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take 
>> into account all what is relevant.
> But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.??
 Indeed. But I did not use a definition to claim any truth (of existence, 
 or else). Mechanism assumes that you have a brain, that computer exists 
 physically, that doctors exist, etc.
 
 It does not assume that the physical existence is primary, though, and 
 eventually, the reasoning shows that the physical existence (which is 
 never doubted) is not primary.
 
 
 
 
> By definition God is omnipotent.??
 By *some* definition. 
 
 
> But that doesn't mean there's an omnipotent being.
 On the contrary indeed. Nothing is omnipotent. Omnipotence and omniscience 
 are two inconsistent notions, even when taken in isolation.
 
 I am not sure what was your point here Brent?
>>> 
>>> You wrote, "By definition, the substitution level take into account all 
>>> what is relevant."  My point is that Holevo's theorem entails that there is 
>>> lower bound on the incompleteness of the substitution; so it is not at all 
>>> clear that there is a substitution level that takes into account all that 
>>> is relevant.  Simply saying there is a definition of the term doesn't mean 
>>> it refers.
>> 
>> Yes, so Mechanism might implied that we (as abstract immaterial 
>> computational object) are above the Holevo bound. Simply. But now, this is 
>> incorrect. Even if we need to go below that bound, like if we have a quantum 
>> brain, there is still a possibility that we don’t use the continuous 
>> information related to it, so we will still be “reconstituted” in the 
>> arithmetical reality, and the reversal physics/psychology-theology still 
>> occurs.
>> 
>> Mechanism would be false, if not only we are quantum machine, but some 
>> infinite information is relevant, and if that infinite information is not 
>> recoverable by the first person indeterminacy in arithmetic. In that case 
>> mechanism is false, and materialism is against consistent (but not yet 
>> necessarily true, note).
> 
> There is nothing in Holevo's theorem that implies the information is 
> infinite. 

I agree, but it grows quickly by entanglement diffusion, even toward infinity 
in an infinite physical universe.



> Only that it is unobtainable.  Mechanism might still be true. 

Yes, that is why a QC cannot violate Church’s thesis. But the non cloning is 
still a consequence of mechanism, and the non cloning inferred from observation 
is a confirmation of Mechanism.


> We don't know what detail is needed so that one "feels the same" after 
> replacing part or all ones brain by some Turing machine.  It might be be very 
> little.

OK.



>   One the other hand it might makes the fact that one has been duplicated 
> obvious even if you still "felt" ("reported"?) you were the same person.  So 
> I'm not clear on why you think your duplication scenario is significant.

To understand that to make any prediction we need to take into account all our 
“reconsistitutions” in the arithmetical reality. We cannot use on ontological 
commitment (God or Universe) to select some computation. Or we need to say 
“yes” to the doctor, and pray that God to intervene to make that selection, but 
that is no more “mechanism”: it is usual invocation of a god (personal or non 
personal). That is what the physicists do all the time, when they do a 
prediction and verify it. With mechanism, the measure “one” (say) has to be 
derived from the statistics on all first person experience supported by all 
computations. That works well at the propositional level, thanks to the 
Gödel-Löb-Solovay G*.

Bruno



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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-05-02 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 5/2/2019 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I guess you meant “clonable”; On the contrary, with mechanism matter is not 
clonable for all its aspect belonging below our substitution level,
It's merely your supposition that the not clonable (I quoted your 
"coinable") is below the level at which substitution effects 
consciousness.  But I wonder what effect we are worrying about. Suppose 
we did this duplication and the Moscow man and the Washington man both 
then denied they were conscious, yet still behaved exactly as before?


Brent



which has to exists (due to the infinity of computations going through or 
relevant finite state), so that the non cloning theorem confirms mechanism.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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

2019-05-02 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 5/2/2019 8:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into 
account all what is relevant.

But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.??

Indeed. But I did not use a definition to claim any truth (of existence, or 
else). Mechanism assumes that you have a brain, that computer exists 
physically, that doctors exist, etc.

It does not assume that the physical existence is primary, though, and 
eventually, the reasoning shows that the physical existence (which is never 
doubted) is not primary.





By definition God is omnipotent.??

By*some*  definition.



But that doesn't mean there's an omnipotent being.

On the contrary indeed. Nothing is omnipotent. Omnipotence and omniscience are 
two inconsistent notions, even when taken in isolation.

I am not sure what was your point here Brent?


You wrote, "By definition, the substitution level take into account all what is 
relevant."  My point is that Holevo's theorem entails that there is lower bound on 
the incompleteness of the substitution; so it is not at all clear that there is a 
substitution level that takes into account all that is relevant.  Simply saying there is 
a definition of the term doesn't mean it refers.


Yes, so Mechanism might implied that we (as abstract immaterial 
computational object) are above the Holevo bound. Simply. But now, 
this is incorrect. Even if we need to go below that bound, like if we 
have a quantum brain, there is still a possibility that we don’t use 
the continuous information related to it, so we will still be 
“reconstituted” in the arithmetical reality, and the reversal 
physics/psychology-theology still occurs.


Mechanism would be false, if not only we are quantum machine, but some 
infinite information is relevant, and if that infinite information is 
not recoverable by the first person indeterminacy in arithmetic. In 
that case mechanism is false, and materialism is against consistent 
(but not yet necessarily true, note).


There is nothing in Holevo's theorem that implies the information is 
infinite.  Only that it is unobtainable.  Mechanism might still be 
true.  We don't know what detail is needed so that one "feels the same" 
after replacing part or all ones brain by some Turing machine.  It might 
be be very little.  One the other hand it might makes the fact that one 
has been duplicated obvious even if you still "felt" ("reported"?) you 
were the same person.  So I'm not clear on why you think your 
duplication scenario is significant.


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


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-05-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 May 2019, at 20:13, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/1/2019 10:19 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>> No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities with 
>> natural entities. In an artificial entities the functional parts that they 
>> contain are 100% knowable by us, because it is us who put them there in the 
>> first place.
> 
> No.  We assemble them.  But they are not 100% knowable, c.f. Holevo's theorem.

Right. That is an important point, both in contemporary physics, and in the 
physics of the numbers.

Bruno


> 
>> On the other hand, in a natural entity, the functional parts are not 
>> completely known to us. You can look at the brain and see neurons, but you 
>> cannot conclude from this that neurons are all there are there.
> 
> No.  But you can experiment and determine what happens when one is removed or 
> stimulated.
> 
>> There can be an infinite amount of invisible entities, dark matter, dark 
>> energy, who knows what, that contributes to what the brain is and does. 
>> Therefore, you cannot look at the brain as a machine.
> 
> I can as an hypothesis.  And I can make intelligent machines .
> 
>> 
>> This of course, besides the fact that the brain does not exist, being just a 
>> quale in consciousness.
> 
> You keep saying that as though it has some significance.  It's fine that you 
> attempt and idealist TOE and take quale as fundamental.  But it is silly to 
> then say a brain is just quale.  In you theory everything is just quale.  But 
> you need to explain why brain quale are different from computer quale and 
> muscle quale.  Why having thumping quale interact  (how?) with brain quale 
> results in no  quale?
> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> You can even have a look at my SAND presentation if you want to hear once 
>> more how the brain does not exist:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ 
>> 
>> 
>> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 19:42:48 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 
>> .
>> 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 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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

2019-05-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 May 2019, at 19:27, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Is it even possible to physical implement your "machine" ? If so, can you 
> elaborate on it ? What is it about the "physical world" that would allow your 
> "machine" to be "physically" implemented ?

That is a very complex question and when I “found Quantum mechanics” before 
realising that the physicist were already there, I was sure that mechanism 
allows far too much computational continuations, leading to an explosion of 
“white rabbits” prediction, and I thought that I would have been able to prove 
that such mess does not allow Turing universality, so that I thought simply 
that I was refuting Mechanism. But I did not succeed, and then QM appears to 
look like Mechanism predicts physics has to be. Now, why is physics Turing 
universal is not yet entirely explained, but there is no inconsistency on the 
horizon, especially that the quantum appears in the first person plural. It is 
an illusion, but it is sharable among different branches of the differentiating 
consciousness flux.

Bruno




> 
> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 19:53:54 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> When I talk about digital machine, I don’t talk about their physical 
> implementation.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "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

2019-05-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 May 2019, at 19:19, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities with 
> natural entities.

That contradicts the monism related to the idea that consciousness is the 
fundamental things.

With mechanism, the difference between natural and artificial is … artificial. 
And thus it is natural, plausibly for the entities who have a big ego, and feel 
different if not superior. 



> In an artificial entities the functional parts that they contain are 100% 
> knowable by us, because it is us who put them there in the first place. On 
> the other hand, in a natural entity, the functional parts are not completely 
> known to us. You can look at the brain and see neurons, but you cannot 
> conclude from this that neurons are all there are there. There can be an 
> infinite amount of invisible entities, dark matter, dark energy, who knows 
> what, that contributes to what the brain is and does. Therefore, you cannot 
> look at the brain as a machine.

But you speculate that there is such infinities playing some role. Why? In 
science, we usually prefer to assumes simple things, and make them more 
complex, only when evidences forces us into. Or we abandon the theory, and look 
for another simple theory.



> 
> This of course, besides the fact that the brain does not exist, being just a 
> quale in consciousness.

Literally, I agree with you, but I begin to think it is more like a 
coincidence, given you apparent certainty that machine can not think, in your 
theory.

Bruno



> 
> You can even have a look at my SAND presentation if you want to hear once 
> more how the brain does not exist:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ
> 
> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 19:42:48 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 
> .
> 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

2019-05-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 1 May 2019, at 18:39, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/1/2019 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> My point is that "qualia" don't exist independent of an environment, and an 
>>> evolutionary history.
>> 
>> That is ambiguous. A human qualia needs a human history.
> 
> Human qualia are the only kind we know.  Other qualia, independent of 
> environment and evolutionary history, would be "to speculate on something 
> that we have no evidence for”.

I have few doubts that all mammals, and some invertebrates have qualia. I doubt 
that if there were alien, they would not have qualia, and if you agree with the 
(meta—definition I gave of consciousness, then it is a theorem that all 
universal machine have qualia. But for such qualia to be comparable to pours, 
they need some histories comparable to ours. 



> 
>> But with mechanism, a human qualia can be encoded into a program or a 
>> number, and copied.
> 
> That's the assumption of Mechanism. 

Yes.


> But it is not clear to me how the semantics that allow the encoded qualia to 
> refer to the environment are preserved.

If they are not, you will get p-zombies, or the guy with the artificial brain 
will just “not work”, perhaps looking dead, or something. By definition of 
Mechanism, there is such a level, and they like Darwinism, to function needs 
such a level, as Darwin mentioned rather explicitly (and from which he 
correctly predicts the existence of digital encoding, which has been verified 
by Molecular biologist (cf A, T, G, C).





> 
>> 
>> It is true for other “deep notion”. The work of Shakespeare needs also a 
>> human long history, but you can copy the entire work of Shakespeare on a 
>> disk.
> 
> But it can only be decoded into "The work of Shakespeare" in our environment 
> (or every similar).

Yes, but with mechanism, we can always truncate the information at some digital 
level.

I don’t claim mechanism is true, I just derive the metaphysical/theological 
conclusion, including the necessary laws of physics. It fits with the facts, 
including consciousness, where physicalism has to invoke some dubious (and 
inconsistent with mechanism) ontological commitment.



> 
>> 
>> If your point is that you would only say “yes” to the doctor, if he copies 
>> your brain+a part of the environment, you are still in the frame of the 
>> mechanist assumption, unless you explicit posit something both not coinable 
>> in the environment and relevant for your conscious state to survive the 
>> copy, but in that case, we are out of my working hypothesis (at a place 
>> where I will ask why to speculate on something that we have no evidence for).
> 
> But we do have evidence for it.  Nature is quantum mechanical and that puts 
> limits on what is "coinable in the environment”.

I guess you meant “clonable”; On the contrary, with mechanism matter is not 
clonable for all its aspect belonging below our substitution level, which has 
to exists (due to the infinity of computations going through or relevant finite 
state), so that the non cloning theorem confirms mechanism. 

Bruno



> 
> Brent
> 
>> (Would Z1* depart from Nature, that would be such an evidence, but that has 
>> not yet been shown.)
>> 
>> Bruno
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at 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

2019-05-02 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take 
 into account all what is relevant.
>>> But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.??
>> Indeed. But I did not use a definition to claim any truth (of existence, or 
>> else). Mechanism assumes that you have a brain, that computer exists 
>> physically, that doctors exist, etc.
>> 
>> It does not assume that the physical existence is primary, though, and 
>> eventually, the reasoning shows that the physical existence (which is never 
>> doubted) is not primary.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> By definition God is omnipotent.??
>> By *some* definition. 
>> 
>> 
>>> But that doesn't mean there's an omnipotent being.
>> On the contrary indeed. Nothing is omnipotent. Omnipotence and omniscience 
>> are two inconsistent notions, even when taken in isolation.
>> 
>> I am not sure what was your point here Brent?
> 
> You wrote, "By definition, the substitution level take into account all what 
> is relevant."  My point is that Holevo's theorem entails that there is lower 
> bound on the incompleteness of the substitution; so it is not at all clear 
> that there is a substitution level that takes into account all that is 
> relevant.  Simply saying there is a definition of the term doesn't mean it 
> refers.

Yes, so Mechanism might implied that we (as abstract immaterial computational 
object) are above the Holevo bound. Simply. But now, this is incorrect. Even if 
we need to go below that bound, like if we have a quantum brain, there is still 
a possibility that we don’t use the continuous information related to it, so we 
will still be “reconstituted” in the arithmetical reality, and the reversal 
physics/psychology-theology still occurs.

Mechanism would be false, if not only we are quantum machine, but some infinite 
information is relevant, and if that infinite information is not recoverable by 
the first person indeterminacy in arithmetic. In that case mechanism is false, 
and materialism is against consistent (but not yet necessarily true, note).

Bruno



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

2019-05-01 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 5/1/2019 10:19 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities 
with natural entities. In an artificial entities the functional parts 
that they contain are 100% knowable by us, because it is us who put 
them there in the first place.


No.  We assemble them.  But they are not 100% knowable, c.f. Holevo's 
theorem.


On the other hand, in a natural entity, the functional parts are not 
completely known to us. You can look at the brain and see neurons, but 
you cannot conclude from this that neurons are all there are there.


No.  But you can experiment and determine what happens when one is 
removed or stimulated.


There can be an infinite amount of invisible entities, dark matter, 
dark energy, who knows what, that contributes to what the brain is and 
does. Therefore, you cannot look at the brain as a machine.


I can as an hypothesis.  And I can make intelligent machines .



This of course, besides the fact that the brain does not exist, being 
just a quale in consciousness.


You keep saying that as though it has some significance.  It's fine that 
you attempt and idealist TOE and take quale as fundamental. But it is 
silly to then say a brain is just quale.  In you theory everything is 
just quale.  But you need to explain why brain quale are different from 
computer quale and muscle quale.  Why having thumping quale interact  
(how?) with brain quale results in no quale?


Brent



You can even have a look at my SAND presentation if you want to hear 
once more how the brain does not exist:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 19:42:48 UTC+3, Brent wrote:





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.
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

2019-05-01 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Is it even possible to physical implement your "machine" ? If so, can you 
elaborate on it ? What is it about the "physical world" that would allow 
your "machine" to be "physically" implemented ?

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 19:53:54 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> When I talk about digital machine, I don’t talk about their physical 
> implementation.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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

2019-05-01 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities with 
natural entities. In an artificial entities the functional parts that they 
contain are 100% knowable by us, because it is us who put them there in the 
first place. On the other hand, in a natural entity, the functional parts 
are not completely known to us. You can look at the brain and see neurons, 
but you cannot conclude from this that neurons are all there are there. 
There can be an infinite amount of invisible entities, dark matter, dark 
energy, who knows what, that contributes to what the brain is and does. 
Therefore, you cannot look at the brain as a machine.

This of course, besides the fact that the brain does not exist, being just 
a quale in consciousness.

You can even have a look at my SAND presentation if you want to hear once 
more how the brain does not exist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 19:42:48 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-05-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 May 2019, at 11:14, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> What is the difference ? Basically, what is the difference between this 
> machine:
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and this machine:
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ?


The first one is a particular (non Turing universal) machine, implemented in 
the physical reality. As such, it is better to view it as an analogue machine, 
but we can see it also as a digital machine. The machine here is not well 
defined to be sure.

The second one is, I guess, a Turing universal boolean net, implemented also in 
the physical reality. That one is a genuine universal number, implemented, or 
incarnated in the physical reality.

When I talk about digital machine, I don’t talk about their physical 
implementation. To fix the things, and avoid confusion (given that the goal is 
to derive physics from arithmetic), I consider their implementation in 
arithmetic, or their abstract definition in lambda calculus, or sometimes in 
semi-formal languages. 

I do not claim that digital mechanism is true. Only that it is logically 
incompatible with a. Weak form of materialism/physicalism, and that we can do 
the test, and that, thanks to QM, the test done up to now, favours mechanism, 
and already refutes materialism. (Again, simplifying a bit, to be short).

Bruno

PS, I will be more and more busy in the next days. Apology for slow answering.



> 
> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:43:47 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> I talk of digital machine, in the sense of Church and Turing. I can say more. 
> Just ask (and be patient, as I am in a busy period).
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "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

2019-05-01 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 5/1/2019 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
My point is that "qualia" don't exist independent of an environment, 
and an evolutionary history.


That is ambiguous. A human qualia needs a human history.


Human qualia are the only kind we know.  Other qualia, independent of 
environment and evolutionary history, would be "to speculate on 
something that we have no evidence for".


But with mechanism, a human qualia can be encoded into a program or a 
number, and copied.


That's the assumption of Mechanism.  But it is not clear to me how the 
semantics that allow the encoded qualia to refer to the environment are 
preserved.




It is true for other “deep notion”. The work of Shakespeare needs also 
a human long history, but you can copy the entire work of Shakespeare 
on a disk.


But it can only be decoded into "The work of Shakespeare" in our 
environment (or every similar).




If your point is that you would only say “yes” to the doctor, if he 
copies your brain+a part of the environment, you are still in the 
frame of the mechanist assumption, unless you explicit posit something 
both not coinable in the environment and relevant for your conscious 
state to survive the copy, but in that case, we are out of my working 
hypothesis (at a place where I will ask why to speculate on something 
that we have no evidence for).


But we do have evidence for it.  Nature is quantum mechanical and that 
puts limits on what is "coinable in the environment".


Brent

(Would Z1* depart from Nature, that would be such an evidence, but 
that has not yet been shown.)


Bruno



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


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-05-01 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into 
account all what is relevant.

But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.??

Indeed. But I did not use a definition to claim any truth (of existence, or 
else). Mechanism assumes that you have a brain, that computer exists 
physically, that doctors exist, etc.

It does not assume that the physical existence is primary, though, and 
eventually, the reasoning shows that the physical existence (which is never 
doubted) is not primary.





By definition God is omnipotent.??

By*some*  definition.



But that doesn't mean there's an omnipotent being.

On the contrary indeed. Nothing is omnipotent. Omnipotence and omniscience are 
two inconsistent notions, even when taken in isolation.

I am not sure what was your point here Brent?


You wrote, "By definition, the substitution level take into account all what is 
relevant."  My point is that Holevo's theorem entails that there is lower bound on 
the incompleteness of the substitution; so it is not at all clear that there is a 
substitution level that takes into account all that is relevant.  Simply saying there is 
a definition of the term doesn't mean it refers.

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


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-05-01 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
What is the difference ? Basically, what is the difference between this 
machine:















and this machine:













?

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:43:47 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:

>
> I talk of digital machine, in the sense of Church and Turing. I can say 
> more. Just ask (and be patient, as I am in a busy period).
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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

2019-05-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 May 2019, at 00:20, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/30/2019 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28 Apr 2019, at 22:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
 Ok, so how does it appear ?
>>> 
>>> Like this (you're getting kind of dense).
>>> 
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I agree that to define the qualia red, the ostensive definition is the only 
>> possible. But that does not mean that ???ostensive definition??? explains 
>> the existence of the impression. With ???red???, it is well known that we 
>> cannot be sure if we live all a similar qualia. 
> 
> Of course not.Red has many associations which inform the emotions, values, 
> and actions it evokes; many derived from the fact that it is the color of 
> one's blood.?? But some may associate it more with roses or the sky at sunset.

OK. We agree.


> 
>> 
>> Cosmin is kind of dense, but I still agree you can quick on consciousness. 
>> With mechanism, it is up to the believer in matter to justify what is matter 
>> and how it selects the computations in arithmetic to make it more real, or 
>> conscious, etc. 
> 
> My point is that "qualia" don't exist independent of an environment, and an 
> evolutionary history.

That is ambiguous. A human qualia needs a human history. But with mechanism, a 
human qualia can be encoded into a program or a number, and copied.

It is true for other “deep notion”. The work of Shakespeare needs also a human 
long history, but you can copy the entire work of Shakespeare on a disk.

If your point is that you would only say “yes” to the doctor, if he copies your 
brain+a part of the environment, you are still in the frame of the mechanist 
assumption, unless you explicit posit something both not coinable in the 
environment and relevant for your conscious state to survive the copy, but in 
that case, we are out of my working hypothesis (at a place where I will ask why 
to speculate on something that we have no evidence for). 
(Would Z1* depart from Nature, that would be such an evidence, but that has not 
yet been shown.)

Bruno

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

2019-05-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 1 May 2019, at 00:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/30/2019 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 28 Apr 2019, at 21:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 4/28/2019 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 Indexical Digital Mechanism, or simply Mechanism, is the idea that we can 
 survive with an artificial brain. It is the idea that my consciousness, or 
 my first-person experience, is invariant for some functional digital 
 substitution of my brain/body at some level of substitution (neurons, or 
 perhaps atoms, or quarks and electron, or strings, etc.).
>>> But notice that already quantum mechanics strongly limits this.?? By 
>>> Holevo's theorem only half the information defining one's state can be 
>>> read.??
>> OK. But that is easily explained (and predicted) by classical digital 
>> mechanism. My first person is distributed on the infinitely many 
>> computations coming from a refinement of the computation on any possible 
>> details below my substitution level. So the ???parent matter??? available to 
>> a digital machine (in the arithmetical reality) will appear to be not 
>> duplicable. But ??? ah, I see you see the point below.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I agree that the brain processes instantiating thoughts that define our 
>>> memories and character are mostly classical and therefore can be read, 
>>> there will be, statistically, some variation between the original and a 
>>> copy and between two copies.
>> Yes, but they don???t not endangered the personal identity. Like the 
>> Washington-guy and the Moscow-guy remains the same person as the Helsinki 
>> guy, despite differentiating a lot very quickly, especially after tasting 
>> the cup of coffee!
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> So it becomes a question of whether this variation is significant...not 
>>> whether it can be eliminated by going to "some level of substitution???.
>> I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into 
>> account all what is relevant.
> 
> But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.??

Indeed. But I did not use a definition to claim any truth (of existence, or 
else). Mechanism assumes that you have a brain, that computer exists 
physically, that doctors exist, etc.

It does not assume that the physical existence is primary, though, and 
eventually, the reasoning shows that the physical existence (which is never 
doubted) is not primary.




> By definition God is omnipotent.??

By *some* definition. 


> But that doesn't mean there's an omnipotent being.

On the contrary indeed. Nothing is omnipotent. Omnipotence and omniscience are 
two inconsistent notions, even when taken in isolation.

I am not sure what was your point here Brent?

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> If that needs all decimal of the real numbers used by a physical 
>> description, then Digital Mechanism is wrong, per definition, and we are out 
>> of the scope of my working hypothesis.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at 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.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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

2019-05-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 30 Apr 2019, at 13:27, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Maybe if you would stop using words that mean something else, people will 
> actually understand you.

What word have you a problem with? 

Just ask specific question, and avoid ad hominem comment, please. Also, quote 
the passage where you have a problem.




> Go and take a dictionary and see what "machine" and "number" mean, and them 
> maybe we can talk.


I talk of digital machine, in the sense of Church and Turing. I can say more. 
Just ask (and be patient, as I am in a busy period).




> What you do is like instead of "eating" you use "dancing" and then you tell 
> people: "I'm hungry, let's dance!". Don't get surprised when people will give 
> you weird looks.


Avoid also the straw man fallacy. 

Bruno



> 
> On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 13:38:51 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 26 Apr 2019, at 12:19, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> Sorry, if I want to read fairy-tales I read Harry Potter. AI is a rather 
>> boring fairy-tale.
> 
> You are quick here.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "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

2019-05-01 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Whaaa... so magic happens. Santa Claus has been born! And it was so 
simple... just add a line of code and pufff... the object becomes alive. ( 
͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )つ──☆*:・゚

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 00:55:09 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/29/2019 11:35 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, 29 April 2019 21:09:01 UTC+3, Brent wrote: 
>>
>> Ok, so I will make a 2 line computer program that I will connect to a 
>> camera:
>>
>> if (signal == 1) {
>> System.out.println("I see red.");
>> }
>>
>> Does this computer program see red ? 
>>
>>
>> No, it would fail the colorblindness test.
>>
>>
>>
> Ok, then I will make it pass the colorblindness test:
>
> if (signal == 1) {
> System.out.println("I see red.");
> } else if (signal == 2) {
> System.out.println("I see green.");
> }
>
> Now, does it see red ?
>
>
> Depends on what test you give it.?? If it can pass as many tests as most 
> people then I'd say it recognizes red.
>
> 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-05-01 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
As Donald Hoffman says, to take things seriously doesn't mean to take them 
literally. You take the tiger seriously because you need to survive, in the 
same way you don't put the blue folder on your computer screen on the 
recycle bin. Not because there is actually there a blue folder that get 
deleted in the recycle bin. Literally there is no tiger and no blue folder.

Besides, you are not doing pattern re-cognition, you are doing pattern 
cognition, i.e. creation out of nothing.

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 02:21:17 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:58 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
> everyth...@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.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 4/30/2019 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Apr 2019, at 22:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

Ok, so how does it appear ?


Like this (you're getting kind of dense).





I agree that to define the qualia red, the ostensive definition is the 
only possible. But that does not mean that ???ostensive definition??? 
explains the existence of the impression. With ???red???, it is well known 
that we cannot be sure if we live all a similar qualia.


Of course not.Red has many associations which inform the emotions, 
values, and actions it evokes; many derived from the fact that it is the 
color of one's blood.?? But some may associate it more with roses or the 
sky at sunset.




Cosmin is kind of dense, but I still agree you can quick on 
consciousness. With mechanism, it is up to the believer in matter to 
justify what is matter and how it selects the computations in 
arithmetic to make it more real, or conscious, etc.


My point is that "qualia" don't exist independent of an environment, and 
an evolutionary history.


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


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-30 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 4/30/2019 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 28 Apr 2019, at 21:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
 wrote:



On 4/28/2019 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Indexical Digital Mechanism, or simply Mechanism, is the idea that we can 
survive with an artificial brain. It is the idea that my consciousness, or my 
first-person experience, is invariant for some functional digital substitution 
of my brain/body at some level of substitution (neurons, or perhaps atoms, or 
quarks and electron, or strings, etc.).

But notice that already quantum mechanics strongly limits this.?? By Holevo's 
theorem only half the information defining one's state can be read.??

OK. But that is easily explained (and predicted) by classical digital 
mechanism. My first person is distributed on the infinitely many computations 
coming from a refinement of the computation on any possible details below my 
substitution level. So the ???parent matter??? available to a digital machine 
(in the arithmetical reality) will appear to be not duplicable. But ??? ah, I 
see you see the point below.




I agree that the brain processes instantiating thoughts that define our 
memories and character are mostly classical and therefore can be read, there 
will be, statistically, some variation between the original and a copy and 
between two copies.

Yes, but they don???t not endangered the personal identity. Like the 
Washington-guy and the Moscow-guy remains the same person as the Helsinki guy, 
despite differentiating a lot very quickly, especially after tasting the cup of 
coffee!





So it becomes a question of whether this variation is significant...not whether it 
can be eliminated by going to "some level of substitution???.

I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into 
account all what is relevant.


But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.?? By definition 
God is omnipotent.?? But that doesn't mean there's an omnipotent being.


Brent


If that needs all decimal of the real numbers used by a physical description, 
then Digital Mechanism is wrong, per definition, and we are out of the scope of 
my working hypothesis.

Bruno






Brent

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



On 4/29/2019 11:35 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:



On Monday, 29 April 2019 21:09:01 UTC+3, Brent wrote:


Ok, so I will make a 2 line computer program that I will connect
to a camera:

if (signal == 1) {
System.out.println("I see red.");
}

Does this computer program see red ?


No, it would fail the colorblindness test.



Ok, then I will make it pass the colorblindness test:

if (signal == 1) {
System.out.println("I see red.");
} else if (signal == 2) {
System.out.println("I see green.");
}

Now, does it see red ?


Depends on what test you give it.?? If it can pass as many tests as most 
people then I'd say it recognizes red.


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.
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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
You are again attacking a strawman. Only because we cannot create 
everything, it doesn't mean we cannot create anything. Some things are 
indeed under our controls.

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:32:40 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> *> 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?
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
To talk about errors is to have a standard of (ノ◕*ヮ*◕)ノ*:・*゚*✧ OBJECTIVE 
REALITY ✧*゚*・: **ヽ*(◕*ヮ*◕*ヽ*) on which to refer those errors to. What is 
the *:・*゚**:・*゚**:・*゚**:・*゚OBJECTIVE, ABSOLUTE and GOD-GIVEN REALITY**:・*゚*
*:・*゚**:・*゚**:・*゚**:・*゚* behind those evil errors of duck and rabbit ?

Your problem is that you don't notice the process of creation in action. To 
you it seems trivial that you see a duck or a rabbit. You are totally 
oblivious to how your own consciousness works. You totally and completely 
REFUSE to see the fact that the qualia of rabbit and duck that you see are 
utterly CREATIONS. They are 100% NEW and DISTINCT entities. They are not 
just "a bunch of pixels". They are on their own, NEW experiences. You 
simply fail to notice that something new really APPEARS OUT OF NOTHING. You 
are trivializing a profound phenomenon about existence. Why are you 
refusing to see this ? 

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:32:40 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 1:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@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. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Since I am a holly spirit and you are a lost soul, it is my duty to bring 
you on the right path.

The duck-rabbit image shows a lot of profound things. But since you have no 
understanding of consciousness whatsoever, you cannot go at this moment in 
all the depths and beauty that duck-rabbit unveils. I will only go on the 
easiest aspect of it, namely the creation of something that "is not 
out-there". So listen carefully! Since all that you have on the screen is 
just a collection of pixels, and you are able nevertheless to see those 
random pixels as a rabbit or a duck, it means you have the ability to 
create reality. If this happens in the duck-rabbit case, what makes you 
believe that in other cases is any different ? Well... there shouldn't be 
anything that can give you that belief, since duck-rabbit image proves 
before your very eyes how you create out of nothing either a duck or a 
rabbit. Another example: is this dress white with yellow or blue with black 
?






I personally see it yellow with white, but other people are seeing it blue 
with black. If different people see different things, what makes you 
believe there is an (ノ◕*ヮ*◕)ノ*:・*゚*✧ OBJECTIVE ✧*゚*・: **ヽ*(◕*ヮ*◕*ヽ*) world 
out-there ?


Another example from another qualia domain. Is this yanny or laurel ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X_WvGAhMlQ


I personally hear laurel, but other people hear yanny. If the experiences 
in consciousness are so different from one another even on basic stuff, 
what make you believe there is an (ノ◕*ヮ*◕)ノ*:・*゚*✧ OBJECTIVE ✧*゚*・: **ヽ*(◕
*ヮ*◕*ヽ*) world out-there ?


I understand when you are small and naive and just take everything for 
granted and don't use your reason too much to analyze what is happening to 
you. But when you grow up, especially in this era of internet with so many 
examples and so many experiment to which you can subject your own 
consciousness, how can you remain at that naive 5 years baby view that 
there is an objective world out there ? Yeah, it's comfortable, but comfort 
should not be a criteria for assessing the truth. So, what is your excuse ?



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
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.

What will be your next move ? Finally coming out as a believer in Santa 
Claus ?

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 19:38:54 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:31 PM 'Cosmin Visan' <
> everyth...@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 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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
You are just showing a collection of pictures that are generated based on 
certain pre-established rules by human consciousnesses. If computers are so 
super-duper, why don't you show me a picture with a new colors invented by 
a computer ?

You are so naive that you forget that that system is built in certain ways 
by humans, and you start to believe that those images are generated by 
magic. In Foundation by Asimov, future scientists were using humans as 
slave making them believe that the energy that was coming from a nuclear 
reactor is actually sent by God. No wonder with such low level of 
intelligence, people were slaves along all the human history. You can trick 
them instantly as you trick a 5 years old.

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 18:41:15 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>
> > And since a computer cannot bring anything into existence on its own if 
> you don't specifically put that information in the database, a computer 
> will never be conscious.
>
> https://www.thispersondoesnotexist.com/
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna
>
> Telmo.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
You are behaving like a 5 years old. Pathetic.

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 19:28:08 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:52 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
> everyth...@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 11:52 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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
All your answers are answered by the duck-rabbit image, because it contains 
the entire manifestation of consciousness, in the same way that the 
double-slit contains the entire manifestation of QM. So if you don't 
understand duck-rabbit, you don't understand anything.

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 18:49:50 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:35 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
> everyth...@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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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 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 Telmo Menezes
> And since a computer cannot bring anything into existence on its own if you 
> don't specifically put that information in the database, a computer will 
> never be conscious.

https://www.thispersondoesnotexist.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna

Telmo.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Aren't you going to answer the things about duck-rabbit image ? 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.


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

2019-04-30 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Maybe if you would stop using words that mean something else, people will 
actually understand you. Go and take a dictionary and see what "machine" 
and "number" mean, and them maybe we can talk. What you do is like instead 
of "eating" you use "dancing" and then you tell people: "I'm hungry, let's 
dance!". Don't get surprised when people will give you weird looks.

On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 13:38:51 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Apr 2019, at 12:19, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Sorry, if I want to read fairy-tales I read Harry Potter. AI is a rather 
> boring fairy-tale.
>
>
> You are quick here.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 Bruno Marchal

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 12:19, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Sorry, if I want to read fairy-tales I read Harry Potter. AI is a rather 
> boring fairy-tale.

You are quick here. Without such justification. You talk like if you knew the 
truth, which is (provably in the theology of the universal machine) a symptom 
of pseudo-religion/pseudo-science.

You should try to formalise your theory, either in first order logic, or at 
least in some interpretation internal to some first order logical theory, like 
Peano arithmetic, or Zermelo-Fraenkel Set Theory.

Having some insight is good, but it asks for a lot of work to communicate it to 
others, especially if you main conclusion needs a change of paradigm.

Bruno




> 
> On Friday, 26 April 2019 12:30:13 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> If mechanism is true, a reasoning can show that even your laptop can be said 
> conscious, even maximally conscious,
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "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 Bruno Marchal

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 18:37, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> That's how existence is: miraculous.

I agree that the existence of the natural numbers is miraculous, because we can 
prove in elementary logic that we cannot derive them from anything simpler and 
not Turing-equivalent. 

But that is the case for all theories: we cannot derive anything from nothing: 
we need starting axioms, and we need to make them all explicit, given the 
complexity of the subject. But we try to start from what all people agrees, 
like x + 0 = x, for exemple.



> And we have evidence for it: just get out of the chair and move around the 
> room and there's your evidence.

I see evidence for phenomenological chair and objects, but that is an evidence 
for my experience, not for your experience. This requires to assume something. 
My experience does not explain your experience, nor your (apparent) body, and 
its (apparent) role.

Bruno



> 
> On Thursday, 25 April 2019 15:27:17 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 8:38 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> > wrote:
> You forgot the last point where consciousness initiate the signal.
> 
> That would mean, at some point in this causal chain, something miraculous 
> happening, like a bone moving without any muscle contracting. If this 
> happened, we would have evidence for it, since we consciously do things all 
> the time.
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at 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 Bruno Marchal

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 15:23, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 1:18:44 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 2:42 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> > wrote:
> But it happens all the time. How do you think you move your body if not by 
> top-down influence in levels from consciousness ?
> 
> At the molecular level, if this were true, we would see miracles happening, 
> like a table levitating without any applied force. No such thing has ever 
> been observed. Neurons and muscle cells only fire according to the laws of 
> physics. If you documented an example of a miracle in the brain you would 
> overthrow science and be famous.
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
> 
> 
> 
> The "laws of physics" are not a static thing, in terms of history. One can 
> say the "laws of physics" are in 2019 "The Standard Model" (about 40 years 
> old now) and maybe some others like electromagnetism. Before 1900 there was 
> no quantum mechanics that was a part of "laws of physics". There are also 
> chemical and neurobiological "laws" that have become a part of science that 
> also address "neurons and other cells".
> 
> The "laws of physics" may be different in  2119 than in 2019. What we "list" 
> as "laws of physics" changes over time.

Then there is more laws in physics, and all physical laws are contingent 
geographic-historical events. That would have been the case if all the 
modalities imposed by incompleteness have collapsed, but incompleteness 
prevents this. Mechanism explains why they are real absolute physical laws, 
lived by *all* universal numbers. It explains also why they are divided into an 
explanation for quanta (and their first person plural reality) and explanation 
for qualia (which are lived, but are not sharable at all, except indirectly, 
usually through art or ostensive acts “here and now”).

Bruno



> 
> - pt
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "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 Bruno Marchal

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 11:31, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 16:38, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
> wrote:
> You are randomly extrapolating. I think this is called "strawman logical 
> error". Things are not random. There are reasons for why consciousness only 
> exercises its powers in certain conditions. Evolution confined those powers 
> to own body alone, though in some cases indeed you get connections between 
> consciousnesses related to different bodies. But for those as well there are 
> certain reasons for why they happen. 
> 
> Neurons, muscles, tendons, bones are all physically connected and causally 
> linked.  A bone will not move unless a tendon pulls it, a tendon won't pull 
> until the muscle attached to it contracts, the muscle won't contract unless 
> the peripheral nerve it is attached to fires, the nerve won't fire unless 
> upper motor neurons with projections in the spinal cord fire, those nerves 
> won't fire unless other cortical nerves connected to them fire, and so on. 
> There is a reason for every event in the body. A bone won't suddenly move by 
> itself.

Yes, and that is the basic motivation for mechanism (and why Diderot called it 
simply “rationalism”).

Then with mechanism, eventually all those “causal interaction” becomes descend 
of arithmetical, partially computable, relations. There is still, today, a risk 
that this predicts too much white rabbits, and leads to a contradiction with 
observation, but like with QM, there are expectations that the “white rabbits” 
remains confined below the substitution level, and of making it into very rare 
events.

Bruno


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

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 08:40, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> One interpretation might be that consciousness sends its influence from the 
> future to the past.

Which future? Which past? 

It is unclear what you assume, and what you drive from the assumption. 

You take consciousness as primitive, but then refer to evolution, future, etc.

It is hard to make sense.

Bruno



> 
> On Thursday, 25 April 2019 09:37:53 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> So you are saying that we are fooled when doing experiments showing movement 
> is seen before in brain motor function before the subject being aware of 
> it... and assert that is always the consciousness that initiates movement 
> despite experiments showing the contrary.. so we can't test anything of your 
> theory against the reality and as reality experiment invalidate your 
> position, your position is to say we are fooled and we have to believe you ? 
> Is that right ?
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "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 Bruno Marchal

> On 28 Apr 2019, at 22:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>> Ok, so how does it appear ?
> 
> Like this (you're getting kind of dense).
> 
> 


I agree that to define the qualia red, the ostensive definition is the only 
possible. But that does not mean that “ostensive definition” explains the 
existence of the impression. With “red”, it is well known that we cannot be 
sure if we live all a similar qualia. 

Cosmin is kind of dense, but I still agree you can quick on consciousness. With 
mechanism, it is up to the believer in matter to justify what is matter and how 
it selects the computations in arithmetic to make it more real, or conscious, 
etc. 



> 
> 
>> If you show that picture to a rock, does the rock see red ?
> 
> I tried it and the rock had no response, so I conclude it doesn't see read or 
> hear questions.

Or that it cannot talk …

Here Cosmin should like the mechanist explanation. There is no rock. There is 
no digital program working in the phenomenological rocks either. But arithmetic 
(and its meta-arithmetic which is embedded in arithmetic) explains why numbers 
get lasting persistent dreams of rock and red images, including why it contains 
a part in the surrational (true but not rationally justified) which exist by 
incompleteness.

Bruno




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


> On 28 Apr 2019, at 21:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 4/28/2019 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Indexical Digital Mechanism, or simply Mechanism, is the idea that we can 
>> survive with an artificial brain. It is the idea that my consciousness, or 
>> my first-person experience, is invariant for some functional digital 
>> substitution of my brain/body at some level of substitution (neurons, or 
>> perhaps atoms, or quarks and electron, or strings, etc.).
> 
> But notice that already quantum mechanics strongly limits this.?? By Holevo's 
> theorem only half the information defining one's state can be read.??

OK. But that is easily explained (and predicted) by classical digital 
mechanism. My first person is distributed on the infinitely many computations 
coming from a refinement of the computation on any possible details below my 
substitution level. So the “parent matter” available to a digital machine (in 
the arithmetical reality) will appear to be not duplicable. But … ah, I see you 
see the point below.



> I agree that the brain processes instantiating thoughts that define our 
> memories and character are mostly classical and therefore can be read, there 
> will be, statistically, some variation between the original and a copy and 
> between two copies.

Yes, but they don’t not endangered the personal identity. Like the 
Washington-guy and the Moscow-guy remains the same person as the Helsinki guy, 
despite differentiating a lot very quickly, especially after tasting the cup of 
coffee!




> So it becomes a question of whether this variation is significant...not 
> whether it can be eliminated by going to "some level of substitution”.

I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into 
account all what is relevant. If that needs all decimal of the real numbers 
used by a physical description, then Digital Mechanism is wrong, per 
definition, and we are out of the scope of my working hypothesis. 

Bruno





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

> On 27 Apr 2019, at 09:31, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Well, then I invite Bruno to go and claim his Nobel prize, because this is a 
> knowledge that definitely worths a Nobel prize.

My thesis was defended in 1998, and I got the international prize (Prix de la 
meilleure thèse dans le monde francophone pour l’année 1998) with five other 
laureates. Then the size has unfortunately propagate some diffamation, due to 
irreducible materialist philosopher I ahem problem with, but all that is 
contingent, and it is more interesting too discuss ideas and not people.

Have you read, my answer to John Clark question? Are you saying that Mechanism 
is false? Are you saying that we cannot even survive with an artificial heart, 
or glasses? Or is it just the (phenomenological) brain?

Bruno



> 
> On Friday, 26 April 2019 21:07:22 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
> Or people that know things you don't.?? Which is sad since you'll not learn 
> anything.
> 
> 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 
> .
> 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 Bruno Marchal

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 12:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> Yeah, ok, you seem to know everything. Probably you are God or something. I 
> cannot take seriously people that know everything.

I just said that the second theorem of recursion by Kleene solved Descartes’ 
problem of self-reproduction and self-reference of the (digital) machines.

See my paper “Amoeba, Planaria and Dreaming Machine”, or my longer text. Or 
search for the paper by John Case. Some textbooks explain the main ideas (like 
the book by Cutland).

Please avoid ad hominem distractions, and let try to discuss only the ideas. 
You do seem to ignore computer science. 

Bruno



> 
> On Friday, 26 April 2019 13:00:52 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 22 Apr 2019, at 22:57, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>> > wrote:
>> 
>> Nobody knows how an embryo develops.
> 
> That is entirely solved by the second recursion theorem of Kleene.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "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 Bruno Marchal

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 12:26, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> You're just making a mess of concepts gathered from everywhere. A is like B, 
> $@#$@ is like 423423, Hampty-Dampty is like Harry Potter. Sorry, there can be 
> no dialogue with you.

You need to study what is a digital machine. You need to read the original 
paper of Turing, Church,
You can search the archive of this list where I have provided more explanation.

Bruno



>  
> On Friday, 26 April 2019 12:30:13 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> The “singularity” belongs to the past, it is just a matter of time before the 
> machine becomes as much “stupid” as the humans … 
> 
> A brain, or a number, machine, … are filtering the consciousness of the 
> universal machine, a bit like as et of equation filters the varieties obeying 
> to the equation, or like the fact that when you add axioms to a theory, you 
> filter the models of the theory.
> 
> The relation between mind and brain is like the relation between semantics 
> and theories, or between surfaces and equations. It is variant of Galois 
> connection. 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@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 
> .

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 Bruno Marchal

> On 28 Apr 2019, at 17:47, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> "Brain" doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. Therefore, 
> your entire theory is false.


That is weird. The fact that the brain does not exist “ontologically” is a 
consequence of mechanism, so you criticise the theory at the place it agrees 
with your own approach.

Mechanism assumes of course that brain, and doctor, and physical computers, do 
exist in some other sense, like the  phenomenological sense.



> "Brain" is just a picture that you see in your consciousness, no different 
> than the picture "unicorn”.

No. It is not because something exist only phenomenologically that it does not 
obey precise laws, like the numbers, or the physical reality.




> Believing in "brain" only because you see it, is like believing in "unicorn" 
> only because you see it.

No sound universal machine would believe in the ontological experience from 
just seeing something. But if you reject the phenomenological existence, then 
your theory is at default with all experiences.




> And then you start to make abstract theories totally unconnected to reality: 
> "If you put your consciousness into a unicorn, then you will be able to fly 
> on the rainbows".
> 
> Happy fantasizing!

I don’t think you are serious. You might have read the post much to quickly. 
You seem to confuse ontology and phenomenology. With mechanism, we cannot 
assume more than the additive and multiplicative structure of the natural 
numbers, and explains consciousness and the illusion of matter from there. 

We agree on the key importance of self-reference, and on the conclusion, but 
you seem unaware that self-reference is where theoretical computer science and 
mathematical logic explain the most, and introduce many nuances.

Bruno



> 
> On Sunday, 28 April 2019 18:33:30 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
> Indexical Digital Mechanism, or simply Mechanism, is the idea that we can 
> survive with an artificial brain.
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List


On Monday, 29 April 2019 21:09:01 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> Ok, so I will make a 2 line computer program that I will connect to a 
> camera:
>
> if (signal == 1) {
> System.out.println("I see red.");
> }
>
> Does this computer program see red ? 
>
>
> No, it would fail the colorblindness test.
>
>
>
Ok, then I will make it pass the colorblindness test:

if (signal == 1) {
System.out.println("I see red.");
} else if (signal == 2) {
System.out.println("I see green.");
}

Now, does it see red ?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 4/28/2019 11:49 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

On Sunday, 28 April 2019 23:50:17 UTC+3, Brent wrote:



On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

Ok, so how does it appear ?


Like this (you're getting kind of dense).


You don't really understand the question, do you ?


I understand it better than you understand the answer.




If you show that picture to a rock, does the rock see red ?


I tried it and the rock had no response, so I conclude it doesn't
see read or hear questions.


Ok, so I will make a 2 line computer program that I will connect to a 
camera:


if (signal == 1) {
System.out.println("I see red.");
}

Does this computer program see red ?


No, it would fail the colorblindness test.

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


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-29 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
You again use your upside down logic in which you start from the existence 
of computers and conclude your own existence, when in fact you should start 
from your own existence and conclude the inexistence of computers. Since 
you exist, you have the properties that existence itself has, namely the 
bringing of new qualia into existence out of nothing. So when you are 
presenting with an image such as the duck-rabbit image (which in the end is 
just a particular case of how the entire consciousness works), you can 
bring into existence qualia at your own will and see either a duck or a 
rabbit, or for that matter anything, you can even see an alien there or 
Santa Claus or whatever you want. Computers on the other hand, not-existing 
(or being deterministic systems, since is the same thing), cannot bring 
anything new in existence, so they cannot see anything when you present 
them with such an image. Of course, you can put in their database the word 
"rabbit", and then they will say "rabbit". But if you don't put them 
anything, they cannot bring on their own any answer, the way we are doing. 
And I repeat: we do this not because we have "wet brain" as you say, but 
because we are consciousnesses and that's what consciousnesses do.

On Monday, 29 April 2019 20:06:41 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:20 PM 'Cosmin Visan' t <
> everyth...@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. 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Oh, so now when you are faced with a real problem, you start to change the 
subject ? This is the subject: you say that you just open the eyes and... 
***SEE IT***. And I gave you an example: I put in front of you and of a 
computer the duck-rabbit image and I ask you then to open your eyes and the 
computer the CCD camera... what do you and the computer "see" ? Because 
apparently you believe that all it takes is just an eye/a CCD... and then 
by magic you and the computer just... ***SEE IT***. So what do you and the 
computer see when I give you the duck-rabbit image ?

On Monday, 29 April 2019 19:14:05 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 12:00 PM 'Cosmin Visan' t <
> everyth...@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 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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
What does a computer "see" in the duck-rabbit image ?

On Monday, 29 April 2019 18:55:40 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 3:33 AM 'Cosmin Visan' <
> everyth...@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

2019-04-29 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 (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2019-04-29 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 02:38, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:45 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 01:24, Jason Resch > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal > > wrote:
>> 
>>> On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> Consciousness is a program.
>> 
>> Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a program, that 
>> would identify a first person notion with a third person notion, like a 
>> glass of bear and its price.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and becomes that 
>>> creature's awareness of the world. For humans it becomes the identity or 
>>> soul which responds to anything that affects the organism. It can be 
>>> uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it dissipates with death.  
>> 
>> 
>> How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot attach its soul 
>> to any particular computations, only to the infinity of (relative) 
>> computations, and there is at least aleph_zero one, of not a continuum.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:
>> 
>> Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with matter but 
>> certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe it possible for 
>> a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from our own, but 
>> now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that this would be a 
>> contradiction in terms. It is possible however but unlikely that such 
>> universes may exist.
>> Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body I 
>> consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´ and 
>> hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two are 
>> firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but 
>> when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is gone 
>> and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately.
> 
> 
> This shows also how much Turing was blinded by its belief in some primary 
> matter. If, he would have understood at once that our consciousness follows 
> the differentiating computations in arithmetic.
> 
> True, he did not appear to reach the conclusion regarding the primacy of 
> computation, however, is what he says above all that dissimilar from what you 
> have said regarding "souls falling" and becoming entangled with matter (the 
> material/physical) world?
> 
> It appears Turing was a "mechanist" if not a "primitive arithmetical 
> mechanistic”.

Turing was a “indexical digital mechanist", I agree.

But he was also a naturalist, and as such he was inconsistent on this. You 
can’t have both mechanism and naturalism/materialism/physicalism.





>  
> 
> Emil Post eventually got the immateriality”, but change its mind after 
> reading … Turing.
> 
> 
> I am interested in learning more about what Emil Post said on immateriality. 
> Do you recall the reference?


Yes, it is his famous “anticipation”, that you can find in Martin Davis’s book 
“The undecidable” (now at Dover, with all key original papers (except for the 
important contribution of Tarski-Mostowki and Robinson, which is another thin 
Dover book). Precisely:

“Absolutely Unsolvable Problems and Relatively Undecidable propositions, 
Account of an Anticipation”.

Published by Martin Davis in the book “The Undecidable”. Dover 1993, (First 
edition: Raven Press, 1965).

Martin Davis wrote : <>.





>  
> With mechanism, it is simpler to not assume bodies and primitively material 
> bodies unless we get some evidences for them. Yet, until now, the evidences 
> gathered from the observation of nature confirms mechanism, and refute 
> physicalism. For anyone remembering dreams, seeing is not a valid way to 
> attribute any ontological existence, others than a subject, which we already 
> have in arithmetic.
>  
> This seems to be the normal pattern in human science.  It was 40-50 years 
> between QM and the serious consideration of relative state.  Likewise the 
> computational theory of mind began in the 1950s and 1960s, and it wasn't 
> until your work that the consequences of this idea, when taken seriously, 
> were fully appreciated.

Thanks for telling this.


> Perhaps there are times it takes a new generation growing up with the 
> problems uncovered by the previous generation, to make significant leaps.

Yes, we perish if we don’t publish, but publishing does not make you immune to 
perishing, especially if the finding does not fit the mentality of your epoch, 
and changing the mentality can take time, even millennia.
It is normal. Sad, but normal.

Bruno 



> 
> Jason
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2019-04-29 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 02:50, Jason Resch  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:57 AM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 03:32, Jason Resch > > wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>> mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 4/22/2019 4:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal >> > wrote:
>>> 
 On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson >>> > wrote:
 
 Consciousness is a program.
>>> 
>>> Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a program, that 
>>> would identify a first person notion with a third person notion, like a 
>>> glass of bear and its price.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
 It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and becomes that 
 creature's awareness of the world. For humans it becomes the identity or 
 soul which responds to anything that affects the organism. It can be 
 uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it dissipates with death.  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot attach its 
>>> soul to any particular computations, only to the infinity of (relative) 
>>> computations, and there is at least aleph_zero one, of not a continuum.
>>> 
>>> Bruno
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:
>>> 
>>> Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with matter 
>>> but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe it 
>>> possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from 
>>> our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that 
>>> this would be a contradiction in terms. It is possible however but unlikely 
>>> that such universes may exist.
>>> Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body I 
>>> consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´ and 
>>> hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two are 
>>> firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but 
>>> when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is 
>>> gone and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately.
>> 
>> It seems otiose to postulate a separate spirit.  A pitiful attempt to grasp 
>> immortality.  Isn't it plain that what is "immaterial" and distinguishes a 
>> brain of a rock is that the brain instantiates processes which incorporate 
>> memory, purpose, perception, and action.
>> 
>> 
>> Is it otiose to make a distinction between a "story" and a "book”,
> 
> ?
> 
> You might be too quick here. A book can instantiate a description of a story, 
> but a story is a sequence of events (be them relative computation in 
> arithmetic, or in some “universe”).
> 
> 
> You might be misinterpreting my point. I was attempting to show that there is 
> an important distinction between "mind" and "brain", (as there is between 
> "story" and "book", and "program" and "computer”).


I was a bit splitting the air, with respect to what you were trying to convey. 
Sorry.

BTW, I forget to mention that Post Anticipation has really anticipated the 
whole things, from Gödel up to immaterialism. In fact Post is the real first 
person to discover both the Church-Turing thesis, the incompleteness implied by 
it (something almost forgot since Gödel!, but clearly re-explained by Kleene 
and Webb later).

Emil Post was very sick all its life, and has been a math teacher in High 
school almost all his life, but eventually, thanks to his paper of 1944 (which 
led to Recursion theory) he will be recognised, and get a position in a 
university, for a short time before death.

I think that Emil Post was the deepest thinker here.


> 
> In all cases, the brain, book, computer, are physical, and can have specific 
> physical incarnations.  However, despite differing physically, they can be 
> used to implement the same (potentially identical) abstract patterns (minds, 
> stories, programs).
> 
> Because the latter category refers to abstract, informational, duplicable, 
> patterns, they are in a sense immaterial. Many attributes you might attribute 
> to a "soul" you could apply to these abstract informational patterns, such as:
> 
> No physical location
> No mass or energy
> Indestructible (at least always recoverable, in theory - ability to resurrect)
> Ability to cross between different physical embodiments (ability to 
> reincarnate)
> Ability to exist in different physical universes/realms/planes (ability to 
> transmigrate)

OK.

It is just that this is verified by “mind”, but “mind” and informational 
pattern, or number are immaterial, but still admit third person description. 
The soul, or consciousness , or first person, is not only immaterial, but is 
not identifiable to anything 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-29 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
In case you still don't understand, let me give you another helping hand: 
If you give to a computer the duck-rabbit image, what it will "see" ?

On Sunday, 28 April 2019 20:29:51 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> I did and I still don't see your point. Yes computers can make observation
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Then there is nothing more to talk about. You cannot talk with someone that 
lacks the basic understandings in a field. Is like talking to a blind 
person about how to jump over obstacles without touching them, and he will 
continue to repeat that you need to touch them, otherwise how would you 
know there are obstacles there. Your problem is that you simply cannot 
understand what qualia are. You just think that you open your eyes and... 
***SEE IT***. Until you will understand that you don't see with your eyes, 
but with your mind, that your mind is constructing for you what to see, and 
not just ***SEE IT***, then you will continue to believe that rocks see, 
because they just open their eyes exactly like you, right ? What else is 
there besides opening eyes ? You just open eyes and... ***SEE IT***, right 
? Wrong!

On Sunday, 28 April 2019 20:29:51 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>  > *Have a look again at my explanation with the duck-rabbit image.*
>>
>
> I did and I still don't see your point. Yes computers can make observation
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 cloudversed


On Sunday, April 28, 2019 at 3:50:17 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> Ok, so how does it appear ? 
>
>
> Like this (you're getting kind of dense).
>
>
>
>
> If you show that picture to a rock, does the rock see red ?
>
>
> I tried it and the rock had no response, so I conclude it doesn't see read 
> or hear questions.
>
> Brent
>


Rocks are interesting objects. Some can perform some types of signal 
processing. (This comes up apparently in sending signals through rocks 
looking for minerals or oil.) So if a "red" signal is "shown" to a rock, it 
may not "see" it, but it could signal-process that signal in a particular 
way.

Whether such a rock is "experiencing" red (psychically) rather than just 
"signal processing" red (physically) is a question. :)


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


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-29 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
On Sunday, 28 April 2019 23:50:17 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> Ok, so how does it appear ? 
>
>
> Like this (you're getting kind of dense).
>

You don't really understand the question, do you ? 

>
> If you show that picture to a rock, does the rock see red ?
>
>
> I tried it and the rock had no response, so I conclude it doesn't see read 
> or hear questions.
>

Ok, so I will make a 2 line computer program that I will connect to a 
camera:

if (signal == 1) {
System.out.println("I see red.");
}

Does this computer program see red ? 

>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
I had the impression that we are discussing about the nature of reality 
here, not about how to pay bills.

On Sunday, 28 April 2019 22:22:11 UTC+3, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Brain is what neurosurgeons get paid to work on and what neuroscientists 
> study. It may all be maya, an illusion, but it pays the illusionary bills. 
> Which, are stubbornly, persistent, till they get paid.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

Ok, so how does it appear ?


Like this (you're getting kind of dense).





If you show that picture to a rock, does the rock see red ?


I tried it and the rock had no response, so I conclude it doesn't see 
read or hear questions.


Brent

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




On 4/28/2019 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Indexical Digital Mechanism, or simply Mechanism, is the idea that we 
can survive with an artificial brain. It is the idea that my 
consciousness, or my first-person experience, is invariant for some 
functional digital substitution of my brain/body at some level of 
substitution (neurons, or perhaps atoms, or quarks and electron, or 
strings, etc.).


But notice that already quantum mechanics strongly limits this.?? By 
Holevo's theorem only half the information defining one's state can be 
read.?? I agree that the brain processes instantiating thoughts that 
define our memories and character are mostly classical and therefore can 
be read, there will be, statistically, some variation between the 
original and a copy and between two copies. So it becomes a question 
of whether this variation is significant...not whether it can be 
eliminated by going to "some level of substitution".


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


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-28 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List
Brain is what neurosurgeons get paid to work on and what neuroscientists study. 
It may all be maya, an illusion, but it pays the illusionary bills. Which, are 
stubbornly, persistent, till they get paid.


-Original Message-
From: 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
To: Everything List 
Sent: Sun, Apr 28, 2019 11:47 am
Subject: Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

"Brain" doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. Therefore, 
your entire theory is false."Brain" is just a picture that you see in your 
consciousness, no different than the picture "unicorn". Believing in "brain" 
only because you see it, is like believing in "unicorn" only because you see 
it. And then you start to make abstract theories totally unconnected to 
reality: "If you put your consciousness into a unicorn, then you will be able 
to fly on the rainbows".
Happy fantasizing!

On Sunday, 28 April 2019 18:33:30 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Indexical Digital Mechanism, or simply Mechanism, is the idea that we can 
survive with an artificial brain.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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

2019-04-28 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Hitler reacts to idealism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0FOMSA2ZrU 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Ok, so how does it appear ? If you show that picture to a rock, does the 
rock see red ?

On Sunday, 28 April 2019 20:52:41 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> On 4/28/2019 12:00 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> Really ?? See ? That's what a superficial way of thinking does: it makes 
> you think that everything is simple in life and you figure it out 
> everything. Let me give you a hint: And how does that red appears ?
>
>
> Like this:
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

On 4/28/2019 12:00 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
Really ?? See ? That's what a superficial way of thinking does: it 
makes you think that everything is simple in life and you figure it 
out everything. Let me give you a hint: And how does that red appears ?


Like this:



Never heard of an ostensive definition?

Brent



On Saturday, 27 April 2019 23:12:08 UTC+3, Brent wrote:


When I shine some 700nm electromagnetic waves?? into your eye, red
appears to you.

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.
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

2019-04-28 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
"Brain" doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. Therefore, 
your entire theory is false.
"Brain" is just a picture that you see in your consciousness, no different 
than the picture "unicorn". Believing in "brain" only because you see it, 
is like believing in "unicorn" only because you see it. And then you start 
to make abstract theories totally unconnected to reality: "If you put your 
consciousness into a unicorn, then you will be able to fly on the rainbows".

Happy fantasizing!

On Sunday, 28 April 2019 18:33:30 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Indexical Digital Mechanism, or simply Mechanism, is the idea that we can 
> survive with an artificial brain.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 Bruno Marchal

> On 22 Apr 2019, at 15:38, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> 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. 


OK. As there are new people, I explain for them, and ask them the question, 
which I repeat, is usually answered correctly, with respect to mechanism, by 14 
and 15 kids. It is the easiest part of the reasoning. It is but the step 3 in 
the 8 step reasoning of the Sane04 paper 
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html

Indexical Digital Mechanism, or simply Mechanism, is the idea that we can 
survive with an artificial brain. It is the idea that my consciousness, or my 
first-person experience, is invariant for some functional digital substitution 
of my brain/body at some level of substitution (neurons, or perhaps atoms, or 
quarks and electron, or strings, etc.).

In that case, we can show, or argue at least, that we can use classical 
teleportation as a mean to move from Earth to Mars, say. 
We are read and cut (scanned and annihilated) on Earth, and then the relevant 
digital information is sent to Mars (it takes four minutes, or a bit more 
because it is a long stream of digits), and on Mars, some reconstitution 
devices is supposed to have been installed before, and it reconstituted the 
body of the traveller in the state he was before pushing the button trigging 
the cut and copy, and the “pasting” on mars.

Let us define the notion of first person and third person, which in this 
setting can be made easily.
For this, we imagine that the candidate takes with him, in the cut and read 
box, a personal diary in which he describes the events that he lives during his 
journeys. The content of that diary is what I called the first person 
experience. 
The third person experience is the content of the diary of an observer, not 
going into the annihilating, copying device, of the entire experience.
In the case of the simple teleportation experience, from Earth to Mars, the 
first person will be something like “I am on Earth, I will push on the button, 
and I expect to find myself on Mars. I push on the button now;
I find myself in a box, and I guess that I am on Mars. I open the box, and I 
feel like I am seeing Mars, and after a while, I conclude that I am indeed on 
Mars”.
The third person experience will be something like “the candidate did enter the 
box, and is annihilated, some ten minutes after, we get a call from the 
candidate from mars. He has successfully been teleported from Earth to Mars”.
In that case, the two discourses have a very similar content. 

Imagine that we introduce a delay for the reconstitution on Mars. As it is the 
same code of the initial state, captured when pushing the button on Earth, 
which is transmitted, and given that we assume digital mechanism, the 
experience of the first person will not be different from the case without 
delay described just above. But the diary of the third person observer, will 
contained a description of the delay, like “the candidate enter the box and is 
annihilated, one year go on, and we get the eventually the message that the guy 
has been reconstituted, and he feel well, but he seems not aware at all that a 
delay of one year has been added”.

It is obvious, using the hypothesis that we are discussing, that the first 
person and third person description are differing a bit more than in the 
preceding case. The first person is not aware of the delay of reconstitution, 
where the third person is.

In that case, with the Mechanist Assumption, and the usual default hypothesis 
(like the engine works well, the substitution level has been chosen correctly, 
etc.) not only we can be teleported (in this classical way), but it happens 
that the information read before annihilation can be duplicated, and the 
reconstitution can be done in two places at once. In that sense, mechanism 
implies that we are, like amoeba, duplicable entity, at least our body is.

The usual protocole here is that we are read and copied at time t_1 in 
Helsinki, and reconstituted simultaneously (in the Helsinki frame, say) at 
Moscow and at Washington, where a cup of coffee is offered to each copies.

Now, we define the identity of a person at some time t, by the content of its 
personal diary, that he is able to access just by looking in its bag, and 
reading it loud to us.

The question which is asked to the guy when he is in Helsinki is the following 
one: what do you expect to live when doing that duplication experience? Or 
equivalently “what do you expect to write in the entries of your diary after 
having push on the button”.
A more precise question could, which is more probable, given the hypothesis of 
mechanism, to be sure.

Here, the difference between the third person description of the experience is 
drastically different from the 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-28 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List

>
>  I've asked you this several times before but received no answer, I 
> ask again, HOW DO YOU KNOW HUMANS ARE CONSCIOUS AND HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT 
> COMPUTER'S ARE NOT?  
>

Because consciousnesses have the property of intelligence, while computers 
don't exist. Is just an idea invented by consciousnesses, no different that 
the idea of "unicorns". You really have a big problem if you believe in 
unicorns.
 

As practical matter it really doesn't matter if computers are 
> conscious, if they aren't that's their problem not ours, our problem is 
> they're certainly intelligent and are getting smarter every day and they're 
> going to eat our lunch.
>

Intelligence is the property of consciousness of bringing new qualia into 
existence out of nothing. Therefore, computers are not intelligent.

Conclusion: Have a look again at my explanation with the duck-rabbit image. 
This is your (and of 99.99% of people) biggest misunderstanding of how 
vision and all the other senses work. If you understand that explanation, 
then we can continue talking. Otherwise is useless. You cannot have a 
dialogue with someone that has such a mistaken understanding of how our 
senses work.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List


On Saturday, 27 April 2019 20:22:36 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 27, 2019 at 4:05 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
> everyth...@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.
>

My definition is not circular. Your is by adding additional things in order 
to attack a strawman. All that I said is that free will is the feeling of 
being free. I didn't add the second part.
And a cucko clock is not free since it has no feelings. But at least you 
progressed. Till now you only believed that computers are alive. Now, in 
the goodness of your heart, in order to free yourself from any accusations 
of discrimination, you also offered cuckoo clocks life. Congratulations!

>  
>
>> >> 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?
>  
>
Really ? The behave in precisely the same way ? Wow, you are really living 
in a fantasy!

> *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 ?

*> 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 in which you deduce the 
hypothesis from the conclusion. Computers are precisily NOT conscious, 
because learning is a property of consciousness, not the other way around. 
Man, you really need to put some order in your logic! You are starting me 
to feel that I'm losing my time. You cannot have a dialogue with someone 
that doesn't even have a grasp on elementary logic.

>  
>
>> >> 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.
>  
>
This is actually because your main problem in all this is that you have a 
naive realism view on things. Basically what you believe is that there is a 
physical world out-there, and what we do when we open our eyes, we just... 
SEE IT. This is a huge problem in your misunderstanding of reality. 
It's an unspeakable HUGE problem. Let me help you. What happens when we 
open our eyes is not to just... SEE IT. Instead, we reconstruct an 
image. To make you understand this, have a look at the duck-rabbit image:


Based on your naive view on reality in which you just open your eyes and 
SEE 
IT, you should just see... wait... see what ? A duck or rabbit ? Now, 
pay careful attention on this: watch carefully the phenomenology: when you 
attribute the meaning of "rabbit" to that shape, you have in your 
consciousness the quale of "rabbit". When you attribute the meaning of 
"duck" to that shape, you have in your consciousness the quale of "duck". 
And pay very careful attention to these experiences! It's crucial if you 
are to have any chance of understanding reality! The experience of seeing a 
rabbit is TOTALLY DIFFERENT than the experience of seeing the duck. So you 
don't just open your your eyes and... SEE IT. Therefore, when you 
first saw a dog, you didn't just open your 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-28 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Really ?? See ? That's what a superficial way of thinking does: it makes 
you think that everything is simple in life and you figure it out 
everything. Let me give you a hint: And how does that red appears ?

On Saturday, 27 April 2019 23:12:08 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> When I shine some 700nm electromagnetic waves?? into your eye, red appears 
> to you.
>
> 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-27 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 4/27/2019 12:35 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:



On Friday, 26 April 2019 21:48:33 UTC+3, Brent wrote:



I want to because I am a consciousness with free will.


But why do you want this rather than that??? Do the "wants" of
your free will just spring up at random??? Are they unrelated to
your situation, perception, the evolutionary history of your
species.?? What does it mean that your will is "free"??? Free of what?


In order to maximize pleasure. I don't say that it is absolutely free. 
But there are cases in which I can indeed make choices and in those 
cases I am free.




I don't know how qualia appear. Sometimes they appear at our own
will, other times they appear by themselves. How they do that I
don't know.


But I do.?? I know how certain photons interact with retina and
generate neural signals that interact with memories that encode
the symbol "red". To bad you missed the 20th century.


Then enlighten us. Tell us: How do red appears ?


When I shine some 700nm electromagnetic waves?? into your eye, red 
appears to you.


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


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

2019-04-27 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List


On Saturday, 27 April 2019 01:38:08 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:36 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
> everyth...@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. 

>
> *>>> 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?  
>

The college professor is intelligent because he is able to bring new qualia 
into existence out of nothing. The definition of an "answer" is that quale 
that is brought into existence out of nothing in order to satisfy a quale 
called "question". Since computers are deterministic systems they don't 
answer any 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.
>
> Yes, tables don't exist.

* > Because you are not interested in having a meaningful conversation,*
>>
>
> Conversations don't exist.
>
> A conversation is a set of qualia in some consciousnesses, therefore 
conversations exist.

> you are only interested in preaching
>>
>
> Preaching doesn't exist. 
>
> Since preaching is a set of qualia in consciousness, preaching exists. 

> * > your religious *
>>
>
> Religion doesn't exist.
>
> Since religion is a set of qualia in consciousness, religion exists. 

> *> belief in live objects.*
>>
>
> Belief doesn't exist and exist doesn't exist either. So there, see what a 
> great philosopher I am!  
>
> Since belief is a state of consciousness, belief exists.
You're not that good of a philosopher.

> *How did you think you learn to speak in the first place ?*
>>
>
> From examples, same way computers have recently learned how to do.
>

Learning is a property of consciousness through which the access to certain 
qualia is strengthened by multiple experience of them. Since computers are 
deterministic systems, computers don't learn. 

>  
>
>> >> 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.
>  
>
And a "living person pointing" is some kind of abstract entity ? Isn't on 
its own a picture in your own consciousness ? How did you see that picture 
for the first time ? 
Learning is a property of consciousness through which the access to certain 
qualia is strengthened by multiple experience of them. Since computers are 
deterministic systems, computers don't learn. 

> 
>> *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.
>
> Learning is a property of consciousness through which the access to 
certain qualia is strengthened by multiple experience of them. Since 
computers are deterministic systems, computers don't learn.  

 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 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-27 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List


On Friday, 26 April 2019 21:48:33 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> I want to because I am a consciousness with free will. 
>
>
> But why do you want this rather than that??? Do the "wants" of your free 
> will just spring up at random??? Are they unrelated to your situation, 
> perception, the evolutionary history of your species.?? What does it mean 
> that your will is "free"??? Free of what?
>

In order to maximize pleasure. I don't say that it is absolutely free. But 
there are cases in which I can indeed make choices and in those cases I am 
free. 

>
> I don't know how qualia appear. Sometimes they appear at our own will, 
> other times they appear by themselves. How they do that I don't know. 
>
>
> But I do.?? I know how certain photons interact with retina and generate 
> neural signals that interact with memories that encode the symbol 
> "red". To bad you missed the 20th century.
>

Then enlighten us. Tell us: How do red appears ? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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

2019-04-27 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Well, then I invite Bruno to go and claim his Nobel prize, because this is 
a knowledge that definitely worths a Nobel prize.

On Friday, 26 April 2019 21:07:22 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> Or people that know things you don't.?? Which is sad since you'll not 
> learn anything.
>
> 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.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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 (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2019-04-26 Thread cloudversed


On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 9:04:46 AM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, April 26, 2019, > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:29:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:48 AM Philip Thrift  
>>> wrote:
>>>


 On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 6:24:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>> The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:
>
> Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with 
> matter but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe 
> it 
> possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from 
> our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that 
> this would be a contradiction in terms. It is possible however but 
> unlikely 
> that such universes may exist.
>
> Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body 
> I consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´ 
> and hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two 
> are 
> firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but 
> when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is 
> gone and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately.
>
> Jason
>  
>
>>
>>
 I don't think I've seen this quote of Turing before, but it immediately 
 reminds me of *Epicurus *(an ancient panpsychist):

 [SEP: Epicurus]

 Having established the physical basis of the world, Epicurus proceeds 
 to explain the nature of the soul (this, at least, is the order in which 
 Lucretius sets things out). This too, of course, consists of atoms: first, 
 there is nothing that is not made up of atoms and void (secondary 
 qualities 
 are simply accidents of the arrangement of atoms), and second, an 
 incorporeal entity could neither act on nor be moved by bodies, as the 
 soul 
 is seen to do (e.g., it is conscious of what happens to the body, and it 
 initiates physical movement). Epicurus maintains that soul atoms are 
 particularly fine and are distributed throughout the body, and it is by 
 means of them that we have sensations (aisthêseis) and the experience of 
 pain and pleasure, which Epicurus calls pathê (a term used by Aristotle 
 and 
 others to signify emotions instead).

>>>
>>> Nice quote. A bit reminiscent of Descartes and Leibniz's thinking in 
>>> relation to dualism and how souls were to interact with physical bodies.
>>>
>>> Descartes understood a basic form of conservation of energy, and thought 
>>> it was possible for a soul to change the direction (if not the speed) of 
>>> particles.  After Newton formalized conservation of momentum, Leibniz 
>>> understood that changing the direction of particles in motion was also 
>>> impossible, which led to his postulation of a "pre-established harmony".
>>>  
>>>

 *Body without soul atoms is unconscious and inert, and when the atoms 
 of the body are disarranged so that it can no longer support conscious 
 life, the soul atoms are scattered and no longer retain the capacity for 
 sensation. *

 ~~~

 (Since atoms - either physical (body) or psychical (soul) atoms are not 
 destroyed in Epicurus's materialism, the psychical atoms which were 
 "scattered" end up in someone's new body at some point.)


>>> In panpsychism isn't everything consider to be conscious?  I think this 
>>> is a bit different from what Turing suggested, in that Turing believed the 
>>> body had to be in a functioning state to "attract" or "hold" a soul.
>>>
>>> Jason 
>>>
>>
>>
>> Pansychism (a better term would be experiential materialism) is the view 
>> that all is matter, but matter has psychical or experiential properties (in 
>> addition to physical ones - the ones conventional physicists talk about). 
>> The degrees of experientialities in levels of complexity of matter (and a 
>> brain would be considered to be a piece of complex matter), how such things 
>> are combined (from molecules to cells to multicellular configurations), are 
>> the issues.
>>
>
> What would a panpsychist predict for a universe where matter lacked such 
> properties?
>
> A world devoid of intelligent life.
>
> A world full of intelligent (but not consciousness) philosophical zombies.
>
> Something else.
>  
>
>>
>> Physicalism is normally assumed to be incompatible with panpsychism. 
>> Materialism (distinct from physicalism) is compatible with panpsychism 
>> insofar as experiential (or psychical) properties are attributed to matter, 
>> which is the only basic substance.
>>
>> via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Physicalism_and_materialism
>>
>> So there are brains and all the other other stuff, its just that there is 
>> more to matter than what meets 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 4/26/2019 7:36 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:



On Friday, 26 April 2019 01:52:19 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:49 PM 'Cosmin Visan'??
> 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.


I want to because I am a consciousness with free will.


But why do you want this rather than that??? Do the "wants" of your free 
will just spring up at random??? Are they unrelated to your situation, 
perception, the evolutionary history of your species. What does it mean 
that your will is "free"??? Free of what?




> /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


Reason is a quale based on which a consciousness makes a choice. 
Billiard balls bumping into eachothers are not doing this for reason, 
since they don't make the bumping their choice.



/> 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.


>> 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.


Consciousness exists. And if you don't start from this fact, then 
conversations are meaningless anyway.


> 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 ? Because you are not interested in having a 
meaningful conversation, you are only interested in preaching your 
religious belief in live objects.



>> 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.


If you think that a rock is intelligent, then go ahead. I don't think 
that.



/> 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.


I don't know how qualia appear. Sometimes they appear at our own will, 
other times they appear by themselves. How they do that I don't know.


But I do.?? I know how certain photons interact with retina and generate 
neural signals that interact with memories that encode the symbol 
"red". To bad you missed the 20th century.


Brent



>> 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?


The 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-26 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List
Or people that know things you don't.?? Which is sad since you'll not 
learn anything.


Brent

On 4/26/2019 3:51 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
Yeah, ok, you seem to know everything. Probably you are God or 
something. I cannot take seriously people that know everything.


On Friday, 26 April 2019 13:00:52 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 22 Apr 2019, at 22:57, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
> wrote:

Nobody knows how an embryo develops.


That is entirely solved by the second recursion theorem of Kleene.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "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

2019-04-26 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List


On Friday, 26 April 2019 01:52:19 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:49 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
> everyth...@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.
>

I want to because I am a consciousness with free will. 

>
> > *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
>

Reason is a quale based on which a consciousness makes a choice. Billiard 
balls bumping into eachothers are not doing this for reason, since they 
don't make the bumping their choice.

>  
>
>> *> 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. 

>
> >> 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.
>

Consciousness exists. And if you don't start from this fact, then 
conversations are meaningless anyway. 

>  
>
>> > 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 ? Because you are not interested in having a meaningful 
conversation, you are only interested in preaching your religious belief in 
live objects.

>  
>
>> >> 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.   
>

If you think that a rock is intelligent, then go ahead. I don't think that. 

>
> * > 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.  
>

I don't know how qualia appear. Sometimes they appear at our own will, 
other times they appear by themselves. How they do that I don't know. 

>
> >> 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?
>

The same way you do everything for the first time: by using the creation 
property of consciousness. How did you think you learn to speak in the 
first place ? Because consciousness has the ability to create new qualia 
out of nothing. 

>
> >> 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", 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

2019-04-26 Thread Jason Resch
On Friday, April 26, 2019,  wrote:

>
>
> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:29:08 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 2:48 AM Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 6:24:37 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:


> The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:

 Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with
 matter but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe it
 possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from
 our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that
 this would be a contradiction in terms. It is possible however but unlikely
 that such universes may exist.

 Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body
 I consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´
 and hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two are
 firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but
 when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is
 gone and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately.

 Jason


>
>
>>> I don't think I've seen this quote of Turing before, but it immediately
>>> reminds me of *Epicurus *(an ancient panpsychist):
>>>
>>> [SEP: Epicurus]
>>>
>>> Having established the physical basis of the world, Epicurus proceeds to
>>> explain the nature of the soul (this, at least, is the order in which
>>> Lucretius sets things out). This too, of course, consists of atoms: first,
>>> there is nothing that is not made up of atoms and void (secondary qualities
>>> are simply accidents of the arrangement of atoms), and second, an
>>> incorporeal entity could neither act on nor be moved by bodies, as the soul
>>> is seen to do (e.g., it is conscious of what happens to the body, and it
>>> initiates physical movement). Epicurus maintains that soul atoms are
>>> particularly fine and are distributed throughout the body, and it is by
>>> means of them that we have sensations (aisthêseis) and the experience of
>>> pain and pleasure, which Epicurus calls pathê (a term used by Aristotle and
>>> others to signify emotions instead).
>>>
>>
>> Nice quote. A bit reminiscent of Descartes and Leibniz's thinking in
>> relation to dualism and how souls were to interact with physical bodies.
>>
>> Descartes understood a basic form of conservation of energy, and thought
>> it was possible for a soul to change the direction (if not the speed) of
>> particles.  After Newton formalized conservation of momentum, Leibniz
>> understood that changing the direction of particles in motion was also
>> impossible, which led to his postulation of a "pre-established harmony".
>>
>>
>>>
>>> *Body without soul atoms is unconscious and inert, and when the atoms of
>>> the body are disarranged so that it can no longer support conscious life,
>>> the soul atoms are scattered and no longer retain the capacity for
>>> sensation. *
>>>
>>> ~~~
>>>
>>> (Since atoms - either physical (body) or psychical (soul) atoms are not
>>> destroyed in Epicurus's materialism, the psychical atoms which were
>>> "scattered" end up in someone's new body at some point.)
>>>
>>>
>> In panpsychism isn't everything consider to be conscious?  I think this
>> is a bit different from what Turing suggested, in that Turing believed the
>> body had to be in a functioning state to "attract" or "hold" a soul.
>>
>> Jason
>>
>
>
> Pansychism (a better term would be experiential materialism) is the view
> that all is matter, but matter has psychical or experiential properties (in
> addition to physical ones - the ones conventional physicists talk about).
> The degrees of experientialities in levels of complexity of matter (and a
> brain would be considered to be a piece of complex matter), how such things
> are combined (from molecules to cells to multicellular configurations), are
> the issues.
>

What would a panpsychist predict for a universe where matter lacked such
properties?

A world devoid of intelligent life.

A world full of intelligent (but not consciousness) philosophical zombies.

Something else.


>
> Physicalism is normally assumed to be incompatible with panpsychism.
> Materialism (distinct from physicalism) is compatible with panpsychism
> insofar as experiential (or psychical) properties are attributed to matter,
> which is the only basic substance.
>
> via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panpsychism#Physicalism_and_materialism
>
> So there are brains and all the other other stuff, its just that there is
> more to matter than what meets the (conventional physicist's) eye.
>
> -
> @philipthrift 
>
>
>
Thanks for the reference. It was an interesting read.

Jason



>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

2019-04-26 Thread 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
Consciousness exists.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"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   >