On 10/17/2012 2:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
The self is directly related to the Dx = xx trick, for me.
The Dx=xx trick is about self-replication. Of course entities with a sense
of the self/other distinction needn't replicate (eg certain robots).
Hi,
I have some papers and list posts
2012/10/17 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/16/2012 10:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:42:16 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 5:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:41:59 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
Sorry
Hi Craig Weinberg
By sense do you mean Firstness, Secondness or Thirdness?
Or all three as a process ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/17/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver:
Hi meekerdb
1p = Firstness
3p = Thirdness
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/17/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-16, 16:19:29
Subject: Re: Is
Hi Russell Standish
Creating structure out of a random environment
requires intelligence, the ability to make choices
on one's own. Self-organization does not have
that capacity, it merely follows a computer program.
So self-organization programs cannot be alive,
having no intelligence and no
Hi Stephen P. King
Nothing that is in spacetime can think.
Thinking or reasoning is a property of mind,
or intelligence, which is outside of spacetime.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/17/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the
Hi Bruno
Solipsism is a property of 1p= Firstness = subjectivity
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/17/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-16,
Hi Bruno Marchal
My problem with autopoesis is that it only deals with 3p
(the outer, objective world) but not with 1p (the inner,
subjective world).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/17/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following
On 10/17/2012 4:12 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Life may support mathematics.
Hi Alberto,
OK, we can think of Life, in a very abstract sense, as the
generator of variety and pattern, so that might work. This makes Life = God!
Life is a computation devoted to making guesses about the
On 16 Oct 2012, at 10:02, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
A possible answer is that all
possible universes exist and we find ourselves in one of those that
has the kind of physical laws leading to observers.
I'm
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 11:57:43 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 10:03 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 6:48:51 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 4:31 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:19:54 PM
On 15 Oct 2012, at 22:04, Jason Resch wrote:
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_%28Peirce%29 everything-list
Peirce's Categories (technical name: the cenopythagorean
categories)[8]Name:Typical characterizaton:As universe of experience:As
quantity:Technical definition:Valence, adicity:
Firstness.[9]Quality of feeling.Ideas, chance,
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:14:25 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 10:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 8:42:16 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 5:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:41:59 PM
Hi Terren Suydam
IMHO autopoesis, like all of AI, is a tool for the public, objective world
(Thirdness)
That is fine, but the real nitty-gritty (such as mind or consciousness)
dwells in subjective experiences (quale) (Firstness). So I don't find
autopoesis that useful or
On 16 Oct 2012, at 14:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense.
That is a form of idealism.
It presuppose sense, so I find it very poor as I am interested in
understanding sense (and matter).
Withc omp we pressuppose only numbers and +,
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 6:33:15 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
By sense do you mean Firstness, Secondness or Thirdness?
Or all three as a process ?
Using these as a guide:
(from http://www.helsinki.fi/science/commens/terms/thirdness.html)
Firstness is the mode
On 16 Oct 2012, at 14:55, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Roger,
On 10/16/2012 7:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Is consciousness just an emergent property of overly complex
computations ?
No!
The short answer is that I am proposing that :
1) Penrose's noncomputability position is equivalent
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:27:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 14:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Computation is an overly simplified emergent property of sense.
That is a form of idealism.
It presuppose sense, so I find it very poor as I am interested in
On 16 Oct 2012, at 15:00, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:02:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
There is of course the idea that the universe is actually a
simulation but that is more controversial.
A tempting idea until we
2012/10/17 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 10/17/2012 4:12 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Life may support mathematics.
Hi Alberto,
OK, we can think of Life, in a very abstract sense, as the generator
of variety and pattern, so that might work. This makes Life = God!
Life
On 16 Oct 2012, at 15:05, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:33 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
Roger,
Philosophers such as Lucas, Hofstadter and Chalmers as well as
Penrose
and Godel suggest that consciousness may be due to incompleteness
itself allowing for emergence...
On 16 Oct 2012, at 15:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 9:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Thanks. My mistake was to say that P's position is that
consciousness, arises at (or above ?)
the level of noncomputability. He just seems to
say that intuiton does. But that just
On 10/17/2012 8:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 15:33, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 9:20 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King
Thanks. My mistake was to say that P's position is that
consciousness, arises at (or above ?)
the level of noncomputability. He just
The quote might be wrong, as you answer statements which are not mine.
On 16 Oct 2012, at 15:49, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/10 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
2012/10/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Oct 2012, at 18:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
It may be a zombie or
OK, This post is clearer. forget my early reply.
On 16 Oct 2012, at 15:55, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/11 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
On 10 Oct 2012, at 20:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
2012/10/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be:
On 09 Oct 2012, at 18:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
On 10/17/2012 8:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 15:00, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:02:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
There is of course the idea that the universe is actually a
simulation but that is more
Dear Stephen,
On 16 Oct 2012, at 16:03, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 9:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Oct 2012, at 16:14, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
After looking at how computers make choices--
whether they are free or whatever-- I now see
that my previous position
On 16 Oct 2012, at 17:37, Terren Suydam wrote:
Hi Russell,
I think if autopoeisis has failed to achieve some practical measure,
it is a reflection of how under-developed our collective toolbox is
for working with complexity and holistic systems in general. Imaginary
numbers are a good example
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:37, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 2:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
wrote:
If consciousness doesn't do anything then Evolution can't see
it, so how and why did Evolution produce it? The fact that you have
no answer to this means your ideas are
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Two men and two women live together. The woman has a child. 2+2=5
You mean two men + two women + a baby = five persons.
You need the arithmetical 2+2=4, and 4+1 = 5, in your argument.
Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
--
You
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 10:16:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 18:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Two men and two women live together. The woman has a child. 2+2=5
You mean two men + two women + a baby = five persons.
You need the arithmetical 2+2=4, and 4+1 = 5,
On 16 Oct 2012, at 20:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:08:49 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King
wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig
Weinbergwhats...@gmail.com wrote:
Computation is an overly simplified emergent
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 8:18:26 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_%28Peirce%29 everything-list
Peirce's Categories (technical name: the cenopythagorean
categories)[8]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categories_%28Peirce%29#cite_note-cenopythagorean-7
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 11:14:01 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 20:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:08:49 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig
On 16 Oct 2012, at 21:55, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
corn starch is not a fluid (newtinian or not). It is a solid and
when dissolved in water (or whatever?) it makes a N.N.fluid -
My question about it's 'live, or not' status is:
does it provide METABOLISM and REPAIR ?
I doubt
On 16 Oct 2012, at 21:56, meekerdb wrote:
On 10/16/2012 12:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 2:42:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 10/16/2012 7:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:
Hi Alberto,
OK, I am officially confused by your statements. You
previously wrote:
OK, to be honest I don't know much about the history of mathematics. I
was coming more from the angle that imaginary/complex numbers found
application in electromagnetics well after they were introduced in
mathematics.
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On
On 17 Oct 2012, at 02:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
It is the inability of comp to solve the arithmetic body problem
that is its Achilles heel.
No. It is the strongest point of comp. It does solve it
constructively, so it makes comp testable and/or our simulation level
measurable.
You can
Hi Roger,
Autopoeisis says there is a boundary between the environment and the
system through which no information crosses (structural closure)... if
we apply that model to our nervous system, we can say that the reality
we experience is a construction, a virtual reality dynamically
generated by
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:11:00 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 02:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
It is the inability of comp to solve the arithmetic body problem
that is its Achilles heel.
No. It is the strongest point of comp. It does solve it
Hi Bruno Marchal
Sorry, I lost the thread on the doctor, and don't know what Craig believes
about the p-zombie.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_zombie
A philosophical zombie or p-zombie in the philosophy of mind and perception is
a hypothetical being
that is indistinguishable
On 17 Oct 2012, at 08:07, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 03:39:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Oct 2012, at 23:27, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Computational Autopoetics is a term I just coined to denote
Hi Bruno Marchal
IMHO all life must have some degree of consciousness
or it cannot perceive its environment.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/17/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
On 17 Oct 2012, at 08:52, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/17/2012 2:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
The self is directly related to the Dx = xx trick, for me.
The Dx=xx trick is about self-replication. Of course entities with
a sense
of the self/other distinction needn't replicate (eg certain
Hello people, right spelling is autopoiesis and to better understanding I
recommend reading Autopoiesis and Cognition and The Tree of Knowledge from
Maturana et Varela.
Roberto Szabó
Em 17/10/2012, às 09:25, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net escreveu:
Hi Terren Suydam
IMHO autopoesis,
On 17 Oct 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno
Solipsism is a property of 1p= Firstness = subjectivity
OK. And non solipsism is about attributing 1p to others, which needs
some independent 3p reality you can bet one, for not being only part
of yourself. Be it a God, or a
On 17 Oct 2012, at 13:14, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
My problem with autopoesis is that it only deals with 3p
(the outer, objective world) but not with 1p (the inner,
subjective world).
I agree, but I have not followed the devlopment, which is too verbal
for my understanding.
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
while most people are content to accept that these [physical] 'laws'
simply 'are', I am more inclined to question what exactly we mean by that.
It's a pity you weren't also inclined to question what exactly we mean
On 17 Oct 2012, at 10:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Life may support mathematics.
Arithmetic may support life. It is full of life and dreams.
Life is a computation devoted to making guesses about the future in
order to self preserve . This is only possible in a world where
natural
On 10/17/2012 11:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Oct 2012, at 20:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 9:08:49 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/16/2012 8:54 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Craig
Weinbergwhats...@gmail.com
Hi Craig Weinberg
Actually, I may be accused of subtly altering the meanings of
Peirce's categories, for to him all three cats are public,
objective. He refused to subjectively step into the mind of the interpreter,
instead using the word interprant.
This is very hard to understand stuff, and
In string theory compact dimensions support arithmetic,
which in turn supports the evolution of life and dreams.
Richard
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 10:12, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Life may support mathematics.
Arithmetic
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 2:24:20 PM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Craig Weinberg
Actually, I may be accused of subtly altering the meanings of
Peirce's categories, for to him all three cats are public,
objective. He refused to subjectively step into the mind of the
interpreter,
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 1:54:35 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 1:41 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
while most people are content to accept that these [physical] 'laws'
simply 'are', I am more inclined to question what exactly we
On 10/17/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:11:00 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 02:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
It is the inability of comp to solve the arithmetic body problem
that is its Achilles heel.
No. It is the
On 10/17/2012 1:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 08:07, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 03:39:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Oct 2012, at 23:27, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 04:44:11PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Computational
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 3:56:26 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/17/2012 12:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 12:11:00 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 02:42, Stephen P. King wrote:
It is the inability of comp to solve the
On 10/17/2012 1:29 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 08:52, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/17/2012 2:07 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
The self is directly related to the Dx = xx trick, for me.
The Dx=xx trick is about self-replication. Of course entities with a
sense
of the
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 06:54:31AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
Creating structure out of a random environment
requires intelligence, the ability to make choices
on one's own. Self-organization does not have
that capacity, it merely follows a computer program.
So
On 10/17/2012 4:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I meant that awareness is not emulable outside of awareness. You can't
make something which pretends to itself that it is experiencing
something. Once you have 1p awareness though, sure, you can re-present
and meta-represent all kinds of awareness
On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 07:19:09PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Oct 2012, at 08:07, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 16, 2012 at 03:39:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Oct 2012, at 23:27, Russell Standish wrote:
So any self-organised system should be called alive then? Sand
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:44:40 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/17/2012 4:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I meant that awareness is not emulable outside of awareness. You can't
make something which pretends to itself that it is experiencing something.
Once you have 1p
On 10/17/2012 6:08 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, October 17, 2012 5:44:40 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 10/17/2012 4:40 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I meant that awareness is not emulable outside of awareness. You
can't make something which pretends to itself that
64 matches
Mail list logo
