Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 5:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > If anyone is not familiar with David Chalmers "Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, > Dancing Qualia" You should have a look at it first. > > This thought experiment is intended to generalize principles common to both > computationalism and functio

Re: victims of faith

On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 4:45 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I suppose that you mean that there are histories that everyone would > identify as bullshit. Well, this changes nothing. A myth by definition > is something believed by a group of people in the past. Most of them > as intelligent or more

Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:57:44 PM UTC-4, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Not to mention, simpler patterns reminiscent of the output of some > iterative cellular automata do show up in nature. > > See http://www.wolframscience.c

Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,

Not to mention, simpler patterns reminiscent of the output of some iterative cellular automata do show up in nature. See http://www.wolframscience.com/nksonline/page-423 for an example of sea-shell patterns that look an awful lot like some of the patterns in his book A New Kind of Science. On Thu

Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 4:26:45 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > Statistically, shouldn't we see this simple 1K sequence frequently in >> nature? I mean precisely. Shouldn't there be hundreds of species of beetle >> tha

Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 5:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Statistically, shouldn't we see this simple 1K sequence frequently in > nature? I mean precisely. Shouldn't there be hundreds of species of beetle > that have patterns on their backs which are derived exclusively from the > Mandelbot set. >

Re: imaginary numbers in comp

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 3:58:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > This is the symbol grounding problem pointed out by Searle's Chinese Room >> > > I've said it before I'll say it again, Searle's Chinese Room is the > sin

questions on machines, belief, awareness, and knowledge

Bruno, You use B as a predicate symbol for "belief" I think. What are some properties of B and is there a predicate for knowing/being aware of that might lead to a definition for self-awareness? btw, what is a machine and what types of machines are there? Is there a generic description for a

Re: imaginary numbers in comp

We might as well just use ordered pairs of integers or rational numbers. On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:45:53 AM UTC-7, rclough wrote: > > Hi everything-list > > Since human thought and perception consists of both a logical quantitative > or objective > component as well as a feelings-spir

Re: imaginary numbers in comp

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > This is the symbol grounding problem pointed out by Searle's Chinese Room > I've said it before I'll say it again, Searle's Chinese Room is the single stupidest thought experiment ever devised by the mind of man. Of course even the best of

Re: imaginary numbers in comp

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at Roger Clough wrote: > would it make any sense to do comp using complex numbers, where the real > part is the objective part of the mental the imaginary part is the > subjective part of the mental > The names "real" and "imaginary" are unfortunate because imaginary number

Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 2:05:34 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: > > > > > >> They don't come from the simple definition. They come from your retina >> and visual cortex. That's what I am trying to tell you. There is nothing >> there but the meaningless seed. >> > > Were do you propose my retina

Zombieopolis Thought Experiment

If anyone is not familiar with David Chalmers "Absent Qualia, Fading Qualia, Dancing Qualia" You should have a look at itfirst. This thought experiment is intended to generalize principles common to both computationalism and functionalism so that the often c

Re: victims of faith

2012/9/13 Stathis Papaioannou : > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: >> There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other >> mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. >> religion is a label that appears when the mith is

Re: The poverty of computers

On 9/13/2012 1:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I'm actually with you on this JC, although mainly because by faith I think most people really mean hope. Screw hope. To me faith is just about being ok with things even if they don't seem ok right now. It's more of a patience or benefit of the doubt w

Re: imaginary numbers in comp

On 9/13/2012 1:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:15:56 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Craig Weinberg > wrote: > I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities And you have deduced this by using the

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/13/2012 1:36 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/13/2012 4:55 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several things that are problematic. 1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslute structur

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/13/2012 12:05 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:55, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several things that are problematic. 1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslut

Re: If I ever doubt that there is a God,

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:06:44 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: > >> >> >> On Sep 11, 2012, at 4:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, September 11, 2012 1:20:49 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Look how l

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 10:58:10 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 Roger Clough >wrote: > > > Theology is based on faith > > > I understand that theology is based on faith, what I don't understand is > why faith is supposed to be a virtue. > > I'm actually with you

Re: imaginary numbers in comp

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 1:15:56 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities > > > And you have deduced this by using the "nothing but" fallacy: even the > largest compute

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 9/13/2012 4:55 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several things that are problematic. 1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslute structure of relations, there is an infinity th

Re: Fwd: [4DWorldx] thanks to Moon I found this creazy story abouthead transplants

I have not joined Vimeo. I can watch the video directly on the linked page. It does not work for you this way? Evgenii On 13.09.2012 14:03 Roger Clough said the following: Hi Evgenii Rudnyi Sorry, I refused to join Vimeo because they wanted too much information. And I find "terms of service"

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:43:39 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: > > Hi Bruno Marchal > > The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). > They are exclusively in the fom of words. > For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. > > The personal or private part of

Re: imaginary numbers in comp

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities And you have deduced this by using the "nothing but" fallacy: even the largest computer is "nothing but" a collection of on and off switches. Never mind that your brain is "not

Re: The "nothing but" fallacy in explaining away God (or anything)

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 11:36:37 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 Roger Clough >wrote: > > > I call this the "nothing but" fallacy >> > > There is indeed a "nothing but" fallacy, such as: > "a computer can't be conscious because when you look at it at a close > en

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 Roger Clough wrote: > If religion is true I would be surprised if it DIDN'T appear in myths. > And if religion is false I would be more than surprised I would be absolutely astonished if it DIDN'T appear in myths. The law of conservation of angular momentum is true so there

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On 13 Sep 2012, at 15:36, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Alberto G. Corona > wrote: I just gave a positivistic argument to convince people that adhere to the positivistic faith. That does not mean that I´m materialist nor positivist. Positivism, whatever el

Re: imaginary numbers in comp

On 13 Sep 2012, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote: Hi everything-list Since human thought and perception consists of both a logical quantitative or objective component as well as a feelings-spiritual qualitative or subjective components, would it make any sense to do comp using complex numbers

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

Even to believe that what we see exist in a objective, external reality is an act of faith. To believe, and to believe only in the authority of what is called "science" at a certain time in history is another act of faith in the authority of someone that administer some truth ( concrete scientist

Re: Re: Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ?

On Thursday, September 13, 2012 8:33:47 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: > > Hi Craig Weinberg > > The fact is that the only incentive businesses look to is profit. > So demonizing profit doesn't do any good. > And urging them to hire workers doesn't work. > > Sounds exactly like cancer. The only i

Re: imaginary numbers in comp

This is why I reject comp, because it cannot access feelings or qualities, whereas feelings can and do access arithmetic (even directly as rhythm, music, some forms of visual art, etc). Because we know about feelings, we can project that knowledge on top of arithmetic ideas and conceive of 'num

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 13 Sep 2012, at 13:55, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several things that are problematic. 1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslute structure of relations, there is an infi

imaginary numbers in comp

Hi everything-list Since human thought and perception consists of both a logical quantitative or objective component as well as a feelings-spiritual qualitative or subjective components, would it make any sense to do comp using complex numbers, where the real part is the objective part of the m

Re: The "nothing but" fallacy in explaining away God (or anything)

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 Roger Clough wrote: > I call this the "nothing but" fallacy > There is indeed a "nothing but" fallacy, such as: "a computer can't be conscious because when you look at it at a close enough level you find "nothing but" a bunch of zeros and ones". > It is the bread and but

Re: On marrying a talking doll

Roger, What about Data from Star Trek? Jason On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 at 6:53 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > > Again, if my daughter is human, why would she want to marry a robot ? > She wants a talking doll I suppose. Probably needs a shrink. > > Roger > > -- > You received this m

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 13 Sep 2012, at 12:40, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: Some embeddings that could be represented by this number relations could "prove" utter nonsense. For example, if you interpret 166568 to mean "!=" or "^6" instead of "=>", the whole proof is nonsense. Sure, and if I interpret

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

On Thu, Sep 13, 2012 Roger Clough wrote: > Theology is based on faith I understand that theology is based on faith, what I don't understand is why faith is supposed to be a virtue. > and moral practice. > Then why is the history of religion a list of one atrocity after another? John K Cla

Re: a creator must know what he is doing (must have intelligence).

Hi Roger, On 13 Sep 2012, at 12:36, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal But those mechanims are just mechanisms. You are just doing the "just" fallacy. A variant of the "nothing but" fallacy. They do not know what they do, We do have serious evidence that some mechanism, actually mos

Re: victims of faith

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > There is no difference at all between religious mitifications and other > mitifucatuons . See form, example the paper about Darwin that I posted. > religion is a label that appears when the mith is old enough it has enough > believers and

Re: the "nothing but" fallacy.

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 10:53 PM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I just gave a positivistic argument to convince people that adhere to the > positivistic faith. That does not mean that I´m materialist nor positivist. Positivism, whatever else it is, is not "faith". "Faith" is when you believe somet

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 12 Sep 2012, at 21:48, benjayk wrote: Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume I want to attack you (and th

Re: Why we debate religion: two completely different types of truth.

Hi Richard, Judaism, but also taoism have a tradition to consider texts has deserving comments, and sequence of comments. That is nice indeed, and make the approach closer to the scientific approach. But I talk about ideal science, as science can have pope and argument per authority too, al

duplicate copies fixed ?

Sorry--I did find a possible reason for the duplicates and fixed it. Let me know if it continues Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - Fro

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 12 Sep 2012, at 15:28, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 2:05 PM, benjayk > wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Sep 2012, at 12:39, benjayk wrote: > >> >> Our discussion is going nowhere. You don't see my points and assume >> I want to >> attack you (and thus ar

Re: Re: Re: The sin of NDAA

Hi Russell Standish and Bruno, Nobody else gets Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Russell Standish Receiver: everything-list Time:

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

Hi Bruno Marchal The shared part of religion (or science) is called belief(s). They are exclusively in the fom of words. For example words from the Bible, and the Creeds. The personal or private part of religion is called faith. It is not belief, for it is wordless, is more like

Re: The poverty of computers

Hi Roger, On 12 Sep 2012, at 14:08, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Applying science to religion can be no more successful than applying science to poetry. Both poetry and religion have to be experienced if they are of any use at all, and science is a moron with regard to experiential kno

Re: Re: Re: Re: Racism ? How's that implied ?

Hi Craig Weinberg The fact is that the only incentive businesses look to is profit. So demonizing profit doesn't do any good. And urging them to hire workers doesn't work. Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everyth

Re: Re: Why we debate religion: two completely different types of truth.

Hi Richard Ruquist The Psalms are full of doubt and hope for an answer. Obviously doubt is a component of faith. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following c

Re: Re: Re: Re: victims of faith

Hi John Clark Your mind then must also be like a germ. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time:

Re: Re: The poverty of computers

Hi John Clark Theology is based on faith and moral practice. In other words, meaning and value, neither of which you will find in facts. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function.

Re: Re: Fwd: [4DWorldx] thanks to Moon I found this creazy story abouthead transplants

Hi Evgenii Rudnyi Sorry, I refused to join Vimeo because they wanted too much information. And I find "terms of service" a bit scarey. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receivin

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Hi benjayk, This is exactly what I have been complaining to Bruno about. He does not see several things that are problematic. 1) Godel numberings are not unique. Thus there is no a single abslute structure of relations, there is an infinity that cannot be reduced. 2) the physical implemen

On marrying a talking doll

Hi Bruno Marchal Again, if my daughter is human, why would she want to marry a robot ? She wants a talking doll I suppose. Probably needs a shrink. Roger -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email t

Re: Perception, apperception, and consciousness

Hi Roger, Hear Hear! Peirce is the best to see the basic ideas and hints on how to extend them. ;-) On 9/13/2012 6:14 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Exactly. The raw perception is also what Peirce calls Firstness. Secondness is consciousness or internal reflection by mind to

Re: Re: Why the supreme monad is necessary in Leibniz's universe

Hi Bruno Marchal BRUNO: Matter is what is not determined, and thus contingent indeed, at its very roots, like W and M in a self-duplication experiment, or like, plausibly when looking at a photon through a calcite crystal. ROGER: So Newton's Laws, such as F = ma, are not deterministic ?

Why science only works with half a brain

Hi Bruno Marchal Science can only deal with objective issues or things (facts). But the world also consists of values-- qualitative or subjective issues. Hence science has only "half a brain". Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to inv

Re: Re: Why we debate religion: two completely different types of truth.

Hi Bruno Marchal BRUNO: I mainly agree [that there are two types of truth, one ruling the objective world, the other, being subjective, ruling the subjective world]. But then why coming with factual assertion, about a Jesus guy. I can accept the parabolas, but I can't take a witnessing of

Re: Re: science only works with half a brain

Hi Bruno Marchal and meekerdb, ROGER: Hi meekerdb First, science can only work with quantity, not quality, so it only works with half a brain. MEEKERDB: Bad decision. You are the one cutting the "corpus callosum" here. ROGER: You have to. Quantity is an objective measure, quality is a

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> Some embeddings that could be represented by this number relations >> could >> "prove" utter nonsense. For example, if you interpret 166568 to mean >> "!=" or >> "^6" instead of "=>", the whole proof is nonsense. > > Sure, and if I interpret the soap for a pope,

a creator must know what he is doing (must have intelligence).

Hi Bruno Marchal But those mechanims are just mechanisms. They do not know what they do, that knowing combined with choice of what to do being another description of intelligence, which is what makes a creator greater than his creations. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/13/2012 Leibniz wou

Perception, apperception, and consciousness

Hi Alberto G. Corona Exactly. The raw perception is also what Peirce calls Firstness. Secondness is consciousness or internal reflection by mind to "make sense" of the perception in terms of what we know. Then Thirdness should be the recognition or naming of that image. Roger Clough, r