Yes, Doctor!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9597345/Afterlife-exists-says-top-brain-surgeon.html Comments, theories, reflections welcome. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Kim Jones -- 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: Yes, Doctor!
On 10/9/2012 11:54 PM, Kim Jones wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9597345/Afterlife-exists-says-top-brain-surgeon.html Comments, theories, reflections welcome. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Kim Jones I wouldn't say yes to him. He thinks your brain doesn't need to function. He might substitute a rock. 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: Re: On Beauty
Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Well, one could refer that definition of beauty back to the One, maybe that's what plotinus does. Instead of the many coming out of the one, the one comprises the many. A work of art is a whole of parts, compete. But practically speaking When I see a beautiful painting it seems to be well-made, well crafted, just right. Homer was good at that. Also, it's complete, nothing need be added. Similarly with music, there is a whole that seems complete when the music is done. Composers used to slam this in your ear with a series of parting phrases. Movies also seem to tie up the whole by zooming out to give a more panaramic view at the end. Novelists seem to know when they've completed things and begin a sense for the ending. In my limited experience at writing poetry I have learned to end the poem with a sense of wholeness by either freferring back to the beginning or zooming out as in the movies. In the fdollowi9ngf poem of mine, I refer back to the beginning of the poem, and that wraps it up, saying it's ciomplete. Salzburg A vase of flowers on a table Is touched by a spring breeze As she opens the door and leaves for school, Just as she opened the grand piano Before playing a Mozart sonata To see the steel strings Strong and tight, not like her soft hands As gentle as can be on the keyboard. The hammered steel and the warm wood inside filling the room with music, and Mozart within the music and the music within her being. But with the last note it is quiet. I reach over and straighten an imprecision of the flowers. - Roger Clough If you wish to unsubscribe from these occasional postings, simply reply with unsubscribe in the subject line. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 10:24:27 Subject: Re: On Beauty On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy The definition of beauty that I like is that beauty is unity in diversity. Hi Roger, As I mentioned, I think its very hard/perhaps impossible to tie down like that, even though I think I can grasp what you mean. For instance, concerning the definition you mentioned: is that diversity harmoniously completing itself, starkly contrasting itself, even in conflict with itself to appear unified on some other level? Picking up the last: you can have a narrative pitting protagonists against each other say in a film with heavy conflict. And their conflict produces a more convincing unified whole that is beautiful. Then take the wholeness of humans or machines on this planet and look at the conflict of war. Placing now aside, that people die physically in wars and not in fiction (there are many stuntmen that have died...) and pretending all were fiction to exercise more aesthetic, instead of moral, judgement: in both cases you have diversity as conflict and a wholeness (protagonists/whole film against vivid description of humanity in war). Still, Its really difficult to answer whether one is more beautiful than the other in some absolute sense, or to pin down properties or hierarchies that would make this so. But show a person both films you've made, and they will prefer one over the other. In other words, we know it when we meet it, or we see it in past or future through introspection. So employing fuzzy metaphors instead of defining it: it is a wild animal hard to catch, but universally present and always easily accessible. m? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 11:58:53 Subject: Re: On Zuckerman's paper Hi Stephen, Bruno, and Jason, Do I understand correctly that comp requires a relative measure on the set of all partial computable functions and that for Steven Both abstractions, such as numbers and their truths, and physical worlds must emerge together from a primitive ground which is neutral in that it has no innate properties at all other that necessary possibility. It merely exists. If so, naively I ask then: Why is beauty, in the imho non-chimeric sense posed by Plotinus in Ennead I.6 On Beauty, not a candidate for approximating that set, or for describing that which has no innate properties? Here the translation from Steven MacKenna: http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/beauty.htm Because, what drew me to Zuckerman was just a chance find on youtube... and seeing Infinite descending chains, decorations, self-reference etc. all tied together in a set theory context, I didn't think Wow, that's true but simply hmm, that's nice, maybe they'll elaborate a more precise frame. I know, people want to keep
Re: Re: On Beauty
The perception of beauty in the body is the result of the evolutionary need to detect people with sucessful traits to meet or mate them. Male face masculine traits, designed for avoiding strokes of other men. http://ilevolucionista.blogspot.com.es/2008/06/evolutionary-design-of-human-face.html The dimorphism in men and women are adaptive: Fro example, the high eyebrow of the women help them to monitor the surrounding when they are recolecting vegetables. The prominet and bigger eyebrow permits more peripherical vision. They protective traits are much less prominent. In contrast the low eyebrows of men protect better the eyes against strokes (see the post) 2012/10/10 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy Well, one could refer that definition of beauty back to the One, maybe that's what plotinus does. Instead of the many coming out of the one, the one comprises the many. A work of art is a whole of parts, compete. But practically speaking When I see a beautiful painting it seems to be well-made, well crafted, just right. Homer was good at that. Also, it's complete, nothing need be added. Similarly with music, there is a whole that seems complete when the music is done. Composers used to slam this in your ear with a series of parting phrases. Movies also seem to tie up the whole by zooming out to give a more panaramic view at the end. Novelists seem to know when they've completed things and begin a sense for the ending. In my limited experience at writing poetry I have learned to end the poem with a sense of wholeness by either freferring back to the beginning or zooming out as in the movies. In the fdollowi9ngf poem of mine, I refer back to the beginning of the poem, and that wraps it up, saying it's ciomplete. Salzburg A vase of flowers on a table Is touched by a spring breeze As she opens the door and leaves for school, Just as she opened the grand piano Before playing a Mozart sonata To see the steel strings Strong and tight, not like her soft hands As gentle as can be on the keyboard. The hammered steel and the warm wood inside filling the room with music, and Mozart within the music and the music within her being. But with the last note it is quiet. I reach over and straighten an imprecision of the flowers. - Roger Clough If you wish to unsubscribe from these occasional postings, simply reply with unsubscribe in the subject line. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 10:24:27 Subject: Re: On Beauty On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy The definition of beauty that I like is that beauty is unity in diversity. Hi Roger, As I mentioned, I think its very hard/perhaps impossible to tie down like that, even though I think I can grasp what you mean. For instance, concerning the definition you mentioned: is that diversity harmoniously completing itself, starkly contrasting itself, even in conflict with itself to appear unified on some other level? Picking up the last: you can have a narrative pitting protagonists against each other say in a film with heavy conflict. And their conflict produces a more convincing unified whole that is beautiful. Then take the wholeness of humans or machines on this planet and look at the conflict of war. Placing now aside, that people die physically in wars and not in fiction (there are many stuntmen that have died...) and pretending all were fiction to exercise more aesthetic, instead of moral, judgement: in both cases you have diversity as conflict and a wholeness (protagonists/whole film against vivid description of humanity in war). Still, Its really difficult to answer whether one is more beautiful than the other in some absolute sense, or to pin down properties or hierarchies that would make this so. But show a person both films you've made, and they will prefer one over the other. In other words, we know it when we meet it, or we see it in past or future through introspection. So employing fuzzy metaphors instead of defining it: it is a wild animal hard to catch, but universally present and always easily accessible. m? ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 11:58:53 Subject: Re: On Zuckerman's paper Hi Stephen, Bruno, and Jason, Do I understand correctly that comp requires a relative measure on the set of all partial computable functions and that for Steven Both abstractions, such as numbers and their truths, and physical worlds must emerge together from a primitive ground
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi meekerdb 1) If you do not have subjective experience, you are dead. So subjectivity is necessary for evolution. 2) The self cannot be an illusion, for it is the perceiver. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 13:07:29 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 10/9/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2012, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. There's a third possibility: Intelligent behavior is sometimes associated with subjective experience and sometimes not. Evolution may have produced consciousness as a spandrel, an accident of the particular developmental path that evolution happened upon. Or it may be that consciousness is necessarily associated with only certain kinds of intelligent behavior, e.g. those related to language. Consciousness is when you bet in your consistency, or in a reality, to help yourself. Consciousness precedes language, but follows perception and sensation. It unifies the interpretation of the senses, making the illusion possible. What illusion? The illusion of self? 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: Yes, Doctor!
Hi Kim Jones My own opinion is that the world is much stranger than we think it is. NDEs are like UFOs. They don't make any scientific sense, but they are widely experienced and reported. I don't think all of the observers can be crazy. But I am a type P in the mbti, so loose ends don't bother me. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Kim Jones Receiver: Everything List Time: 2012-10-10, 02:54:07 Subject: Yes, Doctor! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9597345/Afterlife-exists-says-top-brain-surgeon.html Comments, theories, reflections welcome. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Kim Jones -- 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: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi Bruno Marchal I think that consciousness, intelligence and some measure of free will are necessary and inseparable parts of life itself. consciousness / \ / \ / \ / life \ /\ / \ free will--intelligence Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 10:17:35 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 08 Oct 2012, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. There's a third possibility: Intelligent behavior is sometimes associated with subjective experience and sometimes not. Evolution may have produced consciousness as a spandrel, an accident of the particular developmental path that evolution happened upon. Or it may be that consciousness is necessarily associated with only certain kinds of intelligent behavior, e.g. those related to language. Consciousness is when you bet in your consistency, or in a reality, to help yourself. Consciousness precedes language, but follows perception and sensation. It unifies the interpretation of the senses, making the illusion possible. 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: Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi Roger Clough Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Roger Clough Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 07:31:58 Subject: Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment Hi Bruno Marchal I think that consciousness, intelligence and some measure of free will are necessary and inseparable parts of life itself. consciousness / \ / \ / \ / life \ / \ / \ free will--intelligence Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 10:17:35 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 08 Oct 2012, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. There's a third possibility: Intelligent behavior is sometimes associated with subjective experience and sometimes not. Evolution may have produced consciousness as a spandrel, an accident of the particular developmental path that evolution happened upon. Or it may be that consciousness is necessarily associated with only certain kinds of intelligent behavior, e.g. those related to language. Consciousness is when you bet in your consistency, or in a reality, to help yourself. Consciousness precedes language, but follows perception and sensation. It unifies the interpretation of the senses, making the illusion possible. 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. -- 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: Re: Experiences are not provable because they are private, personal.
ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal and Stathis, 1. Only entities in spacetime physically exist, and thus can be measured and proven. BRUNO: Too much vague to me. I am OK, and I am not OK, for different reasonable intepretations of what you say here. I doubt something in physics can be proved in physics, about reality. You need a theology or a metaphysics, which needs axioms too. ROGER: Physics is in spacetime, but not physical theories. The former have extension, the latter do not. Ideas or philosophy can be about the physical, but they have no extension in space, so are not themselves physical. ROGER: 2. Experiences exist only in the mind, not in spacetime, because they are not extended in nature. They are subjective. Beyond spacetime. Superphysical. Unproveable to others, but certain to oneself. BRUNO: OK. ROGER: 3. Numbers, being other than oneself, might possibly have experiences, but they cannot share them with us. BRUNO: Number cannot have experiences, per se. They just get involved in complex arithmetical relation which supports a person's life. Only the person is conscious, but the person supervene or on a quite complex clouds of numbers and oracle, in highly complex relationships. ROGER: Right. I was mistaken to say that numbers could have experiences. They are like ideas. Ideas and numbers can thought and in that experienced as thoughts. They can only share descriptions of experiences, not the experiences themselves (or even if those experiences exist). BRUNO: Yes. Like us. And PA and ZF already stay mute when asked about the experience they can have.Their G* (guardian angel, as I call it a long time ago) already explain why they stay mute, as they know that communicating that they have experience will make people believe that they have been programmed to say that. They already try to avoid being treated as zombie, apparently. Bruno Roger rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 10:19:35 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment Hi Roger, On 08 Oct 2012, at 16:14, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou I would put it that mind is superphysical. Beyond spacetime. Supernatural as a word carries too much baggage. With comp, the natural numbers are supernatural enough. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-10-08, 03:14:29 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 08/10/2012, at 3:07 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Absolutely not. We know no such thing. Quite the opposite, we know with relative certainty that what we understand of physics provides no possibility of anything other than more physics. There is no hint of any kind that these laws should lead to any such thing as an 'experience' or awareness of any kind. You beg the question 100% and are 100% incapable of seeing that you are doing it. Well, if it's not the laws of physics then it's something supernatural, isn't it? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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- l...@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 . 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 . -- 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: Re: Only you can know if you actually have intelligence
Hi Stathis Papaioannou You can be tested for intelligence, but the enduring solipsist problem shows that you cannot be tested for consciousness. At least nobody seems to have come up with such a test. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 08:35:18 Subject: Re: Only you can know if you actually have intelligence On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Only you can know if you actually have intelligence, although you can appear to have intelligence (as if). You can be tested for it. Thus comp is not different from us, or at least it has the same limitations. I think you mean consciousness rather than intelligence. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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: Re: Nature's firewall
Hi Stathis Papaioannou Only the computation could know that. We can only know our own minds. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 08:43:40 Subject: Re: Nature's firewall On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:07 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis, The separation you missed is that mind and consciousness are subjective entities(not shareable), while computations are objective (shareable). But we don't know the subjective qualities of a given computation, do we? -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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: Re: more firewalls
Hi Richard Ruquist What makes you think it is false ? Please be specific. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 08:25:10 Subject: Re: more firewalls Hi Roger, What makes you think that what you claim is true? Richard On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Nature has put a firewall between subjective entities such as monads and objective entities such as BECs or the manifolds. When I said attached I should have said associated to. There's no physical, only logical connections. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 12:35:34 Subject: Re: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis ThoughtExperiment Roger, Monads are everywhere, inside computers as well as humans, rocks and free space. Whatever allows monads to connect to physical objects may be operative for inanimates as well as animates. So the first step is to identify the connecting mechanism. For physical consciousness I conjecture the connection is based on BECs (Bose-Einstein Condensates) in the monadic mind entangled with BECs in the brain. It has been demonstrated experimentally that BECs of disparate substances can still be entangled. So once a computer is designed with BECs as in the human brain then it may be capable of consciousness. Richard On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I may have given that impression, sorry, but a monad can only make what's inside do what it can do. Human and animal monads can both feel, so they can be conscious. But a rock is at best unconscious as it cannot feel or think.\ There's no way to tell what faculties a computer has. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 11:06:17 Subject: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment Roger, If human consciousness comes from attached monads, as I think you have claimed, then why could not these monads attach to sufficiently complex computers as well. Richard On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Clark Unless computers can deal with inextended objects such as mind and experience, they cannot be conscious. Consciousness is direct experience, computers can only deal in descriptions of experience. Everything that a computer does is, to my knowledge, at least in principle publicly available, since it uses publicly available symbols or code. Consciousness is direct experience, which cannot be put down in code any more than life can be put down in code. It is personal and not publicly available. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/7/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 13:56:30 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: ?I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves sensibly with just a few transistors.? ? Only because he lives in a universe in which the possibility of teleology is fully supported from the start. We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this universe allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they do it but we know for a fact that it can be done. So how on Earth does that indicate that a conscious computer is not possible? Because it doesn't fart?? ? you have erroneously assumed that intelligence is possible without sense experience. No, I am assuming the exact OPPOSITE! In fact I'm not even assuming, I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage, and I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITH consciousness confers no additional Evolutionary advantage (and if you disagree with that point then you must believe that the Turing Test works for consciousness too and not just intelligence). And in spite of all this I know for a fact that Evolution DID produce consciousness at least once, therefore the only conclusion is that consciousness is a byproduct of intellagence. Adenine and Thymine don't have purpose in seeking to bind with each other? I don't even know what a question like that means, who's purpose do you expect
Re: Re: more firewalls
Hi Richard Ruquist Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 08:25:10 Subject: Re: more firewalls Hi Roger, What makes you think that what you claim is true? Richard On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 8:19 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Nature has put a firewall between subjective entities such as monads and objective entities such as BECs or the manifolds. When I said attached I should have said associated to. There's no physical, only logical connections. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/9/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-08, 12:35:34 Subject: Re: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis ThoughtExperiment Roger, Monads are everywhere, inside computers as well as humans, rocks and free space. Whatever allows monads to connect to physical objects may be operative for inanimates as well as animates. So the first step is to identify the connecting mechanism. For physical consciousness I conjecture the connection is based on BECs (Bose-Einstein Condensates) in the monadic mind entangled with BECs in the brain. It has been demonstrated experimentally that BECs of disparate substances can still be entangled. So once a computer is designed with BECs as in the human brain then it may be capable of consciousness. Richard On Mon, Oct 8, 2012 at 9:25 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist I may have given that impression, sorry, but a monad can only make what's inside do what it can do. Human and animal monads can both feel, so they can be conscious. But a rock is at best unconscious as it cannot feel or think.\ There's no way to tell what faculties a computer has. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/8/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-07, 11:06:17 Subject: Re: Can computers be conscious ? Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment Roger, If human consciousness comes from attached monads, as I think you have claimed, then why could not these monads attach to sufficiently complex computers as well. Richard On Sun, Oct 7, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi John Clark Unless computers can deal with inextended objects such as mind and experience, they cannot be conscious. Consciousness is direct experience, computers can only deal in descriptions of experience. Everything that a computer does is, to my knowledge, at least in principle publicly available, since it uses publicly available symbols or code. Consciousness is direct experience, which cannot be put down in code any more than life can be put down in code. It is personal and not publicly available. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/7/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-06, 13:56:30 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: ?I'm openly saying that a high school kid can make a robot that behaves sensibly with just a few transistors.? ? Only because he lives in a universe in which the possibility of teleology is fully supported from the start. We know with absolute certainty that the laws of physics in this universe allow for the creation of consciousness, we may not know how they do it but we know for a fact that it can be done. So how on Earth does that indicate that a conscious computer is not possible? Because it doesn't fart?? ? you have erroneously assumed that intelligence is possible without sense experience. No, I am assuming the exact OPPOSITE! In fact I'm not even assuming, I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage, and I know for a fact that intelligent behavior WITH consciousness confers no additional Evolutionary advantage (and if you disagree with that point then you must believe that the Turing Test works for consciousness too and not just intelligence). And in spite of all this I know for a fact that Evolution DID produce consciousness at least once, therefore the only conclusion is that consciousness is a byproduct of intellagence. Adenine and Thymine don't have purpose in seeking to bind with each other? I don't even know what a question like that means, who's purpose do you expect Adenine and Thymine to serve? How do you know? I know because I have intelligence and Adenine and Thymine do not know because they have none, they only have cause and
The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation
-- Forwarded message -- From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com Date: Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:24 AM Subject: Fw: the physics arXiv blog To: yann...@gmail.com yann...@gmail.com - Forwarded Message - *From:* Technology Review Feed - arXiv blog ho...@arxivblog.com *To:* yann...@yahoo.com *Sent:* Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:13 AM *Subject:* the physics arXiv blog the physics arXiv blog http://www.technologyreview.com/ http://fusion.google.com/add?source=atgsfeedurl=http://feeds.feedburner.com/arXivblog -- The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulationhttp://feedproxy.google.com/~r/arXivblog/~3/-vgnzDwYuis/click.phdo?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=email Posted: 10 Oct 2012 04:08 AM PDT If the cosmos is a numerical simulation, there ought to be clues in the spectrum of high energy cosmic rays, say theorists One of modern physics' most cherished ideas is quantum chromodynamics, the theory that describes the strong nuclear force, how it binds quarks and gluons into protons and neutrons, how these form nuclei that themselves interact. This is the universe at its most fundamental. So an interesting pursuit is to simulate quantum chromodynamics on a computer to see what kind of complexity arises. The promise is that simulating physics on such a fundamental level is more or less equivalent to simulating the universe itself. There are one or two challenges of course. The physics is mind-bogglingly complex and operates on a vanishingly small scale. So even using the world's most powerful supercomputers, physicists have only managed to simulate tiny corners of the cosmos just a few femtometers across. (A femtometer is 10^-15 metres.) That may not sound like much but the significant point is that the simulation is essentially indistinguishable from the real thing (at least as far as we understand it). It's not hard to imagine that Moore's Law-type progress will allow physicists to simulate significantly larger regions of space. A region just a few micrometres across could encapsulate the entire workings of a human cell. Again, the behaviour of this human cell would be indistinguishable from the real thing. It's this kind of thinking that forces physicists to consider the possibility that our entire cosmos could be running on a vastly powerful computer. If so, is there any way we could ever know? Today, we get an answer of sorts from Silas Beane, at the University of Bonn in Germany, and a few pals. They say there is a way to see evidence that we are being simulated, at least in certain scenarios. First, some background. The problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time. The question that Beane and co ask is whether the lattice spacing imposes any kind of limitation on the physical processes we see in the universe. They examine, in particular, high energy processes, which probe smaller regions of space as they get more energetic What they find is interesting. They say that the lattice spacing imposes a fundamental limit on the energy that particles can have. That's because nothing can exist that is smaller than the lattice itself. So if our cosmos is merely a simulation, there ought to be a cut off in the spectrum of high energy particles. It turns out there is exactly this kind of cut off in the energy of cosmic ray particles, a limit known as the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin or GZK cut off. This cut-off has been well studied and comes about because high energy particles interact with the cosmic microwave background and so lose energy as they travel long distances. But Beane and co calculate that the lattice spacing imposes some additional features on the spectrum. The most striking feature...is that the angular distribution of the highest energy components would exhibit cubic symmetry in the rest frame of the lattice, deviating significantly from isotropy, they say. In other words, the cosmic rays would travel preferentially along the axes of the lattice, so we wouldn't see them equally in all directions. That's a measurement we could do now with current technology. Finding the effect would be equivalent to being able to to 'see' the orientation of lattice on which our universe is simulated. That's cool, mind-blowing even. But the calculations by Beane and co are not without some important caveats. One problem is that the computer lattice may be constructed in an entirely different way to the one envisaged by these guys. Another is that this effect is only measurable if the lattice cut off is the same as the GZK cut off. This occurs when the lattice spacing is about 10^-12 femtometers. If the spacing is significantly smaller than that, we'll see nothing. Nevertheless, it's surely worth looking for, if only to rule out the possibility that we're part of a simulation of this particular kind but
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I have no trouble at all saying that zero computers are conscious and that all living people have had conscious experiences. Fine say what you want, but I'll never be able to prove you right and I'll never be able to prove you wrong so what you're saying on that subject, even if you're managing to say it with no trouble, is of little interest. Why do you think that you know that? What makes a behavior intelligent? Over how long a time period are we talking about? Is a species as a whole intelligent? Are ecosystems intelligent? Caves full of growing crystals? Sorry but 6 rhetorical questions in a row exceeds my rhetorical quota. When did I ever say that I am the only conscious being in the universe? I give up, when did you say that you are the only conscious being in the universe? And if you didn't say it I'd be curious to know why you did not say it as no behavior by your fellow creatures can prove you are not. They are literally automatons. Computers and automatons are no different from you, they do things for a reason or they do not do things for a reason. A rock will not sing showtunes if given a chance. That is totally incorrect. A rock will sing show tunes so beautifully it will make the original cast of Cats weep, all it needs is for the atoms in the rock to be organized in the correct way, and to do that all you need is very small fingers and information. If they [computers] caused everything to happen without us, then there would be no us. Yes. What does that have to do with this idea of yours that intelligence can exist without consciousness? I don't know because I don't know what the hell you're talking about. That's not my idea, in fact although I can't prove it I've said many times that I very strongly suspect that intelligence can NOT exist without consciousness, that's why I very strongly suspect that my fellow human beings are conscious like me, at least they are when they are not sleeping or under anesthesia or dead. The reason I'm so confident of this is that Evolution would have no reason to produce consciousness if it were not linked with intelligence. I give up, who claims to know that intelligence without consciousness exists? You. Very insistently: intelligent behavior WITHOUT consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage. Yes I said that and I stand by the fact that intelligent behavior without consciousness confers a Evolutionary advantage over non-intelligent behavior with or without consciousness, and I stand by my comment that intelligent behavior with consciousness confers no additional Evolutionary advantage. However important consciousness may be to us to Evolution it's a useless fifth wheel, and yet it produced this useless thing, so it must be a byproduct of something that is not useless, like intelligence. A computer beating you at chess is evidence that the intelligent behavior of conscious computer programmers is effective at fooling you that the computer is intelligent and conscious. Fooling you?? It is a factual depiction of reality that the computer beat you at chess and there is no doubt about it, its right there in front of your eyes! You lost, the computer won, its a fact. If there is any fooling going on it's directed inward and you're trying to fool yourself into thinking that you have not really lost, or you're just being a sore looser and whining that the computer cheated in some vague undefined way. And if the computer's intelligence, as displayed by skillfully playing the game, is just due to the intelligent behavior of conscious computer programmers then I don't understand why the machine can beat those programmers as easily as it beat you. And I don't even understand why you believe those computer programmers were conscious. what behavior gave you the clue that it would be a misinterpretation to attribute consciousness to something? Every behavior of a computer gives me the clue. They will sit and do the same thing over and over forever. It's true that existing computers seem a tad autistic, but then humans went to great pains to give them that attribute. They [computers] are incapable of figuring out when they are wrong Exactly precisely like some human beings I know. Piaget proved it. Bullshit! Piaget proved stuff about behavior but he proved nothing about consciousness, not even that it exists. I agree that emotion is more primitive than actual intelligence So you think it would be easier to make a emotional computer than a intelligent one. behavior that is not hardwired in the genes. Sounds like free will. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII characters free will mean. My explanation works (at least to the extent that you have no counterfactuals). I don't understand what sort of counter factual you're talking about. Why is panexperientialism begging the question if it's true? Because it just says that
Re: Re: more firewalls
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:51:50 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, To say that a connection is based on logic is a category error. More specifically, I conjecture that the connection in the brain between the physical brain and the (computational?) mind/monads is based on BEC entanglement. BEC stands for Bose-Einstein Condensate. It has been demonstrated experimentally that BECs made of different substances can become entangled. I claim based on string theory that the monads are a BEC since they came from space. They are compactified space, crystalline in form and essentially motionless. Presumably there is also a physical BEC in the brain. So if my conjecture is correct, that disparate BECs, even the monad BEC is substantive, are capable of entanglement, which of course is all logical, then the connection is based on entanglement. To say that a connection is based on logic is a category error. Richard What advantage does a BEC explanation really have over substance dualism though? How dies it solve the hard problem? Why do BECs experience things and nothing else does? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kEWP_Mi0G4IJ. 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: Yes, Doctor!
NDEs make sense to me in my model. With personal consciousness as a subset of super-personal consciousness, it stands to reason that the personal event of one's own death would or could be a super-signifiying presentation in the native language of one's person (or super-person). Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/i8oyl4-GBgIJ. 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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi Craig, and other As I am in very buzy period, which can last some time, I will be short and focus on the main disagreements. Or I will take more time for some posts, or I will break my spelling mistakes' number record. On 09 Oct 2012, at 17:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:17:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: Consciousness is when you bet in your consistency, or in a reality, to help yourself. Consciousness precedes language, but follows perception and sensation. Nice. It can be tricky because perception and sensation can both be seen as kinds of awareness and some people use the term consciousness as a synonym for awareness. This is not entirely incorrect. It's like saying that cash and credit cards are both kind of money and that economics is a synonym for money. It can be if you want it to be, it's just a word that we define by consensus usage, but if we want to get precise, then I try to have a vague taxonomy of sensation perception feeling awareness consciousness so that consciousness is an awareness of awareness. The continuum is logarithmic, but not discretely so because of the nature of subjectivity ins not discrete but runs the full spectrum from discrete to nebulous. It unifies the interpretation of the senses, making the illusion possible. Here it is, Bruno. This is where I can see you saying exactly what I used to believe was true, but now I understand it 180 degrees away from the *whole* truth. All that you have to do is drop the assumption that each sense is a separate discrete process built up from nothing and see it as a sieve, filtering out or receiving particular ranges of non-illusory experience. I have never done that assumption. On the contrary I try to explain that comp is incompatible with that assumption. The sense is in a relation involving *all* computations, possible oracles, possible larger part of arithmetical truth, a person, and a machine making it possible for that person to manifest herself with respect to its more probable computations, and possible persons doing the same, relatively. I can interpret favorably what you say below in that context. Bruno The filtered sensation do not need to be conditioned mechanically or mechanically, they aren't objects which need to be assembled. The unification of the senses is like the nuclear force - unity is the a priori default, it is only the processes of the brain which modulate the obstruction of that unity. Sanity does not need to be propped up and scripted like a program, it is a familiar attractor (as opposed to strange attractor) of any given inertial frame. The only illusion we have is when our non-illusory capacity to tell the difference between conflicting inertial frames of perception, cognition, sensation, etc recovers that difference and identifies with one sense frame over another, because of a perception of greater sense or significance. It's not subject to emulation. It actually has to make more sense to the person. The content doesn't matter. You can have a dream that makes no cognitive sense at all but without your waking life to compare it to, you have no problem accepting that there is a donkey driving you to work. Realism is not emergent functionally or assembled digitally from the bottom up, it is recovered apocatastatically from the top down. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rQor-nft0osJ . 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 . 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: Universe on a Chip
On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote: If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the “CPU speed?” As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the simulation appear as a constant value. Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle. Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also inside the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value. A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more here http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?) I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in a vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which occurs local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With this view, the correlation between distance and latency is an organizational one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather than the presumed literal existence of racing light bodies (photons). This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn’t be especially consistent with this model…why would the ghost of a supernova slow down the cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc? The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no action at all. The universe doesn’t need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear to. It can only seem to disappear through… … … … latency. The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side, richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to complete their cycles first? ? If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures will not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that such a time does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR. I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying about the universe arising before even the first tick of the clock is finished, but we can talk about this instead if you like. What you are saying, like what my friend up there was saying about the CPU clock being invisible to the Sims, I have no problem with. That's why I was saying it's like a computer game. You can stop the game, debug the program, start it back up where you left off, and if there was a Sim person actually experiencing that, they would not experience any interruption. Fine. The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing the computing, yes? What does it run on? On the true number relations. Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic, involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic. If it doesn't need to run on anything, then way not just have that be the universe in the first place? OK. It is the arithmetical universe, or (I prefer) arithmetic truth. We cannot really defined it. You can call it God or Universe, but it is important to distinguish from the physical reality, which is an internal emerging secondary structure, in the comp setting. Bruno Craig Bruno
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:07, meekerdb wrote: On 10/9/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2012, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. There's a third possibility: Intelligent behavior is sometimes associated with subjective experience and sometimes not. Evolution may have produced consciousness as a spandrel, an accident of the particular developmental path that evolution happened upon. Or it may be that consciousness is necessarily associated with only certain kinds of intelligent behavior, e.g. those related to language. Consciousness is when you bet in your consistency, or in a reality, to help yourself. Consciousness precedes language, but follows perception and sensation. It unifies the interpretation of the senses, making the illusion possible. What illusion? The illusion of self? The illusion possible in all consciousness content, except 'being conscious here and now' itself. Careful: illusion can be true, sometimes. I use illusion like we use number even for 0 and 1, despite number meant 'numerous'. 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: Conjoined Twins
On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:09:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think Brittany and Abby are two single individual persons. I do too, but we can see that there is much more behavioral synchronization that we would expect from two single individual persons. Then there are the brain conjoined twins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDsXa5nNbI (skip to 5:23 if you want) That situation is a bit different, but notice the similarities between kids who literally share some part of their brain and ones who share nothing from the neck up. I follow those twins, and others. It is very interesting. They are cute too. Once they mesh the brain, observable facts are hard to interpret. It is know also that some weird synchronization (like marrying at the same time a partner looking similar) might occur between distant twins, but it is hard also to verify or give credits to all accounts, or even just to interpret them, as it might mean that a larger part of the behavior is programmed in the genome (like here the taste for the type of woman/boy). 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: Re: more firewalls
Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:51:50 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, To say that a connection is based on logic is a category error. More specifically, I conjecture that the connection in the brain between the physical brain and the (computational?) mind/monads is based on BEC entanglement. BEC stands for Bose-Einstein Condensate. It has been demonstrated experimentally that BECs made of different substances can become entangled. I claim based on string theory that the monads are a BEC since they came from space. They are compactified space, crystalline in form and essentially motionless. Presumably there is also a physical BEC in the brain. So if my conjecture is correct, that disparate BECs, even the monad BEC is substantive, are capable of entanglement, which of course is all logical, then the connection is based on entanglement. To say that a connection is based on logic is a category error. Richard What advantage does a BEC explanation really have over substance dualism though? How dies it solve the hard problem? Why do BECs experience things and nothing else does? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/kEWP_Mi0G4IJ. 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.
The little genius.
A very sad news is that Eric Vandenbussche died. It is the guy I called here often the little genius, who solved notably the first open problem in my PhD thesis (as you can consult on my url). That was a *very* nice guy, a friend, also, an ally, a support. I miss him greatly. R.I.P. Eric. -- 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: Yes, Doctor!
On 10 Oct 2012, at 09:14, meekerdb wrote: On 10/9/2012 11:54 PM, Kim Jones wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/9597345/Afterlife-exists-says-top-brain-surgeon.html Comments, theories, reflections welcome. You pays your money and you makes your choice. Kim Jones I wouldn't say yes to him. He thinks your brain doesn't need to function. He might substitute a rock. If your goal is to survive, that might work. If your goal is to complete your mission nearby, that might not work, especially from the point of view of the observers. A machine with the cognitive ability sufficient to bet genuinely on an artificial digital brain can understand we don't really need one to survive. But then the question is who are you?, really. 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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:31, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I think that consciousness, intelligence and some measure of free will are necessary and inseparable parts of life itself. consciousness / \ / \ / \ / life \ /\ / \ free will--intelligence I agree with this. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 10:17:35 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 08 Oct 2012, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. There's a third possibility: Intelligent behavior is sometimes associated with subjective experience and sometimes not. Evolution may have produced consciousness as a spandrel, an accident of the particular developmental path that evolution happened upon. Or it may be that consciousness is necessarily associated with only certain kinds of intelligent behavior, e.g. those related to language. Consciousness is when you bet in your consistency, or in a reality, to help yourself. Consciousness precedes language, but follows perception and sensation. It unifies the interpretation of the senses, making the illusion possible. 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 . 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: Only you can know if you actually have intelligence
On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:23, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You can be tested for intelligence, You can be tested for competence, only. Not for intelligence. Not for consciousness, either. You can test locally for non-intelligence, in front of a repeated mistakes. Intelligence is an emotional thing, related with a form of self- insatisfaction. It can have variate qualities. but the enduring solipsist problem shows that you cannot be tested for consciousness. You can test only relative competence. You can appreciate intelligence, but it depends on your own. Competence is conceptually simple, but hard in practice. Intelligence is conceptually difficult, and hard in practice. Consciousness is conceptually difficult, but easy in practice. At least nobody seems to have come up with such a test. Such a test does not even make sense. I think. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 08:35:18 Subject: Re: Only you can know if you actually have intelligence On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Only you can know if you actually have intelligence, although you can appear to have intelligence (as if). You can be tested for it. Thus comp is not different from us, or at least it has the same limitations. I think you mean consciousness rather than intelligence. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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 . 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: The little genius.
On 10/10/2012 1:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: A very sad news is that Eric Vandenbussche died. It is the guy I called here often the little genius, who solved notably the first open problem in my PhD thesis (as you can consult on my url). That was a *very* nice guy, a friend, also, an ally, a support. I miss him greatly. R.I.P. Eric. Dear Bruno, I am sad to hear that. :_( I was very intrigued by his results! Could you get permission to publish all of his work? -- 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: Re: more firewalls
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. 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: [foar] Re: The real reasons we don’t have AGI yet
On 09 Oct 2012, at 20:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:22, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a self-model. They are not members of a social community. Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet). Brent -- Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling? My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for some task to more efficiently solve that task... Betting on self-consistency, and variant of that idea, shorten the proofs and speed the computations, sometimes in the wrong direction. Hi Bruno, Could you elaborate a bit on the betting mechanism so that it is more clear how the shorting of proofs and speed-up of computations obtains? The (correct) machine tries to prove its consistency (Dt, ~Bf) and never succeed, so bet that she can't do that. Then she prove Dt - ~BDt, and infer interrogatively Dt and ~BDt. Then either she adds the axiom Dt, with the D corresponding to the whole new theory. In that case she becomes inconsistent. Or, she add Dt as a new axiom, without that Dt included, in that case it is not so complex to prove that she will have infinitely many proofs capable to be arbitrarily shortened. I might explain more after I sump up Church thesis and the phi_i and the W_i. That theorem admits a short proof. You can find one in Torkel's book on the use and misuse of Gödel's theorem, or you can read the original proof by Gödel in the book edited by Martin Davis the undecidable (now a Dover book). On almost all inputs, universal machine (creative set, by Myhill theorem, and in a sense of Post) have the alluring property to be arbitrarily speedable. This is a measure issue, no? No. Of course the trick is in on almost all inputs which means all, except a finite number of exception, and this concerns more evolution than reason. OK. Evolution is basically computation + the halting oracle. Implemented with the physical time (which is is based itself on computation + self-reference + arithmetical truth). Bruno So you are equating selection by fitness in a local environment with a halting oracle? Somehow. Newton would probably not have noticed the falling apple and F=ma, if dinosaurs didn't stop some times before. The measure depends on 'computation in the limit' (= computation + halting oracle) because the first person experience is invariant of the UD's delays. 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: Conjoined Twins
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:27:14 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 10:09:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: I think Brittany and Abby are two single individual persons. I do too, but we can see that there is much more behavioral synchronization that we would expect from two single individual persons. Then there are the brain conjoined twins: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWDsXa5nNbI (skip to 5:23 if you want) That situation is a bit different, but notice the similarities between kids who literally share some part of their brain and ones who share nothing from the neck up. I follow those twins, and others. It is very interesting. They are cute too. Once they mesh the brain, observable facts are hard to interpret. Yes, it's sad that the sensational freakishness of the topic makes it sort of taboo. It would like to see some really extensive interviews with them when they grow up a bit. I can certainly appreciate the desire to be left alone or to be accepted into social normalcy, but to me their situation is so much more interesting than normalcy, I wish that they (these twins and Abby and Brittany too) would talk about their conscious experience in detail. It is know also that some weird synchronization (like marrying at the same time a partner looking similar) might occur between distant twins, Right, twins separated at birth sometimes find obscure idiopathic behaviors they share. but it is hard also to verify or give credits to all accounts, or even just to interpret them, as it might mean that a larger part of the behavior is programmed in the genome (like here the taste for the type of woman/boy). This is where I feel like we should be seeing the limitation of the genetic assumption of identity. Surely a gene cannot cause an event like marrying to be synchronized. What if you found the gene and changed it the night before the wedding? It doesn't really make sense that two isolated mechanisms in different people can cause an event outside of themselves to happen. To me this supports my view that time, sense, and energy are really the same thing and space, matter, and information are their shadows. Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/NrjwDcXmSN0J. 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: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if rather than is
2012/10/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 09 Oct 2012, at 18:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It may be a zombie or not. I can´t know. The same applies to other persons. It may be that the world is made of zombie-actors that try to cheat me, but I have an harcoded belief in the conventional thing. Maybe it is, because otherwise, I will act in strange and self destructive ways. I would act as a paranoic, after that, as a psycopath (since they are not humans). That will not be good for my success in society. Then, I doubt that I will have any surviving descendant that will develop a zombie-solipsist epistemology. However there are people that believe these strange things. Some autists do not recognize humans as beings like him. Some psychopaths too, in a different way. There is no authistic or psichopathic epistemology because the are not functional enough to make societies with universities and philosophers. That is the whole point of evolutionary epistemology. If comp leads to solipsism, I will apply for being a plumber. I don't bet or believe in solipsism. But you were saying that a *conscious* robot can lack a soul. See the quote just below. That is what I don't understand. Bruno I think that It is not comp what leads to solipsism but any existential stance that only accept what is certain and discard what is only belief based on conjectures. It can go no further than cogito ergo sum 2012/10/9 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote: But still after this reasoning, I doubt that the self conscious philosopher robot have the kind of thing, call it a soul, that I have. ? You mean it is a zombie? I can't conceive consciousness without a soul. Even if only the universal one. So I am not sure what you mean by soul. 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. -- Alberto. -- 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. 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: AGI
John,
On 09 Oct 2012, at 22:22, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno,
examples are not identifiction. I was referring to (your?) lack of
detailed description what the universal machine consists of and how
it functions (maybe: beyond what we know - ha ha). A comprehensive
ID. Your lot of examples rather denies that you have one.
A universal machine is any entity capable of computing all partial
computable functions. There are many, and for many we can prove that
they are universal machine. For many we can't prove that, or it might
be intrinsically complex to do so.
A Löbian machine is a universal machine which knows, in a weak
technical precise sense, that they are universal.
Same remark as above, we can prove that some machine are Löbian, but
we might not been able to recognize all those who are.
And:
'if it is enough FOR YOU to consider them, it may not be enough for
me. I don't really know HOW conscious I am.
Nor do I. Nor do they, when you listened to them, taking into account
their silence.
I like your counter-point in competence and intelligence.
I identified the wisdom (maybe it should read: the intelligence)
of the oldies as not 'disturbed' by too many factual(?) known
circumstances - maybe it is competence.
You meant intelligence? I would agree.
You know I prefer the Bohm who discuss with Krishnamurti, than the
Bohm (the same person to be sure) who believes in quantum hidden
variables.
To include our inventory accumulated over the millennia as
impediment ('blinded by').
Above the Löbian treshold, the machine understands that, the more she
know, the more she is ignorant.
Knowledge is only a lantern on a very big unknown. The more light you
put on it, the bigger it seems.
But we can ask question (= develop theories). And we can have
experiences.
Above the Löbian treshold, the machine understands that the more she
can be intelligent, the more she can be stupid.
And that competence is quite relative, but can be magnified
uncomputably, but also (alas) unpredictably, with many simple
heuristics, like:
- tolerate errors,
- work in union,
- encourage changes of mind,
etc. (By results of Case and Smith, Blum and Blum, Gold, Putnam,
etc.). reference in the biblio of conscience et mécanisme, in my url.
Bruno
John M
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:07, John Mikes wrote:
Dear Richard, I think the lengthy text is Ben's article in
response to D. Deutsch.
Sometimes I was erring in the belief that it is YOUR text, but no.
Thanks for copying.
It is too long and too little organized for me to keep up with
ramifications prima vista.
What I extracted from it are some remarks I will try to communicate
to Ben (a longtime e-mail friend) as well.
I have my (agnostically derived) version of intelligence: the
capability of reading 'inter'
lines (words/meanings). Apart from such human distinction: to
realize the 'essence' of relations beyond vocabulary, or 'physical
science' definitions.
Such content is not provided in our practical computing machines
(although Bruno trans-leaps such barriers with his (Löb's) universal
machine unidentified).
Unidentified?I give a lot of examples: PA, ZF, John Mikes, me,
and the octopus.
In some sense they succeed enough the mirror test. That's enough for
me to consider them, well, not just conscious, but as conscious as
me, and you.
The difference are only on domain competence, and intelligence (in
which case it might be that octopus are more intelligent than us, as
we are blinded by our competences).
It is possible that when competence grows intelligence decrease, but
I am not sure.
Bruno
Whatever our (physical) machines can do is within the physical
limits of information - the content of the actual MODEL of the
world we live with by yesterday's knowledge, no advanced technology
can transcend such limitations: there is no input to do so. This may
be the limits for AI, and AGI as well. Better manipulation etc. do
not go BEYOND.
Human mind-capabilities, however, (at least in my 'agnostic'
worldview) are under the influences (unspecified) from the infinite
complexity BEYOND our MODEL, without our knowledge and
specification's power. Accordingly we MAY get input from more than
the factual content of the MODEL. On such (unspecified) influences
may be our creativity based (anticipation of Robert Rosen?) what
cannot be duplicated by cutest algorithms in the best computing
machines.
Our 'factual' knowable in the MODEL are adjusted to our mind's
capability - not so even the input from the unknowable 'infinite
complexity's' relations.
Intelligence would go beyond our quotidian limitations, not feasible
for machines that work within such borders.
I may dig out relevant information from Ben's text in subsequent
readings, provided that I get to it back.
Thanks again,
Re: Universe on a Chip
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:14:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote: If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the “CPU speed?” As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the simulation appear as a constant value. Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle. Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also inside the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value. A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more herehttp://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?__snids__=6179 http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?) I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in a vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which occurs local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With this view, the correlation between distance and latency is an organizational one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather than the presumed literal existence of racing light bodies (photons). This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn’t be especially consistent with this model…why would the ghost of a supernova slow down the cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc? The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no action at all. The universe doesn’t need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear to. It can only seem to disappear through… … … … latency. The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side, richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to complete their cycles first? ? If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures will not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that such a time does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR. I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying about the universe arising before even the first tick of the clock is finished, but we can talk about this instead if you like. What you are saying, like what my friend up there was saying about the CPU clock being invisible to the Sims, I have no problem with. That's why I was saying it's like a computer game. You can stop the game, debug the program, start it back up where you left off, and if there was a Sim person actually experiencing that, they would not experience any interruption. Fine. The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing the computing, yes? What does it run on? On the true number relations. Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic, involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic. Right, so the number relations don't require any meta-computation. Why then do their progeny require number-relations? If it
Re: Re: more firewalls
Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. 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: Re: more firewalls
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:32:40 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard I agree that the names aren't important, but why are there two different unrelated kinds of experiences? Do the monads make the neurons, and if so, why? Or do the neurons make monads, and again, why? If you have either one, why have the other? Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iPDr2MZS2MUJ. 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: Survey of Consciousness Models
On 10.10.2012 17:16 Craig Weinberg said the following: http://s33light.org/post/33296583824 Have a look. Objections? Suggestions? I am not sure if vitalism is a model of consciousness. Eliminativism is not Epiphenomenalism. The small difference is that epiphenomenalism assumes mental phenomena and eliminativism not. Epiphenomenalism acknowledge that mental phenomena do exist but they just do not have causal power on human behavior. Then there is Reductive Physicalisms: Mental states are identical to physical states. It is not functionalism though, as everything goes through physical states directly. The difference with eliminativism is subtle. There is Property Dualism and there is Externalism. You will find nice podcasts about it at A Romp Through the Philosophy of Mind http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/romp-through-philosophy-mind Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/08/philosophy-of-mind.html -- 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: Survey of Consciousness Models
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:27:52 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.10.2012 17:16 Craig Weinberg said the following: http://s33light.org/post/33296583824 Have a look. Objections? Suggestions? I am not sure if vitalism is a model of consciousness. Yeah, this is more of an informal consideration of the breakpoints between awareness and matter. I bring in vitalism as a name for the breakpoint which is assigned to biology as far as being the difference between what can evolve awareness and what never can. Eliminativism is not Epiphenomenalism. The small difference is that epiphenomenalism assumes mental phenomena and eliminativism not. I wasn't really talking about epiphenomenalism, I was saying that eliminativism treats consciousness as an epiphenomenon. Or are you saying that eliminativism eliminates even the concept of consciousness as an experience - which yeah, maybe it does, even though it really doesn't even make sense unless the inside of our brain looked like a Cartesian theater. Epiphenomenalism acknowledge that mental phenomena do exist but they just do not have causal power on human behavior. Yeah, I see epiphenomenalism as a principle which could be attached to a lot of the ones that I listed. You could have epiphenomenal idealism if you believe that it is 'all God's Will', or whatever. It isn't really in the same category as what I was after here in looking at where the breakpoints are. Like substance dualism, it is just saying what consciousness is not but offers no explanation about what it is. Then there is Reductive Physicalisms: Mental states are identical to physical states. It is not functionalism though, as everything goes through physical states directly. The difference with eliminativism is subtle. Too subtle for me maybe. What does one say that the other doesn't? There is Property Dualism and there is Externalism. Externalism is a good one that I should add maybe. It still doesn't point to who gets to be conscious and who doesn't though. Property dualism, like Substance dualism seems like it could be attached to several of the others. It doesn't really specify at what level the property of consciousness kicks in. You will find nice podcasts about it at A Romp Through the Philosophy of Mind http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/romp-through-philosophy-mind Thanks! Will check em out when I can! Craig Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/08/philosophy-of-mind.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/WWH98ZJcPTIJ. 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: Re: more firewalls
Craig, Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes everything. String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still expanding, monads are apparently still being made. The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, they (the monads) exist. You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be correct, even if my modelling is incorrect. All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that probably can never be proven. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:32:40 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard I agree that the names aren't important, but why are there two different unrelated kinds of experiences? Do the monads make the neurons, and if so, why? Or do the neurons make monads, and again, why? If you have either one, why have the other? Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more
Re: Re: more firewalls
I disagree with everything you suggest. On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:52:30 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes everything. String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still expanding, monads are apparently still being made. The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, they (the monads) exist. You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be correct, even if my modelling is incorrect. All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that probably can never be proven. Richard All that I suggest is that string theory and especially string monads only really address the hard problem if they are understood as figurative strings rather than literal structures. The dimensions would have to be qualitative experiential dimensions (like emotion, meaning, etc.) rather than literally 'different kinds of space'. In my view the whole notion of space as a plenum is a non-starter. You can look at it that way and perhaps it will work eventually, but it is the lng way around - like trying to guess what song is playing by analyzing a database of the expressions on the faces of people listening to that song. I say that space is a dimensionless void between phenomena which do have qualities that can be expressed as partly quantifiable with dimension. We are in the big bang, as we always have been, only it is banging within, diffracting itself in many different ways, both figuratively and literally at the same time. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/JrTIYscXvbwJ. 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: The little genius.
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 01:41:51PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/10/2012 1:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: A very sad news is that Eric Vandenbussche died. It is the guy I called here often the little genius, who solved notably the first open problem in my PhD thesis (as you can consult on my url). That was a *very* nice guy, a friend, also, an ally, a support. I miss him greatly. R.I.P. Eric. Dear Bruno, I am sad to hear that. :_( I was very intrigued by his results! Could you get permission to publish all of his work? Ideed, it would be a tragedy if Eric's insights were lost to the world. Perhaps a posthumous article might be in order explaining his insights? I would be happy to endorse on arXiv, assuming I can endorse in the appropriate category (I found I couldn't endorse Colin's paper a couple of years ago, though, so this may be an empty promise :). Cheers -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: more firewalls
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:46:17 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: I disagree with everything you suggest. You are welcome to disagree, but without knowing why, I can only assume that you don't really have an argument against my view. The bottom line is that without some theory which gets us from matter to *us right here* it really is more of in interesting curiosity. It may turn out to be incredibly useful/important/profitable from an engineering and technology standpoint, but it really doesn't answer the timeless questions of who we are and what awareness is. My model does that. Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:52:30 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes everything. String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still expanding, monads are apparently still being made. The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, they (the monads) exist. You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be correct, even if my modelling is incorrect. All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that probably can never be proven. Richard All that I suggest is that string theory and especially string monads only really address the hard problem if they are understood as figurative strings rather than literal structures. The dimensions would have to be qualitative experiential dimensions (like emotion, meaning, etc.) rather than literally 'different kinds of space'. In my view the whole notion of space as a plenum is a non-starter. You can look at it that way and perhaps it will work eventually, but it is the lng way around - like trying to guess what song is playing by analyzing a database of the expressions on the faces of people listening to that song. I say that space is a dimensionless void between phenomena which do have qualities that can be expressed as partly quantifiable with dimension. We are in the big bang, as we always have been, only it is banging within, diffracting itself in many different ways, both figuratively and literally at the same time. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/JrTIYscXvbwJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Q8vH2J5UkF0J. 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: Re: more firewalls
The why is that your conception of space is unscientific. You sound like a New Ager. On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:46:17 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: I disagree with everything you suggest. You are welcome to disagree, but without knowing why, I can only assume that you don't really have an argument against my view. The bottom line is that without some theory which gets us from matter to *us right here* it really is more of in interesting curiosity. It may turn out to be incredibly useful/important/profitable from an engineering and technology standpoint, but it really doesn't answer the timeless questions of who we are and what awareness is. My model does that. Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:52:30 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes everything. String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still expanding, monads are apparently still being made. The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, they (the monads) exist. You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be correct, even if my modelling is incorrect. All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that probably can never be proven. Richard All that I suggest is that string theory and especially string monads only really address the hard problem if they are understood as figurative strings rather than literal structures. The dimensions would have to be qualitative experiential dimensions (like emotion, meaning, etc.) rather than literally 'different kinds of space'. In my view the whole notion of space as a plenum is a non-starter. You can look at it that way and perhaps it will work eventually, but it is the lng way around - like trying to guess what song is playing by analyzing a database of the expressions on the faces of people listening to that song. I say that space is a dimensionless void between phenomena which do have qualities that can be expressed as partly quantifiable with dimension. We are in the big bang, as we always have been, only it is banging within, diffracting itself in many different ways, both figuratively and literally at the same time. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/JrTIYscXvbwJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Q8vH2J5UkF0J. 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: The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 09:27:25AM -0400, Richard Ruquist wrote: The Measurement That Would Reveal The Universe As A Computer Simulation ... First, some background. The problem with all simulations is that the laws of physics, which appear continuous, have to be superimposed onto a discrete three dimensional lattice which advances in steps of time. That's a load of rot! I was doing continuous space simulations during my PhD. I'm doing continuous time simulations right now. OK - so I use floating point arithmetic (which imposes its own discreteness), but in principle there is nothing stopping one doing exact calculations by implementing the same algorithm in a symbolic manipulator such as Mathematica (its way slower, of course, and uses far too much computer memory, so its not particularly practical). You can ask for your results to as many decimal places as you wish after the simulation has finished. Lattice Gauge theories are an approximation of the standard model to try to make them tractable. There is no requirement whatsoever that any simulation we inhabit has to exhibit the same discreteness. The question that Beane and co ask is whether the lattice spacing imposes any kind of limitation on the physical processes we see in the universe. They examine, in particular, high energy processes, which probe smaller regions of space as they get more energetic What they find is interesting. They say that the lattice spacing imposes a fundamental limit on the energy that particles can have. That's because nothing can exist that is smaller than the lattice itself. So if our cosmos is merely a simulation, there ought to be a cut off in the spectrum of high energy particles. It turns out there is exactly this kind of cut off in the energy of cosmic ray particles, a limit known as the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin or GZK cut off. This cut-off has been well studied and comes about because high energy particles interact with the cosmic microwave background and so lose energy as they travel long distances. But Beane and co calculate that the lattice spacing imposes some additional features on the spectrum. The most striking feature...is that the angular distribution of the highest energy components would exhibit cubic symmetry in the rest frame of the lattice, deviating significantly from isotropy, they say. In other words, the cosmic rays would travel preferentially along the axes of the lattice, so we wouldn't see them equally in all directions. That's a measurement we could do now with current technology. Finding the effect would be equivalent to being able to to 'see' the orientation of lattice on which our universe is simulated. Even finding evidence of cubic lattice symmetry does not entail we are living in a simulation (although that's another philosophical question), but it would count as an interesting finding in itself. That's cool, mind-blowing even. But the calculations by Beane and co are not without some important caveats. One problem is that the computer lattice may be constructed in an entirely different way to the one envisaged by these guys. Another is that this effect is only measurable if the lattice cut off is the same as the GZK cut off. This occurs when the lattice spacing is about 10^-12 femtometers. If the spacing is significantly smaller than that, we'll see nothing. Nevertheless, it's surely worth looking for, if only to rule out the possibility that we're part of a simulation of this particular kind but secretly in the hope that we'll find good evidence of our robotic overlords once and for all. All in all, just rampant speculation. There's no particularly good evidence that we'd see anything but symmetric continuous space, so we should be attempting to test that to the best of our experimental abilities. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: more firewalls
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:37:33 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: The why is that your conception of space is unscientific. You sound like a New Ager. Why do you think that my conception of space is unscientific? Saying I sound like a New Ager makes you sound unscientific. On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:46:17 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: I disagree with everything you suggest. You are welcome to disagree, but without knowing why, I can only assume that you don't really have an argument against my view. The bottom line is that without some theory which gets us from matter to *us right here* it really is more of in interesting curiosity. It may turn out to be incredibly useful/important/profitable from an engineering and technology standpoint, but it really doesn't answer the timeless questions of who we are and what awareness is. My model does that. Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:52:30 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes everything. String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still expanding, monads are apparently still being made. The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, they (the monads) exist. You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be correct, even if my modelling is incorrect. All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that probably can never be proven. Richard All that I suggest is that string theory and especially string monads only really address the hard problem if they are understood as figurative strings rather than literal structures. The dimensions would have to be qualitative experiential dimensions (like emotion, meaning, etc.) rather than literally 'different kinds of space'. In my view the whole notion of space as a plenum is a non-starter. You can look at it that way and perhaps it will work eventually, but it is the lng way around - like trying to guess what song is playing by analyzing a database of the expressions on the faces of people listening to that song. I say that space is a dimensionless void between phenomena which do have qualities that can be expressed as partly quantifiable with dimension. We are in the big bang, as we always have been, only it is banging within, diffracting itself in many different ways, both figuratively and literally at the same time. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/JrTIYscXvbwJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Q8vH2J5UkF0J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/pnqsF8NLu_8J. 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: Re: more firewalls
On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:37:33 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: The why is that your conception of space is unscientific. You sound like a New Ager. Also, not to pick a fight or to diminish the work that you are doing (which I respect), but your conception of space is: . 24 space-like dimensions of which all but 6 Space Dimensions have compactified into two effectively zero-volume matrices of wires of thickness near the Planck scale and Calabi-Yau fourfolds of 1000 Planck scales at their junctions. What do you think that people of Earth would say about that theory, say, any time before 1970? Compare that with my conception of space, which is that it is a text which is encoded and decoded through the coordinated experiences of matter itself, and that rather than telepathic memory in familiarized particles, quantum entanglement is evidence that space is in fact a 0 dimensional semiotic facade. Which sounds more New Agey to you? What is a space-like dimension? A semi-measurable, semi-nothing? What happens if you try thinking of it my way, just for an hour or so, and see what happens? I have already thought of it your way, and it just leads right back to a classical world connected mathematically to a quantum never never land, but not to the color red or the feeling of an itch. What universe are we talking about if we are not the ones living there? On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:46:17 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: I disagree with everything you suggest. You are welcome to disagree, but without knowing why, I can only assume that you don't really have an argument against my view. The bottom line is that without some theory which gets us from matter to *us right here* it really is more of in interesting curiosity. It may turn out to be incredibly useful/important/profitable from an engineering and technology standpoint, but it really doesn't answer the timeless questions of who we are and what awareness is. My model does that. Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:52:30 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes everything. String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still expanding, monads are apparently still being made. The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, they (the monads) exist. You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be correct, even if my modelling is incorrect. All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that probably can never be proven. Richard All that I suggest is that string theory and especially string monads only really address the hard problem if they are understood as figurative strings rather than literal structures. The dimensions would have to be qualitative experiential dimensions (like emotion, meaning, etc.) rather than literally 'different kinds of space'. In my view the whole notion of space as a plenum is a non-starter. You can look at it that way and perhaps it will work eventually, but it is the lng way around - like trying to guess what song is playing by analyzing a database of the expressions on the faces of people listening to that song. I say that space is a dimensionless void between phenomena which do have qualities that can be expressed as partly quantifiable with dimension. We are in the big bang, as we always have been, only it is banging within, diffracting itself in many different ways, both figuratively and literally at the same time. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/JrTIYscXvbwJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com. For more
