On 12.10.2012 22:54 Russell Standish said the following:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 08:23:33AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
Life cannot survive without making choices, like where to go next.
To avoid an enemy. To get food.
This act of life obviously requires an autonomous
On 12 Oct 2012, at 22:36, John Clark wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Keep in mind that I use the compatibilist definition of free will,
which is the (machine) ability to exploits its self-indetermination
(with indetermination in the Turing sense, (not in
Why shouldn't they? JM
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:59 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
John,
Your model may explain why some drugs improve creativity.
Richard
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 4:52 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
On 09/10/2012, at 8:39 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
Hi John Clark
Another way to express the sufficient reason argument is
to say that whatever happened was caused to happen.
You don't have to know what the cause was, or even
if that cause had a reason. All you are saying is that
something caused this to happen. Something caused this,
whatever
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Keep in mind that I use the compatibilist definition of free will,
which is the (machine) ability to exploits its self-indetermination (with
indetermination in the Turing sense, (not in the comp first person sense,
nor the quantum
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
if you could tell me how to determine if a computer has intelligence
The same way I determine if one of my fellow human beings is intelligent,
if he beats me at a intellectual task then he's intelligent, in fact he's
Hi Russell Standish
I should stay away from discussing bacteria. Brownian motion and
chemical actions could in fact make intelligence (free choice-making)
unnecessary, as you may have suggested.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/13/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end.
Hi meekerdb
That's exactly the point. Intelligence can't
be intelligent if it's defined.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/13/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: meekerdb
Receiver: everything-list
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 , Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
NDEs are like UFOs.
Yes they're both bullshit. The trouble with UFOs is that people forget what
the U stands for and keep identifying the damn thing as a flying saucer
from another planet; I see a light in the sky and I don't know
Hi John Clark
snip
ROGER: if you could tell me how to determine if a computer has intelligence
JOHN: The same way I determine if one of my fellow human beings is intelligent,
if he beats me at a intellectual task then he's intelligent,
in fact he's more intelligent than I am at
Hi John Clark
This is supposed to be a scientific discussion.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/13/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-13, 12:50:23
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
This is supposed to be a scientific discussion.
Yes, so why are you talking about NDEs and UFOs? If I was interested in
that crap I wouldn't read a scientific journal or go to the Everything
List, I'd just pick up a copy of the
On Friday, October 12, 2012 10:23:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 Oct 2012, at 14:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have
is, at what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you
think that those blobs have
On Friday, October 12, 2012 4:42:56 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 05:50:11AM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
They are certainly cool looking and biomorphic. The question I have is,
at
what point do they begin to have experiences...or do you think that
those
Well, local community TV anyways.
Jose is a great host, producer, and editor though.
Consciousness, Materialist Zombies and Multisense Realism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lv8KrsRnx44
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
ROGER: But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have to
be programmed to do so.
which means that its intelligence would be that of the programmer. This
is always the case.
Computers cannot
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 12:27:01PM -0400, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Russell Standish
I should stay away from discussing bacteria. Brownian motion and
chemical actions could in fact make intelligence (free choice-making)
unnecessary, as you may have suggested.
Why avoid the topic? By
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 02:11:59PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 12, 2012 4:42:56 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming this system exhibits universality like the original GoL, and
assuming COMP, then some patterns will exhibit consciousness. However,
the
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been
programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers and various
other aspects of the environment. So the intelligence of the human is
really
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:41:10 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 02:11:59PM -0700, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, October 12, 2012 4:42:56 PM UTC-4, Russell Standish wrote:
Assuming this system exhibits universality like the original GoL, and
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:
I know you don't believe in COMP, but assuming COMP (I am open-minded
on the topic), mass and chemical composition are irrelevant to
consciousness.
Chalmers' fading qualia argument purports to prove the
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Since we know that our consciousness is exquisitely sensitive to particular
masses of specific chemicals, yet relatively tolerant of other kinds of
chemical changes, it suggests that we should strongly suspect that
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:54:44 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Russell Standish
li...@hpcoders.com.au javascript: wrote:
I know you don't believe in COMP, but assuming COMP (I am open-minded
on the topic), mass and chemical composition are irrelevant
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 8:05:26 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:51 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Since we know that our consciousness is exquisitely sensitive to
particular
masses of specific chemicals, yet relatively tolerant
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:49:03 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been
programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers and
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Fading qualia is the only argument of Chalmers' that I disagree with. It's a
natural mistake to make, but I think he goes wrong by assuming a priori that
consciousness is functional, i.e. that personal consciousness
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Two identical computers with identical programs taking environmental
input from sensors only millimetres apart could produce radically
different outputs. For example, the environmental input could be the
least
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:24:15 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Two identical computers with identical programs taking environmental
input from sensors only millimetres apart could produce
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:05:58 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Fading qualia is the only argument of Chalmers' that I disagree with.
It's a
natural mistake to make, but I think he goes wrong by
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Yes, the Big Bang is a program. There are initial conditions and rules
that lead deterministically to the unfolding of the entire multiverse
and all its rich content. All of science is an effort to work out
details
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:59 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
No, he does NOT assume this. He assumes the opposite: that
consciousness is a property of the brain and CANNOT be reproduced by
reproducing the behaviour in another substrate.
I'm not talking about what the
31 matches
Mail list logo
