On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:42 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 6:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The implication is that if you believe in universal personhood then even
if you are selfish you will be motivated towards charity.
If humans are any indication, a
Hi John
As I mentioned before, empty space isn't the same as nothing. It already
presupposes the laws of physics, even if it doesn't do much with them
they're there. What we're discussing is where the laws of physics
themselves come from (and perhaps things they appear to rely on, like
maths).
Actually I'm wrong here. The Mars Rover *is* motivated by emotions, just
not its own. They're the emotions of its designers. It isn't independently
conscious (as far as we know) and hence can't have its own motivations in
the normal sense (redefining motives as whatever actuates an unconscious
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So do you believe the Mars Rover is motivated to explore by its emotions?
No, it's motivated to obey humans by its emotions.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
We're already willing to attribute sentience to a crude pattern matching
programme (ELIZA, was it?), our pets, stuffed toys - and of course in times
gone by rocks, clouds, trees, the sea, the stars and so on. I don't think
people attributing sentience to something is very meaningful.
On 12
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Why in the world would a intelligent agent need to be certain before it
could act?
Perhaps because it has not (and never will) arrive upon a correct belief
system (religion)
So you believe anything that anybody
On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at
Liz,
Before there was anything that was nothing – empty space. During this period
there could be no events, so time has no relevance. At some point portions of
nothing separated into two parts, in each case producing a plus tronnie and a
minus tronnie, each being a point particle with no
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Samiya Illias samiyaill...@gmail.com
wrote:
So you think that random mutation and natural selection can produce a
intelligent being but a intelligent designer can't. Why?
I am so happy to read this comment of yours. I hope someday you'll come
to reason
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM,
http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/09/google-spot-dog-robot/
The more animal-like they seem the more people will be willing to attribute
to it sentience.
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
[Brent Meeker] If consciousness were unnecessary it would not be an
epiphenomenon, i.e.
something that NECESSARILY accompanies the phenomena
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch
On 12 February 2015 at 08:05, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely the unconscious part of the mind is a partial zombie ?
(For example I have an inexplicable craving for chocolate which originates
somewhere in my subconscious. So my conscious thoughts are ruled by a zombie
which is partial to
Surely the unconscious part of the mind is a partial zombie ?
(For example I have an inexplicable craving for chocolate which originates
somewhere in my subconscious. So my conscious thoughts are ruled by a
zombie which is partial to chocolate.)
--
You received this message because you are
On 12 February 2015 at 02:50, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Sure, but the AI may still decide to do evil, perverse or self destructive
things. There is no contradiction in superintelligence behaving this way.
It's an assumption to say there is no contradiction. If it's beliefs are
On 12 February 2015 at 02:56, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
[Brent Meeker] If consciousness were unnecessary it would not be an
On 12 February 2015 at 08:09, John Ross jr...@trexenterprises.com wrote:
Hi Liz,
Good to hear from you again.
Empty space *is *the same as nothing.
I would say far from it. Why should empty space exist? The questions why
is there something rather than nothing? Why does the universe go
Liz,
You and your acronyms! I looked up “IMHO” Google says most of the time when
people use the phrase their opinion in not humble. I could not find a
definition for “LOP” that made sense as you used it.
According to my TOE as explained at pages 151 -153, right now our Universe is
100
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:05 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
Surely the unconscious part of the mind is a partial zombie ?
(For example I have an inexplicable craving for chocolate which originates
somewhere in my subconscious. So my conscious thoughts are ruled by a
zombie which is
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 02:56, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch
On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result in
physicaly detectable differences in behavior? This is counter to the
belief
of epiphenominalism, where consciousness is take-it-or-leave-it
On 2/11/2015 8:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:42 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 6:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
The implication is that if you believe in universal personhood then
even if you
On 2/11/2015 7:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result in
physicaly detectable differences in behavior? This is counter to the
belief
of epiphenominalism, where
On 12 February 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2015 7:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
If zombies are impossible then what can be shown is that IF a certain
being is conscious THEN it is impossible to make a zombie equivalent.
But this cannot be used to show that
On 12 February 2015 at 17:19, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result
On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, LizR
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','stath...@gmail.com'); wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:43 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 10:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:23 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb
On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
[Brent Meeker] If consciousness were unnecessary it would not be an
epiphenomenon, i.e.
something that NECESSARILY accompanies the phenomena of thoughts. Is heat
necessary to random molecular motion?
As I and others
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:59 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2015 10:48 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:51 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/11/2015 7:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10,
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result
in
physicaly detectable differences in behavior? This is counter to
On 2/11/2015 7:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
mailto:stath...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at
On 2/10/2015 11:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On 2/11/2015 10:48 AM, LizR wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch
On 2/11/2015 10:56 AM, LizR wrote:
Actually I'm wrong here. The Mars Rover *is* motivated by emotions, just not its own.
They're the emotions of its designers. It isn't independently conscious (as far as we
know) and hence can't have its own motivations in the normal sense (redefining motives
On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 17:19, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch
38 matches
Mail list logo
