Re: UDA revisited
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1100, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: My paper proves zombies can't do science. You have all said that the UD is not conscious. This is another way of saying that any creatures within (computed by) a UD have no consciousness. The UD is therefore a zombie realm. Hence computationalism is false. Yes? Not at all. We would also say the the universe is not conscious. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some conscious creatures located within the universe. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: UDA revisited
[EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] au With reference to the other thread Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief) The other problem is how all of this logic connects to Everything. That is why I am trying to understand the 0-person. I think questioning the 0-person might be the same thing as questioning the assumption of Arithmetic Realism (AR), but I'm not sure. You are mainly right. Strictly speaking any sufficiently rich notion of truth would work. If you are interested in the theology of an angel (a non turing emulable entity like Analysis + omega rule (anomega)) you will have to take a notion of analytical truth, but for any digital machine arithmetical truth is enough (even for ZF, but this is hard to show: better to take the X-notion of truth for a machine talking on X-objects). Anyone believing in a notion of independent (from oneself) truth believes in a notion of zero-person. With comp AR is enough. -- I suppose what I am claiming is that 0-person exists. In a way I would also claim Arithmetic Realism (AR) to be real. But what I am claiming is, in effect that the 'number base' of the 'arithmetic' is not platonic/ideal/integers etc, but something else. The numbers I claim to exist are those we find when we look = random events. The difference is subtle but the consequences are far reaching. Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: UDA revisited
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1100, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: My paper proves zombies can't do science. You have all said that the UD is not conscious. This is another way of saying that any creatures within (computed by) a UD have no consciousness. The UD is therefore a zombie realm. Hence computationalism is false. Yes? Not at all. We would also say the the universe is not conscious. But that doesn't mean that there aren't some conscious creatures located within the universe. We could argue that we humans 'are' the consciousness of the universe. But it would add nothing to the discussion! :-) A tad too antropomorphic... I assume by the universe you mean ours. Understanding human consciousness properly means we will eventually be able to prescribe what level of consciousness applies to the rest of the universe that is 'not humans'. Including animals ...I predict 'not as much'rocks, fridges etc. I predict 'not much at all'. I would also predict that a UD reified in our universe would be like that...'not much' consciousness (the consciousness of the computer = that of which it is made, not that of the program). There are no phenomena reified as a result of the UD operating. The only phenomena happening are the machinations of the hardware of the UD. BTW I am not saying that abstract computation of some sort cannot be involved in artificial general intelligence. What I am saying is that bolted to the computation are non-negotiable aspects that have to be done in real phenomena or the machine will have no phenomenal consciousness. The phenomena are of a type found in brain material. Conversely the sort of universe that make brain material have consciousness is not madeof platomic arithmetical entities. In one sense 'comp', I gather, is the claim that computation of an abstracted realm-X done in realm-Y can create realm-X phenomena. By extension it means 'arithmetic realism' of the classical platonic kind is false. Who'd have thought I'd have to bother with all this stuff all I want to do is build my chips and get on with AGI! Here I am proving zombies can't do science? sheesh! cheers, Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: UDA revisited
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 01:12:17PM +1100, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: We could argue that we humans 'are' the consciousness of the universe. But it would add nothing to the discussion! :-) A tad too antropomorphic... Indeed. I assume by the universe you mean ours. Understanding human consciousness properly means we will eventually be able to prescribe what level of consciousness applies to the rest of the universe that is 'not humans'. Including animals ...I predict 'not as much'rocks, fridges etc. I predict 'not much at all'. I am extremely sceptical of claims of consciousness going down in some degree to simpler animals, plants, nonliving things. My main counterargument is the Why ants are not conscious argument, which is in my book, but I haven't published seperately yet. This is still room for consciousness is some higher order animals - chimpanzees, dolphins, elephants perhaps. I would also predict that a UD reified in our universe would be like that...'not much' consciousness (the consciousness of the computer = that of which it is made, not that of the program). There are no phenomena reified as a result of the UD operating. The only phenomena happening are the machinations of the hardware of the UD. Fair enough, but this is a direct contradiction with the assumption of computationalism. Who'd have thought I'd have to bother with all this stuff all I want to do is build my chips and get on with AGI! Here I am proving zombies can't do science? sheesh! cheers, Colin C'est la vie. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: Natural Order Belief
Stathis: thanks for the psichiatry class. You brought in a new questionmark: crazy. As George Levy has proven, we all are crazy - my contention was: in that case such (general) craziness is the norm, eo ipso we all are normal. Is normalcy composed of delusions? Then why the (p)scientific identification of the delusion- n -psychiatry, which, - btw - is not that impressive to those who are not standing on the shoulders of psychiatry. You successfully wiped out the validity of that definition (one by one). [you left out the case, if someone has a 'fixed' belief, which, however is NOT false (in unidentified opinions) - is also no delusion. ] So: delusion (which I have not involved) is not applicable. If one thinks: it is, it is not valid (i.e. not applicable again?). The only solution to your post I can find is in the last par., if it refers to me. I value your right to tell your opinion and also value your opinion, but question the term 'stupid'. In who's terms? by what (cultural?) norm? Stupid seems to me a negative connotation, just could not formulate in general applicability the 'positive' features against which the deficiency would constitue stupidity. I would easily fall into a series similarly to your series about 'delusion' - invalidating every aspect one by one, by the rest. Yet: I believe in stupidity, just cannot identify it beyond my personal feelings. I even feel a difference between a stujpid bum and a stupid ass, - could not express it scientifically. Thanks for your thought provoking reflections. John - Original Message - From: Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 5:25 AM Subject: RE: Natural Order Belief John, Some people believe crazy things... literally crazy things, and they require treatment for it. The definition of a delusion in psychiatry is: A fixed, false belief which is not in keeping with the patient's cultural background. So someone may have a belief that is false, but not fixed, i.e. he will revise his belief in response to contrary evidence, and that isn't a delusion. Or someone may have a belief that is both false and fixed, but it is shared by the cultural group to which he belongs, and that isn't a delusion either. This latter provision was put in mainly to exclude religious beliefs. Usually there are other markers of mental illness as well as the delusion allowing one to make a diagnosis and decide on treatment: hallucinations, sleep and appetite disturbance, personality changes and so on. Very rarely, these other signs are absent, and you are faced with deciding whether the patient is mentally ill or just has weird beliefs. The only investigation which is of help in these cases is a trial of antipsychotic medication: this has a false negative rate, in that in a minority of cases clearly psychotic symptoms do not respond to medication, but a negligible false positive rate, i.e. if the beliefs go away with antipsychotic medication and return on cessation of medication then they are definitely psychotic. Religious and other cultural beliefs do not change with medication. In other words, it is usually possible to know if someone is crazy, but more difficult to know if they are just stupid. Stathis Papaioannou From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Natural Order Belief Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:19:04 -0500 Stathis, no need to argue with me about my 'funny' supposition (just for the fun of it) - HOWEVER: 1. absolutely certain you can be in whatever is in your mind (i.e.in your belief system) because that is what you call it so. Colin's (weak?) solipsism assignes the world -(all of its input- content in your mind), the 'reality', whatever, - to YOUR mind-content as the way YOU interpret whatever you think of (incl.: experience, feel, what you get notion of, even imagine). 2. ...we may not be able to attain absolute certainty about any empirical belief, ... I was not talking about 'empirical', however our belief may be empirical: even if somebody said so and we empirically experience the content of such communication. It all depends how one restricts the 'empiria'. Some go as short as only to instrumental readings, others include OWN sensorial input, some limit it to one's logicallimitations, but a wider view (e.g. in science-educationG) may accept also the communication of (reliable?) 3rd-s. (Like e.g. religionG) We talk as we think. We think as we feel. we don't KNOW. 3. ...we can bet that some beliefs are much more likely to be true than others. Sais who? true to whom? To ME, for sure, but do I have a monopoly to the right understanding? Is there 'truth'? I just wanted to include a wider horizon (as: funny?). Not even the last thing I want to do is to argue FOR fundamentalist creationism. I don't like it is the
Re: UDA revisited
I assume by the universe you mean ours. Understanding human consciousness properly means we will eventually be able to prescribe what level of consciousness applies to the rest of the universe that is 'not humans'. Including animals ...I predict 'not as much'rocks, fridges etc. I predict 'not much at all'. I am extremely sceptical of claims of consciousness going down in some degree to simpler animals, plants, nonliving things. My main counterargument is the Why ants are not conscious argument, which is in my book, but I haven't published seperately yet. This is still room for consciousness is some higher order animals - chimpanzees, dolphins, elephants perhaps. I would predict extremely primitive phenomenal scenes to a single cell organism...Perhaps LIGHT/NOT-LIFGT...With causal efficacy. I think paramecium might operate this way. 'Phenomenal scenes' and 'abstraction from/via phenomenal scenes' are two independent axes of intellect. It is the single cell version which I would hold responsible for the cambrian explosion. Ants may have a collective intellect, but it's based on primitive phenomenal scenes (not zombies). The very first single-cell non-zombie had an amazing survival advantage even if their reflex behaviour was random (anything rather than nothing). In my AGI model certain types of single celled creatures cannot help but have 'phenomena' - it comes with their membrane and can't be helped. Fill it with genetic material and the cell goes negativemake it selectively permeable...job done. I would also predict that a UD reified in our universe would be like that...'not much' consciousness (the consciousness of the computer = that of which it is made, not that of the program). There are no phenomena reified as a result of the UD operating. The only phenomena happening are the machinations of the hardware of the UD. Fair enough, but this is a direct contradiction with the assumption of computationalism. This is a 'assume comp' playground only? I am up for not assuming anything.but if computationalism is actually false then it becomes a religion or a club or something. I have no emotional/religious attachment...I just want what works. I can mount (and have) a case for it being false (zombies can't do science)...also computationalism has produced nothing but failure in AGI to date I have physics to point at in brain material perfectly suited to the type of phenomena (virtual bosons) needed for phenomenal consciousness using neurons/astrocytes... I have a mathematical formalism (EC yes ... under contruction!!!) that predicts it be like thatI have a complete set of evolutionary cues that support itI have consistency with every pathology I have thrown at it..I have ethological consistency... the latest empirical neurosience evidence confirms that small groups/single cells have phenomenality (outside cortex)so I have an entire axis of neural modelling that is currently missing and has been missing ever since Hodgkins and Huxley and before which is explanatory of why AGI and related neural modelling won't work... so until someone can undo all of it (in particular, just now, the zombie scientist issue)...comp is false. I look forward to useful encounters to that effect, not just 'assume thisbelieve that' Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: UDA revisited
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 02:47:46PM +1100, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: I would also predict that a UD reified in our universe would be like that...'not much' consciousness (the consciousness of the computer = that of which it is made, not that of the program). There are no phenomena reified as a result of the UD operating. The only phenomena happening are the machinations of the hardware of the UD. Fair enough, but this is a direct contradiction with the assumption of computationalism. This is a 'assume comp' playground only? I am up for not assuming anything.but if computationalism is actually false then it becomes a religion or a club or something. Not at all. I don't even subscribe to computationalism most days, but it is a powerful metaphor for reasoning. Nevertheless it is important to know in any argument if you assume it or not. Otherwise you may have the sort of argument: If computationalism is false, then I show that computationalism is false. which is not especially interesting. A/Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Mathematics UNSW SYDNEY 2052 [EMAIL PROTECTED] Australiahttp://www.hpcoders.com.au --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
Re: UDA revisited
Fair enough, but this is a direct contradiction with the assumption of computationalism. This is a 'assume comp' playground only? I am up for not assuming anything.but if computationalism is actually false then it becomes a religion or a club or something. Not at all. I don't even subscribe to computationalism most days, but it is a powerful metaphor for reasoning. Nevertheless it is important to know in any argument if you assume it or not. Otherwise you may have the sort of argument: If computationalism is false, then I show that computationalism is false. which is not especially interesting. I agree very 'not interesting' ... a bit like saying assuming comp endlessly.and never being able to give it teeth. ... I am more interested in proving scientists aren't/can't be zombiesthat it seems to also challenge computationalism in a certain sense... this is a byproduct I can't help, not the central issue. Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ 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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---
