Hi Russell Standish
A self-organizing system is not what I proposed because
in such a system it is the output (Thirdness) that organizes
itself. And autopoetics is also apparently a misleading term.
I was seduced by its academic associations.
Instead, I see now that what I am proposing
CS 2-- Platonic choice in Computational Secondness
I have frequently claimed that intelligence is simply free will choice.
This is used to avoid a physicalistic or mechanical form of choice.
Peirce's categories are not mechanical transformations, but transformations
such as the mind would
Hi Craig Weinberg
After looking at how computers make choices--
whether they are free or whatever-- I now see
that my previous position that computers have
no intelligence was not exactly right, because
they do have intelligence, but it is different
from ours. It is not free exactly but free
Hi Craig Weinberg
I think that comp is a form of scientific idealism.
I don't know exactly what that means, but
there are clues at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Idealism#Idealism_in_the_philosophy_of_science
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially
Hi John Clark
Contempt prior to investigation is not a scientific attitude.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy
I agree.
I was wrong about autopoesis. It is
a mind-boggling definition of life,
maybe not even that.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
I think heredity also plays a role.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/15/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Stathis Papaioannou
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-13,
Hi Roger,
I'm interested in the thought process that led you to reject
autopoeisis. I was intrigued by your recent post about life that
defined it as the process of creation, rather than the object of it.
Personally I think autopoeisis is an important concept, one of the
best yet put forward
Hi Terren Suydam
You needn't agree with me. I respect that.
It wasn't really a thought process, I
just couldn't find anything to hold on to,
something that works, and I am a pragmatist.
Hence my use of the term mind-boggling.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/15/2012
Forever is a long
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Just because it looks to us that the computer is following rules doesn't
mean that it is.
So now you don't like computers because they don't follow rules, before you
didn't like computers because they did follow rules.
We
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Since we know that our consciousness
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know about
your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not then
you don't even know that.
is exquisitely
Thanks for a detailed inquisition upon my post.
It did not convince me.
#1: you postulate to ACCEPT your condition to begin with.
I don't. (once you agree).
#2: Sorry for 'the inside': I meant 'of the change', - while you meant -
of myself.
#3: Arithmetical reality is a figment, just like
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
I think he [Chambers] goes wrong by assuming a priori that consciousness
is functional,
I've asked you this question dozens of times but you have never coherently
answered it: If consciousness doesn't do anything
The surprise theory of everything
15 October 2012 by Vlatko Vedral
Magazine issue 2886. Subscribe and save
For similar stories, visit the Quantum World Topic Guide
Forget quantum physics, forget relativity. Inklings of an ultimate
theory might emerge from an unexpected place
AS REVOLUTIONS go,
On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:14:55 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Since we know that our consciousness
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know about
your consciousness; assuming of
On Monday, October 15, 2012 12:38:30 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
I think he [Chambers] goes wrong by assuming a priori that
consciousness is functional,
I've asked you this question dozens of
On Monday, October 15, 2012 11:49:52 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
Just because it looks to us that the computer is following rules doesn't
mean that it is.
So now you don't like computers because they don't
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know
about your consciousness; assuming of course that you are conscious, if not
then you don't even know that.
If that were true, then you don't know
On 10/15/2012 7:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
Nick Bostrum, a philosopher at Oxford University wrote an interesting paper on this
subject:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
The following is from the abstract:
This paper argues that /at least one/ of the following propositions is
On Monday, October 15, 2012 1:02:05 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
You don't know diddly squat about our consciousness, you only know
about your consciousness; assuming of course that you are
On 10/15/2012 9:38 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 8:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I think he [Chambers] goes wrong by assuming a priori that consciousness
is
functional,
I've asked you this question dozens of times
On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not
sensitive at
all to other voltages that don't make the threshold.
Let's see how computer fares under a giant junkyard magnet.
Probably better than you will fare
On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not
sensitive at all to other voltages that don't make the threshold.
Let's see how computer fares under a
On 10/15/2012 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not
sensitive at all to other voltages that don't make
On Monday, October 15, 2012 3:09:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/15/2012 11:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, October 15, 2012 2:42:33 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/15/2012 9:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
And a computer is exquisitely sensitive to particular voltages and not
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 12:56 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 10/15/2012 7:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
Nick Bostrum, a philosopher at Oxford University wrote an interesting
paper on this subject:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
The following is from the
Whilst I agree with Terren that autopoesis is an important part of
what it is to be alive, it is not a very practical thing to measure. I
wouldn't know if my artificial life simulations were autopoetic or
not, except where the concept has been explicitly designed in (eg see
Barry McMullin's
I'm more than happy for you to explore this, and report back when you
can explain it in terms other than the Peircean trinity. I never found
the Peircean classification to shed light or insight into
anything. YMMV though, of course!
I'm curious to know why you think autopoetic is misleading. My
28 matches
Mail list logo
