Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg

Movie Graph Argument

Hi Bruno I was cruising the web when I stumbled upon a couple of PDFs by Jean-Paul Delahaye criticizing your work. (PDF 1, PDF 2 ). I don't speak French, but google translate was able to help me u

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: To suppose computation requires a mate

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: To suppose computation requires a material process would be materialism, woul

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: To suppose computation requires a material process would be materialism, wouldn't it? Hi Craig, Not quite, a dualis

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: To suppose computation requires a material process would be materialism, wouldn't it? Hi Craig, Not quite, a dualist model would require that some form of

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 11:57 am, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 9:33 am, Quentin Anciauxwrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on

Re: The consciousness singularity

On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: > On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > To suppose computation requires a material process would be > > materialism, wouldn't it? > Hi Craig, > >      Not quite, a dualist model would require that some form of material > process occur for co

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 11:57 am, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 9:33 am, Quentin Anciauxwrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011/12/8 meekerdb > On 12/8/2011 8:58 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2011/12/8 meekerdb > >> On 12/8/2011 6:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >>> The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an >>> argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital computer

Re: The consciousness singularity

On Dec 8, 11:57 am, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/8/2011 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > On Dec 8, 9:33 am, Quentin Anciaux  wrote: > > >> The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an > >> argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital computer) > >> is no

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 8:58 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2011/12/8 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> On 12/8/2011 6:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 10:18 AM, Pzomby wrote: On Dec 7, 10:31 am, meekerdb wrote: On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: Most materialist just say: Well, the natural laws are just there, without any particular reason or meaning behind them, we have to take them for granted. But this is almost as unconvi

Re: The consciousness singularity

On Dec 7, 10:31 am, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: > > > Most materialist just say: Well, the natural laws are just there, without > > any particular reason or meaning behind them, we have to take them for > > granted. But this is almost as unconvincing as saying "A creator

Re: Kingdom of the blind

I made a discussion thread about this on another forum by the way. http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=634170 On Thu, Dec 8, 2011 at 6:11 AM, Kim Jones wrote: > > On 08/12/2011, at 4:10 PM, Stephen Lin wrote: > > > A thought: > > > > What if you were the blind man in the kingdo

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011/12/8 meekerdb > On 12/8/2011 6:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > >> The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an >> argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital computer) >> is not compatible with materialism. It shows that to be able to predict >> yo

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 9:33 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital computer) is not compatible with materialism. It shows that to be able to p

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 6:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital computer) is not compatible with materialism. It shows that to be able to predict your next moment (if computationlism

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 08 Dec 2011, at 14:25, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Dec 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote: The step 7 and 8 do not really work for what I am saying. Explain this in detail. Please. It just doesn't deal

Re: The consciousness singularity

On 12/8/2011 5:46 AM, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: Tegmark's argument shows only that the brain is essentially classical if we assume decoherence works the same in natural systems as in our "artificial" experiments. But it seems natural systems have a be

Re: The consciousness singularity

On Dec 7, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I said to Stephen that, concerning the epiphenomena, consciousness and > matter do not play a symmetrical role, but this does not mean that one > of them is primitive. > > With comp, the basic ontology needed is just anything given by the > logical spec

Re: The consciousness singularity

On Dec 8, 9:33 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an > argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital computer) > is not compatible with materialism. It shows that to be able to predict > your next moment (if computation

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011/12/8 benjayk > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: > >> > >> You smuggled in your own opinion through the backdoor (only my > >> favorite > >> mystery is acceptable). > > > > This is only a negative ad hominem insult. Frankly I prefer your > > enthus

Re: Kingdom of the blind

> > > How do you do that? Make everything a very flexible metaphor. So why > don't we come up with stories about people who save the world in outlandish > ways, thereby resolving all others of the responsibility to do the same. > And make sure you tell everyone that, as long as you truly believe

Re: The consciousness singularity

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: >> >> You smuggled in your own opinion through the backdoor (only my >> favorite >> mystery is acceptable). > > This is only a negative ad hominem insult. Frankly I prefer your > enthusiast tone of your earlier posts. > I

Re: The consciousness singularity

meekerdb wrote: > > On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: >> Tegmark's argument shows only that the brain is essentially classical if >> we >> assume decoherence works the same in natural systems as in our >> "artificial" >> experiments. But it seems natural systems have a better ability to >> r

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011/12/8 benjayk > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: > > > >> > >> > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> On 05 Dec 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote: > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > >> I am just not arguing at all for what > >> y

Re: The consciousness singularity

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: > >> >> >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 05 Dec 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> I am just not arguing at all for what >> your argument(s) seeks to refute. > > I know

Re: The consciousness singularity

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I can relate with many things you say. > Indeed I can argue that the universal (Löbian) machine already relate > on this, too. > > But science get rid only on subjective judgement in publication > (ideally), making them universally communicable. > > But consider

Re: Kingdom of the blind

On 08/12/2011, at 4:10 PM, Stephen Lin wrote: > A thought: > > What if you were the blind man in the kingdom of the sighted? Alternatively, > what if you were the sighted man in the kingdom of the blind? How would you > tell the difference? Obviously, you can't. > > Now take it a step further