Re: Qualia and mathematics

[Pierz]

On Jan 29, 3:44 pm, meekerdb  wrote:
> On 1/28/2012 7:05 PM, Pierz wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 10:57 am, meekerdb  wrote:
> >> On 1/28/2012 3:15 PM, Pierz wrote:
> >> These approaches always end up conflating the two, their
> >> proponents getting annoyed with anyone who isn't prepared to wish away
> >>> the gap between them.
> >> But most people seem to think that the two are linked; that philosophical 
> >> zombies are
> >> impossible.  Are you asserting that they are possible?
> > Well of course they are linked. As for the problem of zombies, I of
> > course have to agree that they seem absurd. But to me the zombie
> > argument elides the real question, which is the explanation for why
> > there is anyone home to find the zombies absurd. Why aren't zombies
> > having this discussion? In the traditional materialist worldview,
> > there is nothing to explain that. We observe that we aren't, in fact
> > zombies and then the materialist observes that the his/her predictions
> > would be the same if there were no consciousness and so s/he loses
> > interest in the issue and effectively shrugs and says "oh well". But
> > there are some problems, though I expect you'll have little truck with
> > them. I could, for  instance, refer you to a study of near death
> > experiences in the Lancet in which a person in cardiac arrest and
> > flatlining on the EEG was able to report the presence of a pair of
> > sneakers on a high window ledge of the hospital during an OBE which he
> > would have no way of knowing were there. There is a huge amount of
> > evidence along these lines that consciousness does not in fact
> > supervene on the physical brain.
>
> No, there is a huge number of anecdotes.


"Anecdotal evidence" is not an oxymoron. But I am not talking about
pure anecdote, but rather phenomenological studies, such as Grof's
original work (see below).

> http://records.viu.ca/www/ipp/pdf/NDE.pdf

> And when there have been controlled experiments in which signs were placed on 
> high shelves
> in operating rooms those floating NDE's have not been able to read them.

It's amazing the difference in the standard of evidence expected of a
study that purports to refute a phenomenon outside the conventional
paradigm compared to that expected of a study that claims to provide
evidence for it. We know almost nothing about the study mentioned
except that "it found no evidence" and that seems to be sufficient for
you to cite it, because it confirms your prejudices. If it had claimed
to find evidence, you'd be tearing its methodology to shreds, or
rather going on about the total lack of any methodological explanation
in the above paper.

> > Other evidence, for instance, comes
> > from LSD research conducted in the fifties (see Stanislav Grof's
> > work).
>
> The award winning Dr. 
> Grof?http://www.stanislavgrof.com/pdf/Bronze.Delusional.Boulder_2000.pdf

Ridicule is cheap, and does not constitute an argument. Always an
effective means though of discrediting someone with the courage to
express unconventional views. Grof's original research in the fifties
was purely phenomenological, a documentation of hallucinogenic
experiences. He began as a committed materialist, and only slowly was
forced by his observations to a different position. It is so easy to
pile ridicule on anything that is counter to the current paradigm, but
every new worldview began with someone who wasn't afraid to question
orthodoxy.

It seems to me if you accept the logic of Bruno's UDA, you would be
forced into accepting that consciousness cannot be destroyed, because
it belongs to the mathematical realm not the physical  - so nothing in
Grof's research should be intrinsically absurd. How ludicrous would
Many Worlds theory have appeared to Newtonians? They thought that they
almost had the whole answer, and only a tiny explanatory gap remained
to be closed. Only the gap happened to contain all of quantum theory
and relativity, all of modern physics in fact. Nowadays many
scientists believe the same thing - just a few tiny gaps remain - like
where 80% of the universe's mass is, the explanation for
consciousness, and the fact that our two most fundamental theories of
modern science are inconsistent with one another. Small problems to be
fixed with a few tweaks no doubt!

>
> > Of course there's also vast and incontrovertible evidence that
> > consciousness, under normal conditions, does supervene on brain state
> > and structure, so we are left with an anomaly that in most cases is
> > resolved by denying the evidence of the exceptions. This is not all
> > that hard to do when the evidence is to be found  in consciousnesses
> > of subjects rather than 'instruments' and cannot easily be subjected
> > to controlled experimental trials. But even a single personal
> > experience can override the weightiest scientific authority
>
> So all those sightings of ghosts and Elvis override the theory that the dead 
> don't roam
> around where you can see them

Re: Qualia and mathematics

[acw]

On 1/31/2012 14:28, Pierz wrote:


I'll tell you a campfire story of my own. One day my grandmother was
going to drive my mother home across town. We were at my gran's place
at the time and a close friend of mine was present. As they were about
to leave, my friend went suddenly pale. She said "Don't leave! I have
a really bad feeling." She is a super practical, down to earth person
and not given to weird freak outs and anxiety attacks. She was so
insistent about it that my grandmother and mother decided to humour
her. After about 30 minutes she (my friend) said,"It's OK, you can go
now." They went, and were stopped when they turned off the freeway by
a row of police cars. Julian Knight had just shot dead six drivers
from a neighbouring park in what's now called the Hoddle Street
massacre. That was when my mother remembered the dream she'd had the
previous night of driving with my grandmother and saying to her, "get
down, there's shooting."

Now of course this story is supremely unimpressive to you because a) I
might be lying, exaggerating, misremembering, on drugs, mentally ill
etc and b) it's just a random story and very unlikely things must
happen occasionally, right? For me though it's something else. I know
I'm not on drugs/lying crazy etc. As for b) I could write it off as a
truly incredible coincidence if I hadn't seen so many similar types of
things. For instance, I was present with that same friend when she had
another such 'attack'. Out of the blue she was filled with a sudden,
horrible dread and could hardly breathe. As I say, she has no anxiety
disorders and I've never known her to have any such type of panic
attack except on these two occasions. It turned out her best friend
had been killed in a car accident at that moment.

I don't tell you this to persuade, but to make the point that *if* I
was telling the truth, it would be rational in my view for me to
believe that something was at play beyond your "mundane explanation".
I actually don't see anything "supernatural" though. I see something
natural that we don't understand, something that challenges the
material view of mind. It's not scientific evidence, sure, but that
doesn't make it irrational to be persuaded by it.


Yet someone doesn't need "too wild" theories to give possible, but 
unverifiable explanations to those anecdotes. I'll ignore case a) here 
as it's not very interesting and look for what possible explanations you 
could have for it. b) seems good, but let's consider the case where such 
experiences are more repeatable (from your perspective). If considered 
within the context of MWI or COMP, you could conjecture that the cases 
where something hadn't happened, such as your grandmother having a scary 
dream that led her to stop you at some given time from going somewhere 
to your death (dreams are especially good candidates for things that can 
be influenced by more chaotic dynamics and noise, such as things going 
on below the substitution level or at quantum level). To put it another 
way - you can only experience things consistent with you being alive 
(Anthropic principle or more limited forms like Quantum Theory of 
Immortality or COMP Theory of Immortality) - it's all one useful 
coincidence caused by the law of large numbers, from the laws of 
physics/the machines that run you to more deterministic high-level 
physics emerging. Of course, since such a coincidence was a complex, 
many step event, I'd be willing to think that the relative measure of 
one's computations is stacked towards longer (if not even 
non-terminating) computations, thus histories which lead you to longer 
locally stable physics are much more probable than those which lead to 
more non-local unusual continuations, this might very well have to do 
with those self-reference laws and whatever machines mostly won the 
measure battle for this local physics we have now.


As for the other example, I have no idea why your other friend had that 
'attack', I can't see any better explanation for now than just some 
confirmation bias on your part.


As an anecdote, I did have a few of my own short brushes with potential 
death and got saved by some small, but not too unusual coincidences. 
Unlike others which tend to just jump to some organized religion and 
praise some magical being for saving them whenever they have a brush 
with death (or just very unusual coincidences), I just ended up chalking 
them up to slight measure reductions and I hope it didn't lead to too 
much sadness to my friends and family in those branches where 'I' didn't 
survive (assuming COMP or some MW-like theories).


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Qualia and mathematics

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/31/2012 7:28 AM, Pierz wrote:

On Jan 29, 3:44 pm, meekerdb  wrote:

On 1/28/2012 7:05 PM, Pierz wrote:



On Jan 29, 10:57 am, meekerdbwrote:

On 1/28/2012 3:15 PM, Pierz wrote:
These approaches always end up conflating the two, their
proponents getting annoyed with anyone who isn't prepared to wish away

the gap between them.

But most people seem to think that the two are linked; that philosophical 
zombies are
impossible.  Are you asserting that they are possible?

Well of course they are linked. As for the problem of zombies, I of
course have to agree that they seem absurd. But to me the zombie
argument elides the real question, which is the explanation for why
there is anyone home to find the zombies absurd. Why aren't zombies
having this discussion? In the traditional materialist worldview,
there is nothing to explain that. We observe that we aren't, in fact
zombies and then the materialist observes that the his/her predictions
would be the same if there were no consciousness and so s/he loses
interest in the issue and effectively shrugs and says "oh well". But
there are some problems, though I expect you'll have little truck with
them. I could, for  instance, refer you to a study of near death
experiences in the Lancet in which a person in cardiac arrest and
flatlining on the EEG was able to report the presence of a pair of
sneakers on a high window ledge of the hospital during an OBE which he
would have no way of knowing were there. There is a huge amount of
evidence along these lines that consciousness does not in fact
supervene on the physical brain.

No, there is a huge number of anecdotes.


"Anecdotal evidence" is not an oxymoron. But I am not talking about
pure anecdote, but rather phenomenological studies, such as Grof's
original work (see below).


http://records.viu.ca/www/ipp/pdf/NDE.pdf
And when there have been controlled experiments in which signs were placed on 
high shelves
in operating rooms those floating NDE's have not been able to read them.

It's amazing the difference in the standard of evidence expected of a
study that purports to refute a phenomenon outside the conventional
paradigm compared to that expected of a study that claims to provide
evidence for it. We know almost nothing about the study mentioned
except that "it found no evidence" and that seems to be sufficient for
you to cite it, because it confirms your prejudices. If it had claimed
to find evidence, you'd be tearing its methodology to shreds, or
rather going on about the total lack of any methodological explanation
in the above paper.


Other evidence, for instance, comes
from LSD research conducted in the fifties (see Stanislav Grof's
work).

The award winning Dr. 
Grof?http://www.stanislavgrof.com/pdf/Bronze.Delusional.Boulder_2000.pdf

Ridicule is cheap, and does not constitute an argument. Always an
effective means though of discrediting someone with the courage to
express unconventional views. Grof's original research in the fifties
was purely phenomenological, a documentation of hallucinogenic
experiences. He began as a committed materialist, and only slowly was
forced by his observations to a different position. It is so easy to
pile ridicule on anything that is counter to the current paradigm, but
every new worldview began with someone who wasn't afraid to question
orthodoxy.

It seems to me if you accept the logic of Bruno's UDA, you would be
forced into accepting that consciousness cannot be destroyed, because
it belongs to the mathematical realm not the physical  - so nothing in
Grof's research should be intrinsically absurd. How ludicrous would
Many Worlds theory have appeared to Newtonians? They thought that they
almost had the whole answer, and only a tiny explanatory gap remained
to be closed. Only the gap happened to contain all of quantum theory
and relativity, all of modern physics in fact. Nowadays many
scientists believe the same thing - just a few tiny gaps remain - like
where 80% of the universe's mass is, the explanation for
consciousness, and the fact that our two most fundamental theories of
modern science are inconsistent with one another. Small problems to be
fixed with a few tweaks no doubt!


Of course there's also vast and incontrovertible evidence that
consciousness, under normal conditions, does supervene on brain state
and structure, so we are left with an anomaly that in most cases is
resolved by denying the evidence of the exceptions. This is not all
that hard to do when the evidence is to be found  in consciousnesses
of subjects rather than 'instruments' and cannot easily be subjected
to controlled experimental trials. But even a single personal
experience can override the weightiest scientific authority

So all those sightings of ghosts and Elvis override the theory that the dead 
don't roam
around where you can see them.

No, you misunderstand. I am not advocating the uncritical acceptance
of every campfire story. I am talking about the weight that first hand
exper

Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
information to report. Since we can dream or imagine total darkness
without this kind of noise, that would indicate that what we are
seeing in this visual noise is related to the neurology of the optic
nerve and retina rather than Top-down pattern generation. This is
consistent with the multisense realism approach, that we see our own
experience without noise, but when we focus our attention to the
external facing senses, we see through the experiences of the living
tissues of the brain and sense organs, not just 'our own'.

With a representational qualia model, we should expect our visual
system to behave like a window on a computer screen. We should not be
able to see 'static' from the program's logic. Static would come from
the unintended consequence of analog hardware, it has no reasonable
place in a purely computational world, especially since we can easily
conceive of a noiseless visual field. Why the difference between the
total darkness we can see in our experience, memory, and imagination,
and the darkness we can see when we focus on literally looking at
darkness through our eyes?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Quentin Anciaux]

2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 

> When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
> darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
> no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
> information to report.
>

??

WTF ?



> Since we can dream or imagine total darkness
> without this kind of noise, that would indicate that what we are
> seeing in this visual noise is related to the neurology of the optic
> nerve and retina rather than Top-down pattern generation. This is
> consistent with the multisense realism approach, that we see our own
> experience without noise, but when we focus our attention to the
> external facing senses, we see through the experiences of the living
> tissues of the brain and sense organs, not just 'our own'.
>
> With a representational qualia model, we should expect our visual
> system to behave like a window on a computer screen. We should not be
> able to see 'static' from the program's logic. Static would come from
> the unintended consequence of analog hardware, it has no reasonable
> place in a purely computational world, especially since we can easily
> conceive of a noiseless visual field. Why the difference between the
> total darkness we can see in our experience, memory, and imagination,
> and the darkness we can see when we focus on literally looking at
> darkness through our eyes?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 
>
> > When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
> > darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
> > no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
> > information to report.
>
> ??
>
> WTF ?

Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous light show?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Quentin Anciaux]

2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 

> On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> > 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 
> >
> > > When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
> > > darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
> > > no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
> > > information to report.
> >
> > ??
> >
> > WTF ?
>
> Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous light show?
>

Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more stupid
though to discuss in your pocket ?


>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Qualia and mathematics

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 7:28 am, Pierz  wrote:

> It's amazing the difference in the standard of evidence expected of a
> study that purports to refute a phenomenon outside the conventional
> paradigm compared to that expected of a study that claims to provide
> evidence for it.

Yes, there's the Dutch Study too: 
http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm

1 Awareness of being dead   31 (50%)
2 Positive emotions 35 (56%)
3 Out of body experience15 (24%)
4 Moving through a tunnel   19 (31%)
5 Communication with light  14 (23%)
6 Observation of colours14 (23%)
7 Observation of a celestial landscape  18 (29%)
8 Meeting with deceased persons 20 (32%)
9 Life review   8 (13%)
10 Presence of border   5 (8%)


> Ridicule is cheap, and does not constitute an argument.

An important point (and one made well in that great old movie
'Ridicule')

> They thought that they
> almost had the whole answer, and only a tiny explanatory gap remained
> to be closed. Only the gap happened to contain all of quantum theory
> and relativity, all of modern physics in fact.

Yes. Smug certainty is the cholesterol of the heart of science.

> Scientific method is rightly conservative,
> because it must use repeatability etc to establish a body of knowledge
> that is as reliable as possible. It is rational however for the
> individual to be accept a lower standard of evidence in formulating
> his or her beliefs in some cases. In the above example, a single
> experience of a lucid dream is sufficient to disprove the science for
> the individual experiencing it. Working out a way to translate that
> into scientific evidence is another thing.

Right. When you get into studying the thing that makes studying itself
possible, you run into problems if you hold that subjective phenomena
to the same standards that you hold objectively measurable phenomena.
If you start out denying subjectivity from the start, then you have no
chance at understanding anything meaningful about subjectivity.

>
> I'll tell you a campfire story of my own.

Yes, I have had a few incontestably precognitive dreams as well. Time
is not uniform because it's not external to our experience. An event
with high significance can warp the fabric of our perception so that
it begins to happen for us figuratively before the literal event. Big
events have a larger, heavier 'now'. Significance is a concrete part
of reality in the cosmos - it is cumulative negentropy.

> I don't tell you this to persuade, but to make the point that *if* I
> was telling the truth, it would be rational in my view for me to
> believe that something was at play beyond your "mundane explanation".
> I actually don't see anything "supernatural" though. I see something
> natural that we don't understand, something that challenges the
> material view of mind. It's not scientific evidence, sure, but that
> doesn't make it irrational to be persuaded by it.

It's as natural and real as gravity, only through time and perception
rather than local to space and objects.

> Do you think I wouldn't have? When I was a teenager I used to think on
> it all the time, and I formed my own kind of theory of panpsychism. I
> concluded that rudiments of consciousness must exist in atoms. I don't
> know what I think about that any more.

I think that's right, but it's also just as correct to say that atoms
must exist in consciousness. They are opposite ends of a single
(involuted or figuratively twisted) continuum.

> It's not in any case an
> "explanation", but maybe that's not what we will have in the end.
> Whatever ontology we adopt there is always a mystery at the root, some
> "it just is". Either that or another turtle stack. Why does the
> mathematical platonia exist? It just does. Why does the quantum field
> exist? It just does. Or there's something more fundamental that "just
> is". So an ontology that accepts consciousness as fundamental is not
> *intrinsically* weirder than anything else. It's just unfamiliar and
> contrary to a deeply ingrained intellectual habit of the western mind.

Right. I go further though to say that sense is actually fundamental
because it cannot be anything else. It is the method by which all
orientation and coherence is anchored because it is the only thing
that can be defined by definition itself. All logic, arithmetic,
experience, matter, phenomena supervenes explicitly and
unconditionally upon the possibility of detection or coherence.

> Anyway I doubt that it will be an explanation that "explains away".
> Deutsch believes there will be an explanation for qualia one day, and
> it will help us to build the first truly intelligent, conscious
> machines. I don't know about that. He also thinks we could run such an
> intelligent program on a PC with today's resources. I'm pretty sure
> he's dead wrong on that.

Qualia is the explanation. That's the problem is our approach is
backwards. You don't explain qualia, qualia explains the universe.

Cr

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 12:03 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more stupid
> though to discuss in your pocket ?
>

Empty ridicule. Must have hit a nerve. Why not explain why I'm wrong
instead?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[acw]

On 1/31/2012 18:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:

When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
information to report. Since we can dream or imagine total darkness
without this kind of noise, that would indicate that what we are
seeing in this visual noise is related to the neurology of the optic
nerve and retina rather than Top-down pattern generation. This is
consistent with the multisense realism approach, that we see our own
experience without noise, but when we focus our attention to the
external facing senses, we see through the experiences of the living
tissues of the brain and sense organs, not just 'our own'.

With a representational qualia model, we should expect our visual
system to behave like a window on a computer screen. We should not be
able to see 'static' from the program's logic. Static would come from
the unintended consequence of analog hardware, it has no reasonable
place in a purely computational world, especially since we can easily
conceive of a noiseless visual field. Why the difference between the
total darkness we can see in our experience, memory, and imagination,
and the darkness we can see when we focus on literally looking at
darkness through our eyes?



There is absolutely nothing contradicting COMP about seeing noise when 
other patterns are not being organized by the cortex's hierarchy - no 
correction/prediction occurs (such as in HTM models).


Let's take it one step at a time, first all the images captured by the 
eye or even an ideal photon receptor are noisy, this has nothing to do 
with analog and everything to do with how photons and photon detectors work.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise
> Image noise can also originate in film grain and in *the unavoidable 
shot noise of an ideal photon detector*.


A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the 
eye, actually probably less than the eye.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow

> Closed-eye hallucinations and closed-eye visualizations (CEV) are a 
distinct class of hallucination. These types of hallucinations generally 
only occur when one's eyes are closed or when one is in a darkened room. 
They are a form of phosphene.

..
> The noise probably originates from thermal noise exciting the 
photoreceptor cells in the retina


Why don't we see clean images instead of a noisy convoluted mess during 
our daily lives? Because we actually "see" patterns which also happen to 
"correct" the input data (look at the hierarchical structure of the 
cortex or read "On Intelligence" for some examples. I could also link 
some PLoS articles about this, but I don't have them handy right now.) - 
we don't usually see raw unfiltered inputs.


Static and noise can occur just as well within COMP - they are 
incredibly common within the UD at various levels. Set up a system with 
some random rules and you have a good chance of observing noise. Noise 
is so damn easy to make... However, if considered from the COMP 
perspective, even incompressible noise (Kolmogorov random) is very 
common due to 1p indeterminacy. I think you must have the wrong 
conception about what COMP really is.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Joseph Knight]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

>
>
> 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 
>
>> On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>> > 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 
>> >
>> > > When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
>> > > darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
>> > > no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
>> > > information to report.
>> >
>> > ??
>> >
>> > WTF ?
>>
>> Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous light show?
>>
>
> Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more stupid
> though to discuss in your pocket ?
>

I am debating with myself the matter of whether or not Craig is a troll.

He commits the cardinal sin of not being willing to learn the basic ideas
of a realm of discourse, before trying to demonstrate important results in
that realm. I tried talking to him a couple of times but he refused to meet
me halfway by understanding the real meaning of rigorous terms like
computation. He has surely spent enough time on this list to have at least
some grasp of, say, what COMP actually says, but he shows no evidence of
it. I can only chalk this up to laziness. Worse, much of his writing reads
like one of these generative postmodernist
essays.
I am tempted to give him the Baez treatment, but I don't want to fan the
flames.


>
>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>



-- 
Joseph Knight

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Information: a basic physical quantity or rather emergence/supervenience phenomenon

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012  Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> I just explained


3 days after learning that the subject even existed here we sit at your
feet while you explain all about it to us.


> > that Shannon information has nothing to do with anything except data
> compression.


Except for data compression? Except for identifying the core, must have,
part of any message. Except for telling us exactly what's important and
what is not. Except for showing how to build things like the internet.

Except for that Mrs. Lincoln how did you like the play?

Shannon can tell you how many books can be sent over a noisy wire in a
given amout of time without error, and if you're willing to tolerate a few
errors Shannon can tell you how to send even more. If the contents of books
is not information what do you call the contents of books?

> Nothing can become a 'file' without irreversible loss.
>

Ah, well, that explains why I can't make heads or tails out of your ideas,
all I've seen is your mail files, now if I'd seen your original glorious
Email just as it was as you typed it on your computer screen with no
irreversible loss I would have long ago become convinced you were right and
were in fact the second coming of Issac Newton. So when you respond to this
post please don't send me a file full of irreversible loss, send me your
ORIGINAL, send me the real deal.


> > The terms signal and noise refer to information (signal) and entropy
> (noise). Get it straight.


One man's signal is another man's noise, to a fan of hisses and clicks and
pops the music is the noise.  First you decide what you want to call the
signal and then Shannon can tell you what the signal to noise ratio is and
he can show you ways to improve it.

>> And your way of dealing with it is to say it (bits electrons information
>> logic etc) does not exist. I would never have guessed that coming up with a
>> theory of everything could be so easy.
>>
>
> If you understand my hypothesis then you will see there is no reason to
> think they exist.


Then I dearly hope my mind never goes so soft that I understand your
hypothesis.

> Just as you think free will has no reason to exist.
>

No no a thousand times no! Free will would have to improve dramatically
before it could have the lofty property of "nonexistence"; free will is a
idea so bad its not even wrong.


> > I thought Foucault's Discipline and Punish was one of the most
> interesting books I've ever read.
>

I don't consider social criticism a part of philosophy even if I agree with
it because it always includes matters of taste. Professional philosophers
might write interesting books about history or about what society should or
should not do, but none of them have contributed to our understanding of
the nature of reality in centuries. That's not to say philosophy hasn't
made progress, it just wasn't made by philosophers.

> Feynman I think would have been intrigued by my ideas
>

Delusions of grandeur.

 John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/31/2012 12:48 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:



On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote:




2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>>

On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>>
>
> > When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in
total
> > darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should
expect that
> > no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since
there is no
> > information to report.
>
> ??
>
> WTF ?

Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous
light show?


Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more
stupid though to discuss in your pocket ?


I am debating with myself the matter of whether or not Craig is a troll.

He commits the cardinal sin of not being willing to learn the basic 
ideas of a realm of discourse, before trying to demonstrate important 
results in that realm. I tried talking to him a couple of times but he 
refused to meet me halfway by understanding the real meaning of 
rigorous terms like computation. He has surely spent enough time on 
this list to have at least some grasp of, say, what COMP actually 
says, but he shows no evidence of it. I can only chalk this up to 
laziness. Worse, much of his writing reads like one of these 
generative postmodernist essays . I am 
tempted to give him the Baez treatment, but I don't want to fan the 
flames.




Hi,

In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however trolling 
or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying hard to think 
outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in like the ball in a game 
of Pong. How does science advance unless people are willing to 
contemplate alternative ideas?


Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Joseph Knight]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>  On 1/31/2012 12:48 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>  2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 
>>
>>> On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>>> > 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 
>>> >
>>> > > When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
>>> > > darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
>>> > > no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
>>> > > information to report.
>>> >
>>> > ??
>>> >
>>> > WTF ?
>>>
>>>  Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous light show?
>>>
>>
>> Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more stupid
>> though to discuss in your pocket ?
>>
>
>  I am debating with myself the matter of whether or not Craig is a troll.
>
>  He commits the cardinal sin of not being willing to learn the basic
> ideas of a realm of discourse, before trying to demonstrate important
> results in that realm. I tried talking to him a couple of times but he
> refused to meet me halfway by understanding the real meaning of rigorous
> terms like computation. He has surely spent enough time on this list to
> have at least some grasp of, say, what COMP actually says, but he shows no
> evidence of it. I can only chalk this up to laziness. Worse, much of his
> writing reads like one of these generative postmodernist 
> essays.
> I am tempted to give him the Baez treatment, but I don't want to fan the
> flames.
>
>
>>
>>
>  Hi,
>
> In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however trolling or
> postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying hard to think outside
> of the box that you guys are gyrating in like the ball in a game of Pong.
> How does science advance unless people are willing to contemplate
> alternative ideas?
>

First of all, I do not think Craig *intends *to come off as a troll or a
postmodernist.

I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some
astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig
to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make useful
progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?


>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>



-- 
Joseph Knight

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

[John Clark]

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012  Craig Weinberg  wrote:

>
> > The Limbic system predates the Neocortex evolutionarily.


As I've said on this list many times.


> > There is no reason to think that emotion emerged after intelligence.
>

And as I've said emotion is about 500 million years old but Evolution found
intelligence much harder to produce, it only figured out how to do it about
a million years ago, perhaps less.

> Evolution doesn't see anything.


Don't be ridiculous.

> Which thoughtless fallacy should I choose? Oh right, I have no free will
> anyhow so some reason will choose for me.
>

Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII string "free will" means.


> > You asked what influenced my theory. You don't see how Tesla relates to
> lightning and electromagnetism?
>

I made a Tesla Coil when I was 14, it was great fun looked great and really
impressed the rubes, but I don't see the relevance to the subject at hand.

> That is exactly what the cosmos is - things happening for a reason and
> not happening for a
> reason at the same time.
>

And you expect this sort of new age crapola to actually lead to something,
like a basic understanding of how the world works? Dream on. But then again
it might work if you're right about logic not existing.

> Is there anyone noteworthy in the history of human progress who has not
> been called insane?
>

Richard Feynman.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Qualia and mathematics

[meekerdb]

On 1/31/2012 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's the reason mind exist, it accelerate the processing much more quickly. In fact, 
just by software change, the slower machine can always beat the faster machines, on 
almost inputs, except a finite number of them.


I can accept that intuitively, but can you point to a technical proof?

thnx, Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 12:45 pm, acw  wrote:

>
> A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
> eye, actually probably less than the eye.

Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap on?
I just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens
with my hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever. If I unplug the
monitor from my computer but leave it powered on - no snow.

>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucinationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow
>
>  > Closed-eye hallucinations and closed-eye visualizations (CEV) are a
> distinct class of hallucination. These types of hallucinations generally
> only occur when one's eyes are closed or when one is in a darkened room.
> They are a form of phosphene.

Phosphene is nothing more than a name. Calling them hallucinations is
a loaded term. They are visual qualia, to me pretty obviously related
to the physical neurology of the optical system and not to any
computational interpretation software. You all can disagree, but I
know that what I see seems like analog 'respiration', not digital
representation.

> ..
>  > The noise probably originates from thermal noise exciting the
> photoreceptor cells in the retina

That should be easy enough to test. The point though, is that it has
no business leaking into our visual software. No computer has
comparable thermal noise that leaks into the software, does it? You
can get RF interference, sure, but why would a program tuned precisely
to represent some things and not others include unfiltered noise in
it's representation? I know it's not evidence that contradicts comp,
but it's not supportive of it at all.

>
> Why don't we see clean images instead of a noisy convoluted mess during
> our daily lives? Because we actually "see" patterns which also happen to
> "correct" the input data (look at the hierarchical structure of the
> cortex or read "On Intelligence" for some examples. I could also link
> some PLoS articles about this, but I don't have them handy right now.) -
> we don't usually see raw unfiltered inputs.

We shouldn't ever see raw unfiltered inputs, that's why the phosphene
doesn't make sense as a filtered process.

>
> Static and noise can occur just as well within COMP - they are
> incredibly common within the UD at various levels. Set up a system with
> some random rules and you have a good chance of observing noise. Noise
> is so damn easy to make... However, if considered from the COMP
> perspective, even incompressible noise (Kolmogorov random) is very
> common due to 1p indeterminacy. I think you must have the wrong
> conception about what COMP really is.

Noise should either be unavoidable or absent, not present if we pay
attention to the front of our visual field and absent if we visualize
darkness. The fact that there is a difference for human vision behind
closed eyes and within the mind's eye would need to be explained.

I don't know what people think I don't understand about COMP is. It
makes perfect sense to me, it just happens to be exactly wrong in the
real world. In a theoretical world, COMP is the way to go, definitely.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Quentin Anciaux]

2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 

> On Jan 31, 12:45 pm, acw  wrote:
>
> >
> > A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
> > eye, actually probably less than the eye.
>
> Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap on?
> I just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens
> with my hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever. If I unplug the
> monitor from my computer but leave it powered on - no snow.
>
> >
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucinationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow
> >
> >  > Closed-eye hallucinations and closed-eye visualizations (CEV) are a
> > distinct class of hallucination. These types of hallucinations generally
> > only occur when one's eyes are closed or when one is in a darkened room.
> > They are a form of phosphene.
>
> Phosphene is nothing more than a name. Calling them hallucinations is
> a loaded term. They are visual qualia, to me pretty obviously related
> to the physical neurology of the optical system and not to any
> computational interpretation software. You all can disagree, but I
> know that what I see seems like analog 'respiration', not digital
> representation.
>
> > ..
> >  > The noise probably originates from thermal noise exciting the
> > photoreceptor cells in the retina
>
> That should be easy enough to test. The point though, is that it has
> no business leaking into our visual software. No computer has
> comparable thermal noise that leaks into the software, does it? You
> can get RF interference, sure, but why would a program tuned precisely
> to represent some things and not others include unfiltered noise in
> it's representation? I know it's not evidence that contradicts comp,
> but it's not supportive of it at all.
>
> >
> > Why don't we see clean images instead of a noisy convoluted mess during
> > our daily lives? Because we actually "see" patterns which also happen to
> > "correct" the input data (look at the hierarchical structure of the
> > cortex or read "On Intelligence" for some examples. I could also link
> > some PLoS articles about this, but I don't have them handy right now.) -
> > we don't usually see raw unfiltered inputs.
>
> We shouldn't ever see raw unfiltered inputs, that's why the phosphene
> doesn't make sense as a filtered process.
>
> >
> > Static and noise can occur just as well within COMP - they are
> > incredibly common within the UD at various levels. Set up a system with
> > some random rules and you have a good chance of observing noise. Noise
> > is so damn easy to make... However, if considered from the COMP
> > perspective, even incompressible noise (Kolmogorov random) is very
> > common due to 1p indeterminacy. I think you must have the wrong
> > conception about what COMP really is.
>
> Noise should either be unavoidable or absent, not present if we pay
> attention to the front of our visual field and absent if we visualize
> darkness. The fact that there is a difference for human vision behind
> closed eyes and within the mind's eye would need to be explained.
>
> I don't know what people think I don't understand about COMP is. It
> makes perfect sense to me, it just happens to be exactly wrong in the
> real world. In a theoretical world, COMP is the way to go, definitely.
>

A conscious program should involves deep computation and self reflection,
visual qualia "inputs" are not only from visual sensors but also from
internal parts like in human.

Also when you close your eyes, your sensor still receive stimuli from the
eyes. Only in total blackness would you see black, but you'll still receive
information from other senses and parts of your brain. You never have "no
inputs". Even in sense deprivation tanks, you have your own mind inputs. A
conscious computation should not stop processing like our consciousness.

But whatever, between your continuous straw man arguments, or your
illumination on a subject matter, it's becoming more and more boring
reading you.

If blackness qualia when closing your eyes was a valid refutation of comp
it would be hilarious.

Quentin


>
> Craig
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight  wrote:

> I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some
> astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig
> to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make useful
> progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?

What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP? The problem
is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view, and there
is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
Walkman designs from when I was 12.

What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines? I understand
that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
so many things, including computers, but that doesn't impress me
because I understand that computers are only computers because users
are using them that way. Otherwise they are just humming boxes.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[meekerdb]

On 1/31/2012 11:11 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Also when you close your eyes, your sensor still receive stimuli from the eyes. Only in 
total blackness would you see black, but you'll still receive information from other 
senses and parts of your brain. You never have "no inputs". Even in sense deprivation 
tanks, you have your own mind inputs. A conscious computation should not stop processing 
like our consciousness.


I have not been able to find the reference, but I remember reading, back in the 60's when 
sensory deprivation was the new fad, that persons staying in sensory deprivation more than 
about 45min had their conscious thoughts go into a loop.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Joseph Knight]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight  wrote:
>
> > I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some
> > astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig
> > to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make
> useful
> > progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?
>
> What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP?


Let's start with the basics. I know that you don't understand what a
computer is, since you claim a bit later that it is a "humming box". In an
earlier post you said 'computers are arrays of semiconductor materials
arranged to conduct electrical current in a dynamic and orderly fashion'.
Wrong. When I directed you to an article explaining why you are wrong, you
replied "you're pointing me to references to Boolean algebra". Boolean
algebra was not mentioned even once on the page! You didn't read it!
Laziness.


> The problem
> is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view


I don't think anyone on this list understands your view, except perhaps
yourself. Who is to blame?


> , and there
> is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
> comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
> you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
> computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
> Walkman designs from when I was 12.


Cool.


>


> What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
> Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines?


Among other things.


> I understand
> that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
> so many things,


They certainly can simulate many things. However, I have seen you conflate
simulations run by scientists working with simplified models of something,
with the kind of simulation that matters when we talk about the
computational theory of mind.


> including computers, but that doesn't impress me
> because I understand that computers are only computers because users
> are using them that way.


Ludicrous, and this only reinforces my suspicion that you have no idea what
a "computer", conceived mathematically, actually is.


> Otherwise they are just humming boxes.
>

See above.


>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
Joseph Knight

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[acw]

On 1/31/2012 19:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jan 31, 12:45 pm, acw  wrote:



A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
eye, actually probably less than the eye.


Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap on?
First, the eyes don't have a perfect lens cap, photons get through quite 
well. Second, no, but I've seen photos taken in almost (as was feasible 
to be) dark rooms, and there tends to be some noise, if you don't see 
it, try using some filters to better differentiate the pixels.

I just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens
with my hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever.

Check the pixel values directly then.
In an very dark room, a human might as well not perceive any noise as 
well. Noise is perceived when there's still a few photons here and there 
hitting the retina.



If I unplug the
monitor from my computer but leave it powered on - no snow.
That's normal if you have a DVI or HDMI digital display - if the data is 
transmitted digitally, that greatly reduces the chances of it getting 
damaged. The problem I was talking about wasn't as much about display 
and transmitting as much as of the limitation of an ideal photon 
detector. I've seen you mention Feynman and QED - surely that would have 
given you a decent understanding on the limitations of capture devices 
(and no, QM does not contradicted by COMP: COMP predicts the 1p 
indeterminacy which gives rise locally to some QM/observational laws).






http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucinationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow

  >  Closed-eye hallucinations and closed-eye visualizations (CEV) are a
distinct class of hallucination. These types of hallucinations generally
only occur when one's eyes are closed or when one is in a darkened room.
They are a form of phosphene.


Phosphene is nothing more than a name. Calling them hallucinations is
a loaded term. They are visual qualia, to me pretty obviously related
to the physical neurology of the optical system and not to any
computational interpretation software. You all can disagree, but I
know that what I see seems like analog 'respiration', not digital
representation.

I take it you didn't read the rest of the article? The noise is inherent 
in any accurate simulation of such systems, be they the eye, an ideal 
photon detector or some quantum systems.
Sure, hallucinations is a term, but is it 'wrong'? If for some reason 
I've been very tired and my cognitive load is high, my brain could start 
making errors when recognizing certain patterns - I would be 
hallucinating as whatever it is I was perceiving wasn't the correct 
perception. Any such mismatches would be hallucinations. Feed just noise 
into a neural network and you'll be sure it'll be making errors, and 
thus "hallucinate" - how do you think dreaming works? If what you 
perceive is likely 3p correct, it's not a hallucination. OF course, 3p 
being an inference done from the 1p, you can only bet on what is real 
and what isn't, you cannot ever truly know, and with COMP, real is just 
sharable reality.


Also, you are very sure about your raw access to "analog" data, I wonder 
where you derive that confidence from. I have absolutely no way of 
knowing I have *direct* access to any analog data, actually I would be 
very skeptical of that, because of the implications it would have for 
local physics. Even with qualia, I don't see infinitely complex details 
- the only thing that I can communicate is that my view is coherent and 
unified.



..
  >  The noise probably originates from thermal noise exciting the
photoreceptor cells in the retina


That should be easy enough to test. The point though, is that it has
no business leaking into our visual software. No computer has
comparable thermal noise that leaks into the software, does it? You
can get RF interference, sure, but why would a program tuned precisely
to represent some things and not others include unfiltered noise in
it's representation? I know it's not evidence that contradicts comp,
but it's not supportive of it at all.

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by 'leaking'. If the 
data that I captured is noisy (such as visual data), the software will 
handle noisy data. Nothing more, nothing less. If I do some image 
recognition or filter or *dynamically reconstruct* the image, it may 
look much cleaner, which is not that much different from what our visual 
system is *sometimes* doing (when it was enough matching patterns).


Why don't we see clean images instead of a noisy convoluted mess during
our daily lives? Because we actually "see" patterns which also happen to
"correct" the input data (look at the hierarchical structure of the
cortex or read "On Intelligence" for some examples. I could also link
some PLoS articles about this, but I don't have them handy right now.) -
we don't usually see raw unfiltered inputs.


We shouldn't ever see raw unfiltered inputs, that

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Terren Suydam]

Craig,

The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
movie's premise that seems impossible to you?

Terren

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight  wrote:
>
>> I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some
>> astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig
>> to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make useful
>> progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?
>
> What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP? The problem
> is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view, and there
> is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
> comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
> you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
> computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
> Walkman designs from when I was 12.
>
> What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
> Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines? I understand
> that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
> so many things, including computers, but that doesn't impress me
> because I understand that computers are only computers because users
> are using them that way. Otherwise they are just humming boxes.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:11, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/31/2012 12:48 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:




On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Quentin Anciaux  
 wrote:



2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 
On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 
>
> > When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
> > darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect  
that
> > no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there  
is no

> > information to report.
>
> ??
>
> WTF ?

Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous light show?

Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more  
stupid though to discuss in your pocket ?


I am debating with myself the matter of whether or not Craig is a  
troll.


He commits the cardinal sin of not being willing to learn the basic  
ideas of a realm of discourse, before trying to demonstrate  
important results in that realm. I tried talking to him a couple of  
times but he refused to meet me halfway by understanding the real  
meaning of rigorous terms like computation. He has surely spent  
enough time on this list to have at least some grasp of, say, what  
COMP actually says, but he shows no evidence of it. I can only  
chalk this up to laziness. Worse, much of his writing reads like  
one of these generative postmodernist essays. I am tempted to give  
him the Baez treatment, but I don't want to fan the flames.




Hi,

In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however  
trolling or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying hard  
to think outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in like the  
ball in a game of Pong. How does science advance unless people are  
willing to contemplate alternative ideas?


I don't see any alternative idea or theory. When he says that qualia  
explains the universe, that fits with the proven consequences of comp,  
where quanta are case of qualia. He is not bad at introspection, he  
might grasp comp a little bit, but he does not try to submit a theory  
in the usual meaning of the terms. So we can't help.


Stephen, don't confuse comp, as used as a "pretext for not addressing  
the mind-body problem by materialist", and what we can already see  
from a formulation of the mind body problem when computationalism is  
taken seriously into account. This already leads to a rational  
alternative, if not reversal.


To be frank, you fail also to provide a theory, as your notion of  
"Existence" illustrates. Existence of what? You never answered.


It is not because we have put the qualia and consciousness under the  
rug for a long time, that we can reify our own experiences in the  
theories. That remains unscientific. What we can do consists in making  
clear our assumptions, reason, compare with observation, etc.


Craig's theory is ethically problematical, like sects or government  
which forbids the practice of some medicine.
And this lack of ethicalness is directly a consequence of its 1p  
personal reification, in the sense that he talks like if he knew a  
truth. This is a symptom of pseudo-religion, pseudo-philosophy, which  
might perhaps not been tolerated (as we know where that kind of  
thinking can lead).


Craig pretended it would be OK for his daughter to marry a man with a  
digital brain, but that he would still consider his daughter marrying  
a zombie, or something else non human. That's looks like an open mind,  
but he does not seems to realize that his possible disciples might  
differ on that. It is like Obama signing statement (after signing the  
bill NDAA), where he says that he will personally not use the notes,  
without realizing apparently that the next president might.


Craig seems to lack the amount of doubt which makes the scientist   
aware that he can only modestly suggesting theories, and try them.
It is annoying when the consequences are segregationist. Craig should  
be more neutral, avoid reference to word like "ream" and "true", and  
work out a more intelligible theory, if he want to progress.
Not sure Craig is a troll, but he might become one, if he does not try  
to grasp the notion of "scientific theories".


At some point it looks like Craig want science to commit the error  
which has been done in religion/theology.
My point is that with comp there is a clear way to undo that error in  
the field of (number's) theology.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 2:11 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:

> A conscious program should involves deep computation and self reflection,
> visual qualia "inputs" are not only from visual sensors but also from
> internal parts like in human.
>
> Also when you close your eyes, your sensor still receive stimuli from the
> eyes. Only in total blackness would you see black,

I can see black in my imagination anytime I want.

> but you'll still receive
> information from other senses and parts of your brain. You never have "no
> inputs". Even in sense deprivation tanks, you have your own mind inputs. A
> conscious computation should not stop processing like our consciousness.

As soon as we start falling asleep though, the noise goes away. Noise
should either be unavoidable or intentionally included in comp. What
our visual sense seems to do it both in different contexts.

>
> But whatever, between your continuous straw man arguments, or your
> illumination on a subject matter, it's becoming more and more boring
> reading you.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

> If blackness qualia when closing your eyes was a valid refutation of comp
> it would be hilarious.

Of course, because religious faith cannot be refuted by mere truth. If
going into total darkness created no noise, I would take that as
supporting comp.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Quentin Anciaux]

2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 

> On Jan 31, 2:11 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
>
> > A conscious program should involves deep computation and self reflection,
> > visual qualia "inputs" are not only from visual sensors but also from
> > internal parts like in human.
> >
> > Also when you close your eyes, your sensor still receive stimuli from the
> > eyes. Only in total blackness would you see black,
>
> I can see black in my imagination anytime I want.
>

Straw man

>
> > but you'll still receive
> > information from other senses and parts of your brain. You never have "no
> > inputs". Even in sense deprivation tanks, you have your own mind inputs.
> A
> > conscious computation should not stop processing like our consciousness.
>
> As soon as we start falling asleep though, the noise goes away. Noise
> should either be unavoidable or intentionally included in comp.


Non sensical.


> What
> our visual sense seems to do it both in different contexts.
>
> >
> > But whatever, between your continuous straw man arguments, or your
> > illumination on a subject matter, it's becoming more and more boring
> > reading you.
>
> Nobody is holding a gun to your head.
>
> > If blackness qualia when closing your eyes was a valid refutation of comp
> > it would be hilarious.
>
> Of course, because religious faith cannot be refuted by mere truth. If
> going into total darkness created no noise, I would take that as
> supporting comp.
>
> As hilarious as the refutation by closing your eyes.


>  Craig
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

[John Mikes]

Craig and Brent:
would you kindly disclose an opinion that can be
deemed  "SUPPORTED"

All our 'support' (evidence, verification whatever) comes from mostly
uninformed information fragments we receive by observation(?) of the
already accessible details and try to complete them by the available
'knowledge' already established as "conventional science" stuff.
We use instruments, constructed to work on the just described portion of
observations and evaluate the 'received'(?) data by our flimsy
(*human?)*mathematical logic ONLY.
Just compare "opinions" (scientific that is) of different ages before (and
after) different levels of accepted (and believed!) informational basis
(like Flat Earth, BEFORE electricity, BEFORE Marie Curie, Watson, etc.)

My "worldview" (and my narrative, of course) is also based on UNSUPPORTED
OPINION:  "mine".

John Mikes

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 6:54 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

> On 1/30/2012 3:14 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> On Jan 30, 6:08 pm, meekerdb   
> wrote:
>
> On 1/30/2012 2:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> So kind of you to inform us of your unsupported opinion.
>
> I was commenting on your unsupported opinion.
>
>
>
> Except that my opinion is supported by the fact that within the context of
> chess the machine acts just like a person who had those emotions.  So it
> had at least the functional equivalent of those emotions. Whereas your
> opinion is simple prejudice.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, Joseph Knight  wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight  wrote:
>
> > > I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some
> > > astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig
> > > to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make
> > useful
> > > progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?
>
> > What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP?
>
> Let's start with the basics. I know that you don't understand what a
> computer is, since you claim a bit later that it is a "humming box". In an
> earlier post you said 'computers are arrays of semiconductor materials
> arranged to conduct electrical current in a dynamic and orderly fashion'.
> Wrong. When I directed you to an article explaining why you are wrong, you
> replied "you're pointing me to references to Boolean algebra". Boolean
> algebra was not mentioned even once on the page! You didn't read it!
> Laziness.

Not laziness. I'm just not in the business of doing errands for
strangers on the internet. I'm not your student. I understand that the
term computer *can* apply to anything that can be used to perform
computation (I use the abacus as an example too, steam powered
machines, whatever). Obviously from my wording I am talking about
contemporary electronic computers. This kind of semantic nitpicking is
the lowest form of argumentative desperation.

>
> > The problem
> > is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view
>
> I don't think anyone on this list understands your view, except perhaps
> yourself. Who is to blame?

You can blame me if you want, but it makes no difference. You can
either try to understand what I mean or not, that's fine, but you
aren't telling me anything I don't already know so I'm not curious
about your views.

>
> > , and there
> > is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
> > comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
> > you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
> > computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
> > Walkman designs from when I was 12.
>
> Cool.
>
>
>
> > What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
> > Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines?
>
> Among other things.
>
> > I understand
> > that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
> > so many things,
>
> They certainly can simulate many things. However, I have seen you conflate
> simulations run by scientists working with simplified models of something,

I'm doing that intentionally to strip away the confusion and think
about it in a clearer, more truthful way.

> with the kind of simulation that matters when we talk about the
> computational theory of mind.
>
> > including computers, but that doesn't impress me
> > because I understand that computers are only computers because users
> > are using them that way.
>
> Ludicrous, and this only reinforces my suspicion that you have no idea what
> a "computer", conceived mathematically, actually is.

It sounds like you are asserting some special case definition of the
word computer. A computer is anything that can be used to compute. It
doesn't have to be a material object, in theory, I understand that. In
practice though *all* known computation eventually has a physical
layer, even if it's neurological. If I make a virtual server (and I am
a network engineer MCSE, CCEA btw) it still runs on a real hardware
node as if it were a real server. There is no virtualization without
physics underwriting it. I understand that what I say on this subject
is provocative and doesn't make sense to you. That's because you are
only focused on my being wrong and fail to give my ideas the slightest
unbiased consideration. It doesn't mean you're a jerk, it just means
you are typical. I'm not interested in typical though.

> > Otherwise they are just humming boxes.
>
> See above.

Yeah, I know. I'm a big moron because I used the word computer to
refer to computers and not the mathematically defined theoretical
conception of computation.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydam  wrote:
> Craig,
>
> The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
> movie's premise that seems impossible to you?

It's possible to simulate a world for a person but it is not possible
to simulate the sense of being a person. I have no problem with full
sensory substitution, but I understand that there cannot be a
replacement for sense itself. Something real and physical ultimately
has to interpret anything to give it sense, otherwise it is non-sense.
A program is real in a mind, and real in software, but unless the
software is enacted literally on a physical machine or organism at the
bottom level, there is no reality.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Quentin Anciaux]

2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 

> On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydam  wrote:
> > Craig,
> >
> > The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
> > movie's premise that seems impossible to you?
>
> It's possible to simulate a world for a person but it is not possible
> to simulate the sense of being a person. I have no problem with full
> sensory substitution, but I understand that there cannot be a
> replacement for sense itself. Something real and physical ultimately
> has to interpret anything to give it sense, otherwise it is non-sense.
> A program is real in a mind, and real in software, but unless the
> software is enacted literally on a physical machine or organism at the
> bottom level, there is no reality.
>

How do you know there is a bottom level ? Reality did told you so ?

That in your theory you posit a bottom level why not... but here you know
it, so is it too much to ask you how you know so ?

Why a human is able to "interpret" himself and a program couldn't ? Where
does sense come from in you theory ? How meaning arises ? Why something ?

Quentin


>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>


-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Quentin Anciaux]

2012/1/31 meekerdb 

>  On 1/31/2012 11:11 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Also when you close your eyes, your sensor still receive stimuli from the
> eyes. Only in total blackness would you see black, but you'll still receive
> information from other senses and parts of your brain. You never have "no
> inputs". Even in sense deprivation tanks, you have your own mind inputs. A
> conscious computation should not stop processing like our consciousness.
>
>
> I have not been able to find the reference, but I remember reading, back
> in the 60's when sensory deprivation was the new fad, that persons staying
> in sensory deprivation more than about 45min had their conscious thoughts
> go into a loop.
>

If you find some reference about that I'd be interested.

But even in a loop... consciousness does not stop ;)


>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Terren Suydam]

What if a baby is fed a virtual reality from the day it was born?
Assume that (as in the movie) the sensory inputs are rich enough that
if we were to experience it, we would be hard pressed to detect that
it was a virtual reality.

If the baby grows up in a virtual world, complete with rich social
interaction, then why wouldn't she still develop a sense of
personhood?   What is it about the source of the sensory data that
prohibits personhood from developing?

Terren

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydam  wrote:
>> Craig,
>>
>> The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
>> movie's premise that seems impossible to you?
>
> It's possible to simulate a world for a person but it is not possible
> to simulate the sense of being a person. I have no problem with full
> sensory substitution, but I understand that there cannot be a
> replacement for sense itself. Something real and physical ultimately
> has to interpret anything to give it sense, otherwise it is non-sense.
> A program is real in a mind, and real in software, but unless the
> software is enacted literally on a physical machine or organism at the
> bottom level, there is no reality.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at 
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Joseph Knight]

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

> On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, Joseph Knight  wrote:
> > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Craig Weinberg  >wrote:
> >
> > > On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight  wrote:
> >
> > > > I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring
> some
> > > > astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for
> Craig
> > > > to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make
> > > useful
> > > > progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?
> >
> > > What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP?
> >
> > Let's start with the basics. I know that you don't understand what a
> > computer is, since you claim a bit later that it is a "humming box". In
> an
> > earlier post you said 'computers are arrays of semiconductor materials
> > arranged to conduct electrical current in a dynamic and orderly fashion'.
> > Wrong. When I directed you to an article explaining why you are wrong,
> you
> > replied "you're pointing me to references to Boolean algebra". Boolean
> > algebra was not mentioned even once on the page! You didn't read it!
> > Laziness.
>
> Not laziness. I'm just not in the business of doing errands for
> strangers on the internet.


When someone tells you you are wrong, you are not interested in seeing if
they are correct? Laziness, or worse, trolling. Convince me otherwise.


> I'm not your student. I understand that the
> term computer *can* apply to anything that can be used to perform
> computation (I use the abacus as an example too, steam powered
> machines, whatever). Obviously from my wording I am talking about
> contemporary electronic computers.


In that context, and indeed essentially all contexts on this list, the
precise definition was the one being employed.


> This kind of semantic nitpicking is
> the lowest form of argumentative desperation.
>

No, we need to know exactly what each other means when they use a word if
we are to make any progress. So there's a problem when you use one word to
refer to two quite different things.


>
> >
> > > The problem
> > > is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view
> >
> > I don't think anyone on this list understands your view, except perhaps
> > yourself. Who is to blame?
>
> You can blame me if you want, but it makes no difference. You can
> either try to understand what I mean or not,


I certainly have tried, and failed, repeatedly. I haven't personally
inquired about it because others have, and you have been less than helpful
for them. You invent dozens of new terms, abuse the meanings of dozens of
commonly used terms from science and philosophyI don't see any concrete
predictions about the result of an experiment, any falsifiability, or any
concern for precision.


> that's fine, but you
> aren't telling me anything I don't already know so I'm not curious
> about your views.
>
> >
> > > , and there
> > > is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
> > > comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
> > > you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
> > > computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
> > > Walkman designs from when I was 12.
> >
> > Cool.
> >
> >
> >
> > > What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
> > > Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines?
> >
> > Among other things.
> >
> > > I understand
> > > that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
> > > so many things,
> >
> > They certainly can simulate many things. However, I have seen you
> conflate
> > simulations run by scientists working with simplified models of
> something,
>
> I'm doing that intentionally to strip away the confusion and think
> about it in a clearer, more truthful way.
>

Hold on -- you are purposefully causing confusion in order to strip away
confusion?


>
> > with the kind of simulation that matters when we talk about the
> > computational theory of mind.
> >
> > > including computers, but that doesn't impress me
> > > because I understand that computers are only computers because users
> > > are using them that way.
> >
> > Ludicrous, and this only reinforces my suspicion that you have no idea
> what
> > a "computer", conceived mathematically, actually is.
>
> It sounds like you are asserting some special case definition of the
> word computer.


I never asserted anything.


> A computer is anything that can be used to compute. It
> doesn't have to be a material object, in theory, I understand that. In
> practice though *all* known computation eventually has a physical
> layer, even if it's neurological. If I make a virtual server (and I am
> a network engineer MCSE, CCEA btw) it still runs on a real hardware
> node as if it were a real server. There is no virtualization without
> physics underwriting it. I understand that what I say on this subject
> is provocative and doe

Help with mailing list configuration

[Johnathan Corgan]

I have a filter set in my mail software such that any Everything List
thread that has more than 20% of the comments by Craig Weinberg gets
put into a special folder.  I find this helps me to prioritize my
reading.

It's really working well!  But something must be wrong, as I haven't
seen any other threads come through in a long time.

Someone please help me debug my settings.

Johnathan Corgan

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Stephen P. King]

On 1/31/2012 3:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:11, Stephen P. King wrote:


snip



Hi,

In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however 
trolling or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying hard 
to think outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in like the 
ball in a game of Pong. How does science advance unless people are 
willing to contemplate alternative ideas?


I don't see any alternative idea or theory. When he says that qualia 
explains the universe, that fits with the proven consequences of comp, 
where quanta are case of qualia. He is not bad at introspection, he 
might grasp comp a little bit, but he does not try to submit a theory 
in the usual meaning of the terms. So we can't help.


Stephen, don't confuse comp, as used as a "pretext for not addressing 
the mind-body problem by materialist", and what we can already see 
from a formulation of the mind body problem when computationalism is 
taken seriously into account. This already leads to a rational 
alternative, if not reversal.


To be frank, you fail also to provide a theory, as your notion of 
"Existence" illustrates. Existence of what? You never answered.


Hi Bruno,

My my, are we in a snit of a mood! I am assuming a basic axiom: 
Existence exists. If this is difficult for you to grasp, please watch 
this lecture on Epistemology:


http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59B2C09D51EBD222

Some times you might wish to stop thinking like an automaton and 
enjoy how other people think. :-)


Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: for Craig

[Terren Suydam]

Craig - see below...

On Mon, Jan 30, 2012 at 11:35 PM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
> They are part of the same thing, although perpendicular (organization
> is material forms across volumetric space, experience is entangled
> perceptions through sequential time...exact opposites, always.)

This contradicts what you said earlier, when you said experience and
organization overlap and influence each other, but not always. I can
dig out the reference if you need me to, it was just a couple days
ago.

>>
>> We also apparently agree that it is the interactions among the parts (eg
>> the forces), and not what the parts are made of per se, that determines the
>> subjectivity
>
> No, the interactions arise from the parts themselves, just as
> civilization arises from a history of actual human beings living and
> working together. The culture is not an expression of abstract forces
> among people, it is a concrete realization of people themselves, just
> as a coral reef is an expression of coral, not reefness.

We are basically saying the same thing here. To disagree is to get
caught up in semantics.

>> (granting your point that different substrates might not have
>> identical dynamics).  If a silicon organism and a carbon based organism did
>> hypothetically experience identical forces, as you say, they would be
>> identical.
>
> Right, because forces are figurative. All forces are experiences of
> physical beings (person, asteroid, star, atom, etc). When we
> experience our own forces, it's consciousness, life, work, family,
> friends, dreams, etc. When we experience something else's forces, it
> depends how similar that thing is to us. If it's pretty similar, we
> say it's an animal, and it's forces are instincts. If it's a cell or
> molecule, we say it's chemical reactions. If it's a physical substance
> we say it's energy. It's all one thing - stuff being and doing. Not
> beingness and doingness pretending that it's stuff. Again, it's more
> useful to model it the wrong way, because that's how we can figure out
> how to cheat the system, but if we want to understand what is actually
> going on and what consciousness really is, we need to turn it inside
> out and come to our own senses.

OK, but I will just add my voice to the chorus and ask: how do you
know this?  Just as Bruno says, you speak as if you know the truth of
the matter, when at best all anyone has is a nice model that explains
what is happening, and/or simulates such a model to make predictions.
After all this time I still don't understand your model, and you
haven't made any predictions in spite of your religious confidence in
your theory.

My hunch is that you have developed strong intuitions over the years
and formulated what, to you, feels like a cohesive integration of all
your intuitions about the way the world is, and gave it a name. The
funny thing, to me, is that many of your intuitions *would* make you a
computationalist, except that you have an even stronger intuition in
the primacy of "sense" and its assumed symmetry with electromagnetic
force (and nuclear forces, and gravity). However, once you make
"sense" primary, you assume what is to be explained (as Bruno says),
and just as bad, there is still the mystery of how the sense/force
symmetry works, how it can have "bidirectional causality", and so on.
It has never been clear what the payoff is for going along with all
that - it's an awful lot to assume out of the gate.

I hope it is apparent that I have made an honest attempt to understand
your ideas, but I don't really expect you to be able to answer my
queries in a way that satisfies my curiosity and desire for coherence,
because my impression is that you are too invested in your worldview
to look at it from a skeptical outsider's point of view. Instead, my
expectation is that you will tell me I'm wrong, or that I haven't made
the effort, or you will continue to use imprecise language and
metaphors to explicate what is ultimately a haphazard pile of
disconnected and fuzzy intuitions, when what would make me happy is
some equations and some predictions.  That's why Bruno's ideas are
compelling, because he actually has equations and predictions and a
story for the mind/body problem that doesn't assume anything but
elementary math... pretty awesome when you think about it, wouldn't
you say?  Even if he's wrong, that's a hell of a contribution.

Terren

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 2:55 pm, acw  wrote:
> On 1/31/2012 19:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:> On Jan 31, 12:45 pm, 
> acw  wrote:
>
> >> A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
> >> eye, actually probably less than the eye.
>
> > Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap on?
>
> First, the eyes don't have a perfect lens cap, photons get through quite
> well.

That's true, but they are getting through my arm too.

> Second, no, but I've seen photos taken in almost (as was feasible
> to be) dark rooms, and there tends to be some noise, if you don't see
> it, try using some filters to better differentiate the pixels.

These patterns in our eyes need no filters to differentiate them
though. You don't have to try very hard to see them. I cannot see any
such patterns in my digital camera's picture.

> I just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens
> > with my hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever.
>
> Check the pixel values directly then.
> In an very dark room, a human might as well not perceive any noise as
> well. Noise is perceived when there's still a few photons here and there
> hitting the retina.

This noise does not seem to decrease with the more darkness though, it
increases, or becomes easier to see anyhow.

>
> > If I unplug the
> > monitor from my computer but leave it powered on - no snow.
>
> That's normal if you have a DVI or HDMI digital display - if the data is
> transmitted digitally, that greatly reduces the chances of it getting
> damaged.

You are saying that noise is intentionally throttled when the plug is
pulled? If that's true it still shows that the ocular noise is
unnecessary.

>The problem I was talking about wasn't as much about display
> and transmitting as much as of the limitation of an ideal photon
> detector. I've seen you mention Feynman and QED - surely that would have
> given you a decent understanding on the limitations of capture devices
> (and no, QM does not contradicted by COMP: COMP predicts the 1p
> indeterminacy which gives rise locally to some QM/observational laws).

The closed eye noise doesn't seem to have to do with external light to
me, but it's possible.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucinationhttp://en.wikipe...
>
> >>   >  Closed-eye hallucinations and closed-eye visualizations (CEV) are a
> >> distinct class of hallucination. These types of hallucinations generally
> >> only occur when one's eyes are closed or when one is in a darkened room.
> >> They are a form of phosphene.
>
> > Phosphene is nothing more than a name. Calling them hallucinations is
> > a loaded term. They are visual qualia, to me pretty obviously related
> > to the physical neurology of the optical system and not to any
> > computational interpretation software. You all can disagree, but I
> > know that what I see seems like analog 'respiration', not digital
> > representation.
>
> I take it you didn't read the rest of the article? The noise is inherent
> in any accurate simulation of such systems, be they the eye, an ideal
> photon detector or some quantum systems.

I did read it, but I didn't see where it says it is inherent in all
simulations of visual systems. Where does it say that? If that's true
it still makes no case for representational qualia. Why wouldn't it be
filtered out?

> Sure, hallucinations is a term, but is it 'wrong'?

Yes, I think it is. In this case no external reality is being
misrepresented.

> If for some reason
> I've been very tired and my cognitive load is high, my brain could start
> making errors when recognizing certain patterns - I would be
> hallucinating as whatever it is I was perceiving wasn't the correct
> perception. Any such mismatches would be hallucinations.

If any simulation of the visual system produces these patterns, then
these qualia match those pattens, not mismatch them.

> Feed just noise
> into a neural network and you'll be sure it'll be making errors, and
> thus "hallucinate"

Hallucinations aren't errors, they are interior sense experiences that
don't match the expected exterior correlates. I'm sure that neural
networks make errors but are they imaginative and reference myths?

> - how do you think dreaming works?

Like waking life, dreaming blends semantic agendas with neurological
agendas. Some regions of the brain are active that normally aren't
while waking, others are less active or inactive, which loosens
inhibitions and associations. The content of the dream can range from
non-sequiturs to highly insightful and poignant narratives.

> If what you
> perceive is likely 3p correct, it's not a hallucination. OF course, 3p
> being an inference done from the 1p, you can only bet on what is real
> and what isn't, you cannot ever truly know, and with COMP, real is just
> sharable reality.

I think with COMP, real is just sharable arithmetic. I don't see where
COMP postulates any reality at all.

>
> Also, you are very sure about yo

Big Bang belief

[John Mikes]

David Nyman wrote:

*On 25 January 2012 19:46, meekerdb
<**meeke...@verizon.net*
*> wrote:*
*>  Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum.
One
> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny
even
> potential would be to deny that anything can exist.
>*
*But surely that denial is precisely the point of the "philosopher's
nothing"?  I'm not sure why you would say that pointing to a "negative
potential" for anything to exist is incoherent (illogical,
inconsistent, or whatever).  Of course it's a dead-end, explanatorily
useless, a mystery if you will.  Given that there is something, some
aspect of that something will always have to be accepted as given.
That's the nature of explanation; the philosopher's nothing is what
you get if you push explanation past its breaking point.*
*David*
*---*
David, it is still our 'human' (restricted?) logic and capabilities.
Brent (whom I esteem a lot) concluded:

>> *That's the philsopher's idea of 'nothing', but it's not clear that it's
even
> coherent.  Our concepts of 'nothing' obviously arise from the idea of
> eliminating 'something' until no 'something' remains.  It is hardly fair
to
> criticize physicists for using a physical, operational concept of nothing.
>  Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum.  One
> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny
even
> potential would be to deny that anything can exist.
>
> Brent*
**
Why should "philosophers" be 'smarter' than you or me? granted, they
specialize in
a different domain, but still use 'human' (i.e. restricted) logic.
What I would like to 'change' in your remark is the replacement of the 1st
"given" (that
there is something) by "assuming", closer to my agnostic wording. Also, the
2nd
"given" is suspect: acceptble as we think it is 'given'.
Dead end is in *our views*, not from the aspects of the infinite complexity
we (= our
world) is part of. "Mystery"? as long as we do not learn the details and
process of it.
The main point is that "nothing' pointing to a hiatus in our limited
knowledge.
(And that pertains to physics as well when one mentions a 'vacuum',
spacetime or any).
Do you have an idea for identifying "exist"? (And I am not talking
physics).

Just rambling

John M

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 4:00 pm, Quentin Anciaux  wrote:
> 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg 
>
> > On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydam  wrote:
> > > Craig,
>
> > > The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
> > > movie's premise that seems impossible to you?
>
> > It's possible to simulate a world for a person but it is not possible
> > to simulate the sense of being a person. I have no problem with full
> > sensory substitution, but I understand that there cannot be a
> > replacement for sense itself. Something real and physical ultimately
> > has to interpret anything to give it sense, otherwise it is non-sense.
> > A program is real in a mind, and real in software, but unless the
> > software is enacted literally on a physical machine or organism at the
> > bottom level, there is no reality.
>
> How do you know there is a bottom level ? Reality did told you so ?

When you shoot people with bullets, do they not die. If I disconnect a
computer from electric power, does it not stop, regardless of the
software?

>
> That in your theory you posit a bottom level why not... but here you know
> it, so is it too much to ask you how you know so ?

I don't know that there is an absolute bottom for the cosmos, but
physical matter certainly seems to be the bottom of our world. Why
would it not be? What is it that would be beneath that bottom? Can you
build a bomb out of numbers alone?

>
> Why a human is able to "interpret" himself and a program couldn't ?

Because a human is born to interpret himself. His interpretive
capacity is native to his physiology. A program is an idea native to
human psychology exported onto electronic glass or gears.

> Where
> does sense come from in you theory ? How meaning arises ? Why something ?

Sense is the symmetry of significance (teleology, feeling, continuous
subjects, motive, sequence, anabolic accumulation through time,
energy) and entropy (teleonomy, unfeeling, discrete objects,
determinism, randomness, catabolic evanescence across space, matter).
Sense, significance, and entropy are all the same thing on one sense,
and two or three different things in different senses. It is
singularity folded, and folded again. Meaning does not arise, arise-
ness arises from meaning. Meaning is primordial (not human scale
meaning of course).

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 4:40 pm, Terren Suydam  wrote:
> What if a baby is fed a virtual reality from the day it was born?
> Assume that (as in the movie) the sensory inputs are rich enough that
> if we were to experience it, we would be hard pressed to detect that
> it was a virtual reality.

I will agree for the sake of argument, but if my theory is true,
reality may be felt literally in your bones on some (maybe
unconscious) level. There may be no way of truly trapping someone in a
fantasy with no chance of them knowing it.

>
> If the baby grows up in a virtual world, complete with rich social
> interaction, then why wouldn't she still develop a sense of
> personhood?

Oh I think they would. They are a real baby though with a human brain,
not an adding machine.

>  What is it about the source of the sensory data that
> prohibits personhood from developing?

It's not sensory data, personhood is inherent in human life. If it's
not a human, it can't have a human life. A computer has an experience
of it's switches and routers, maybe qualia we can't imagine, but there
is no indication that any program shows signs of turning into a
person.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

[Craig Weinberg]

On Jan 31, 4:40 pm, Joseph Knight  wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, Joseph Knight  wrote:
> > > On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Craig Weinberg  > >wrote:
>
> > > > On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight  wrote:
>
> > > > > I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring
> > some
> > > > > astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for
> > Craig
> > > > > to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make
> > > > useful
> > > > > progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?
>
> > > > What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP?
>
> > > Let's start with the basics. I know that you don't understand what a
> > > computer is, since you claim a bit later that it is a "humming box". In
> > an
> > > earlier post you said 'computers are arrays of semiconductor materials
> > > arranged to conduct electrical current in a dynamic and orderly fashion'.
> > > Wrong. When I directed you to an article explaining why you are wrong,
> > you
> > > replied "you're pointing me to references to Boolean algebra". Boolean
> > > algebra was not mentioned even once on the page! You didn't read it!
> > > Laziness.
>
> > Not laziness. I'm just not in the business of doing errands for
> > strangers on the internet.
>
> When someone tells you you are wrong, you are not interested in seeing if
> they are correct? Laziness, or worse, trolling. Convince me otherwise.

Only if I am unsure of why they think I am wrong. I'm not here to
prove that I am right, I am here to learn if there is something that I
haven't considered and to share my ideas. Nothing you have said is new
to me. I have been debating this for several years now.

>
> > I'm not your student. I understand that the
> > term computer *can* apply to anything that can be used to perform
> > computation (I use the abacus as an example too, steam powered
> > machines, whatever). Obviously from my wording I am talking about
> > contemporary electronic computers.
>
> In that context, and indeed essentially all contexts on this list, the
> precise definition was the one being employed.
>
> > This kind of semantic nitpicking is
> > the lowest form of argumentative desperation.
>
> No, we need to know exactly what each other means when they use a word if
> we are to make any progress. So there's a problem when you use one word to
> refer to two quite different things.

I am all for clarity. The problem is that I reject this definition of
computer from the start. It is a hypothetical idea...a good one, but
nothing to do with reality directly. In the real world, all computers
will always have a physical substrate or at least a physical
interface.

>
>
>
> > > > The problem
> > > > is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view
>
> > > I don't think anyone on this list understands your view, except perhaps
> > > yourself. Who is to blame?
>
> > You can blame me if you want, but it makes no difference. You can
> > either try to understand what I mean or not,
>
> I certainly have tried, and failed, repeatedly. I haven't personally
> inquired about it because others have, and you have been less than helpful
> for them. You invent dozens of new terms, abuse the meanings of dozens of
> commonly used terms from science and philosophyI don't see any concrete
> predictions about the result of an experiment, any falsifiability, or any
> concern for precision.

How else is one supposed to go about redefining the cosmos?

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > that's fine, but you
> > aren't telling me anything I don't already know so I'm not curious
> > about your views.
>
> > > > , and there
> > > > is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
> > > > comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
> > > > you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
> > > > computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
> > > > Walkman designs from when I was 12.
>
> > > Cool.
>
> > > > What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
> > > > Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines?
>
> > > Among other things.
>
> > > > I understand
> > > > that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
> > > > so many things,
>
> > > They certainly can simulate many things. However, I have seen you
> > conflate
> > > simulations run by scientists working with simplified models of
> > something,
>
> > I'm doing that intentionally to strip away the confusion and think
> > about it in a clearer, more truthful way.
>
> Hold on -- you are purposefully causing confusion in order to strip away
> confusion?

I'm not causing confusion. When I bring up that a trashcan that says
THANK YOU on the lid is not really being polite, I intend that someone
could see how that simple principle scales up to complex digital
simulation not being really conscious

Re: Big Bang belief

[David Nyman]

On 31 January 2012 22:55, John Mikes  wrote:

I agree with what you say, John.  When we reach such a pitch of
puzzlement about our very categories of thought it's a sure sign that
we're bumping into some human limitation or other.  Temporary or
permanent, who knows?  But still, I'd opt for puzzlement, delusive or
not, rather than dismiss, trivialise or deny it.

As to what "exists", it all depends on context, but when it comes to
sharing our theorising I agree with Bruno: we must state our
assumptions and draw defensible conclusions from them.  Mere
statements of belief may be personally consoling but are a barrier to
communication and the joint development of ideas.

David

> David Nyman wrote:
> 
> On 25 January 2012 19:46, meekerdb  wrote:
>>  Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum.  One
>> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny
>> even
>> potential would be to deny that anything can exist.
>>
> But surely that denial is precisely the point of the "philosopher's
> nothing"?  I'm not sure why you would say that pointing to a "negative
> potential" for anything to exist is incoherent (illogical,
> inconsistent, or whatever).  Of course it's a dead-end, explanatorily
> useless, a mystery if you will.  Given that there is something, some
> aspect of that something will always have to be accepted as given.
> That's the nature of explanation; the philosopher's nothing is what
> you get if you push explanation past its breaking point.
> David
> ---
> David, it is still our 'human' (restricted?) logic and capabilities.
> Brent (whom I esteem a lot) concluded:
>
>>> That's the philsopher's idea of 'nothing', but it's not clear that it's
>>> even
>> coherent.  Our concepts of 'nothing' obviously arise from the idea of
>> eliminating 'something' until no 'something' remains.  It is hardly fair
>> to
>> criticize physicists for using a physical, operational concept of nothing.
>>  Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum.  One
>> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny
>> even
>> potential would be to deny that anything can exist.
>>
>> Brent
> 
> Why should "philosophers" be 'smarter' than you or me? granted, they
> specialize in
> a different domain, but still use 'human' (i.e. restricted) logic.
> What I would like to 'change' in your remark is the replacement of the 1st
> "given" (that
> there is something) by "assuming", closer to my agnostic wording. Also, the
> 2nd
> "given" is suspect: acceptble as we think it is 'given'.
> Dead end is in our views, not from the aspects of the infinite complexity we
> (= our
> world) is part of. "Mystery"? as long as we do not learn the details and
> process of it.
> The main point is that "nothing' pointing to a hiatus in our limited
> knowledge.
> (And that pertains to physics as well when one mentions a 'vacuum',
> spacetime or any).
> Do you have an idea for identifying "exist"? (And I am not talking physics).
>
> Just rambling
>
> John M
>
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Big Bang belief

[Jason Resch]

Regarding the "philosopher's nothing":

This present moment exists, and it has no cause since our universe is a
four dimensional structure (time is a subjective phenomenon).  This
timeless existence of this moment establishes that "nothingness" cannot
exist.  In short: It is an impossible state.  The question then becomes:
"Why should this present moment exist, and what else might also exist?"  So
far, the answer suggested by our latest discoveries and reasoning suggests:
a lot.

Jason

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 6:07 PM, David Nyman  wrote:

> On 31 January 2012 22:55, John Mikes  wrote:
>
> I agree with what you say, John.  When we reach such a pitch of
> puzzlement about our very categories of thought it's a sure sign that
> we're bumping into some human limitation or other.  Temporary or
> permanent, who knows?  But still, I'd opt for puzzlement, delusive or
> not, rather than dismiss, trivialise or deny it.
>
> As to what "exists", it all depends on context, but when it comes to
> sharing our theorising I agree with Bruno: we must state our
> assumptions and draw defensible conclusions from them.  Mere
> statements of belief may be personally consoling but are a barrier to
> communication and the joint development of ideas.
>
> David
>
> > David Nyman wrote:
> > 
> > On 25 January 2012 19:46, meekerdb  wrote:
> >>  Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum.
> One
> >> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny
> >> even
> >> potential would be to deny that anything can exist.
> >>
> > But surely that denial is precisely the point of the "philosopher's
> > nothing"?  I'm not sure why you would say that pointing to a "negative
> > potential" for anything to exist is incoherent (illogical,
> > inconsistent, or whatever).  Of course it's a dead-end, explanatorily
> > useless, a mystery if you will.  Given that there is something, some
> > aspect of that something will always have to be accepted as given.
> > That's the nature of explanation; the philosopher's nothing is what
> > you get if you push explanation past its breaking point.
> > David
> > ---
> > David, it is still our 'human' (restricted?) logic and capabilities.
> > Brent (whom I esteem a lot) concluded:
> >
> >>> That's the philsopher's idea of 'nothing', but it's not clear that it's
> >>> even
> >> coherent.  Our concepts of 'nothing' obviously arise from the idea of
> >> eliminating 'something' until no 'something' remains.  It is hardly fair
> >> to
> >> criticize physicists for using a physical, operational concept of
> nothing.
> >>  Note that the theories I mentioned do not assume a spacetime vacuum.
> One
> >> may say they assume a potentiality for a spacetime vacuum, but to deny
> >> even
> >> potential would be to deny that anything can exist.
> >>
> >> Brent
> > 
> > Why should "philosophers" be 'smarter' than you or me? granted, they
> > specialize in
> > a different domain, but still use 'human' (i.e. restricted) logic.
> > What I would like to 'change' in your remark is the replacement of the
> 1st
> > "given" (that
> > there is something) by "assuming", closer to my agnostic wording. Also,
> the
> > 2nd
> > "given" is suspect: acceptble as we think it is 'given'.
> > Dead end is in our views, not from the aspects of the infinite
> complexity we
> > (= our
> > world) is part of. "Mystery"? as long as we do not learn the details and
> > process of it.
> > The main point is that "nothing' pointing to a hiatus in our limited
> > knowledge.
> > (And that pertains to physics as well when one mentions a 'vacuum',
> > spacetime or any).
> > Do you have an idea for identifying "exist"? (And I am not talking
> physics).
> >
> > Just rambling
> >
> > John M
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "Everything List" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Big Bang belief

[meekerdb]

On 1/31/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote:

Regarding the "philosopher's nothing":

This present moment exists, and it has no cause since our universe is a four dimensional 
structure (time is a subjective phenomenon).  This timeless existence of this moment 
establishes that "nothingness" cannot exist.  In short: It is an impossible state.  The 
question then becomes: "Why should this present moment exist, and what else might also 
exist?"  So far, the answer suggested by our latest discoveries and reasoning suggests: 
a lot.


Jason


Or to paraphrase Quine: What is there? Everything. So what isn't there? Nothing.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Mind-reading-device-could-become-reality

[Stephen P. King]

Hi,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9051909/Mind-reading-device-could-become-reality.html

Are not computers wonderful tools? :-)

Any comments?

Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Mind-reading-device-could-become-reality

[Joseph Knight]

One step closer to scanning and uploading :)

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:24 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

> Hi,
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/**science/science-news/9051909/**
> Mind-reading-device-could-**become-reality.html
>
>Are not computers wonderful tools? :-)
>
>Any comments?
>
> Onward!
>
> Stephen
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To post to this group, send email to 
> everything-list@googlegroups.**com
> .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@
> **googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
> group/everything-list?hl=en
> .
>
>


-- 
Joseph Knight

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.