Re: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: I meant if the table talks to you just like a person does, giving you consistently interesting conversation and useful advice on a wide variety of subjects. Unless it's a trick and there's a hidden speaker somewhere, you would then have to say that the table is intelligent. You might speculate as to how the table does it and whether the table is conscious, but those are separate questions. Who is to say that that table was actually a TV set in the shape of a table or a table that had some other means to transmit what would satisfy a speech-only Turing test? This goes nowhere, Stathis. That's why I said unless it's a trick. The same consideration applies to anything: how do I know that my neighbour isn't a puppet manipulated by someone else? I think you're using the word intelligent in a non-standard way, leading to confusion. The first thing to do in any debate is agree on the definition of the words. Could you define intelligence for us in unambiguous terms? I don't recall Craig trying to do that... I gave an operational definition. One dictionary definition is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. It is not synonymous with consciousness. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Science is a religion by itself.
Schrodinger's cat and “ The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass” =. This law consist of two (2) parts: a) according to “ The law of conservation (!) energy/mass” Schroedinger's cat cannot die. b) according to “ The law of transformation (!) energy/mass” Schroedinger's cat can change its image (geometrical form). c) Of course, it is impossible to separate these two parts of Law, ==. socratus. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto
On 2/15/2013 6:26 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: I meant if the table talks to you just like a person does, giving you consistently interesting conversation and useful advice on a wide variety of subjects. Unless it's a trick and there's a hidden speaker somewhere, you would then have to say that the table is intelligent. You might speculate as to how the table does it and whether the table is conscious, but those are separate questions. Who is to say that that table was actually a TV set in the shape of a table or a table that had some other means to transmit what would satisfy a speech-only Turing test? This goes nowhere, Stathis. That's why I said unless it's a trick. The same consideration applies to anything: how do I know that my neighbour isn't a puppet manipulated by someone else? Hi Stathis, Maybe because we (individually) might want to understand (predict) the behavior of that neighbour, so that we could trust them? I think you're using the word intelligent in a non-standard way, leading to confusion. The first thing to do in any debate is agree on the definition of the words. Could you define intelligence for us in unambiguous terms? I don't recall Craig trying to do that... I gave an operational definition. One dictionary definition is the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills. It is not synonymous with consciousness. Umm, are you OK with anthropomorphication... ? Let me ask a different question: In your opinion, does the universe 'out there' have to have properties that match up one-to-one with some finite list of propositions that can be encoded in your skull? -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The duplicators and the restorers
On 14 Feb 2013, at 19:50, meekerdb wrote: On 2/14/2013 3:58 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2013, at 20:36, meekerdb wrote: On 2/13/2013 7:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Experiences cannot be duplicated literally, because I suspect that unique is the only thing that experiences can literally be. I agree with this, in the sense that this follows also from computationalism, and thus 3p-duplicability at some level. An 1p-experience is not duplicable, as it is the unique experience of a unique being. It can still be duplicated relatively to some observer, but not relatively to the experiencer himself. Again what you say concur with comp, making astonishing why you are using those points against the possibility of 3p-duplication, which is so much well illustrated by nature, as life is constant self-body change and duplication (as Stathis argues convincingly). To sum up: with comp, we are 3p-duplicable; the 1p, as attributed by a 3p-person, is relatively duplicable. The 1p, seen from the 1p view, is not duplicable. Like in Everett QM, the 1p can't feel the split in any way. That seems to imply that the 1p view is nothing but a stream of experiences and apart from that sequence of experiences there is no 'person'. Not at all. Both the Bp p, and the UDA-personal-diary definitions relates the first person to a machine in a position of having those experiences, locally. Globally, we might become the same person, and differ only locally by our local experiences, but they still indiduate us relatively to others locally, and so there are locally genuine different persons. There is not only sequence of experiences, but plausible universal bodies and context which relates those experiences, through their self-referential logical and arithmetical (computational) relations. Aren't those relations the ones provided by physics - continuity of bodies, etc. So are you agreeing with my idea that a physical world in necessary for conscious beings to exist IN. Yes, indeed. At least in the form of long/deep computations, having the correct first person sharable indeterminacy measure. That's why physics is necessary indeed, so much that it has to be extracted from arithmetic when we assume comp. That's why also we can accept the postulation of a physical world, or of a God, as an explanation. You might disagree as necessary in natural language can be ambiguous. In logic, if P is necessary in some context, it means that it is derivable from the context, but sometimes it can mean that we have to postulate it (which is the opposite). But with necessary in the logical sense, it makes sense with computationalism and its consequences. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto
On 14 Feb 2013, at 22:00, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/14/2013 11:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2013, at 23:37, Stephen P. King wrote, to Craig Weinberg Baudrillard is not talking about consciousness in particular, only the sum of whatever is in the original which is not accessible in the copy. His phrase 'profound reality' is apt though. If you don't experience a profound reality, then you might be a p-zombie already. Right! Right? Here Craig is on the worst slope. It looks almost like if *you* believe that a machine is not a zombie, it means that you are a zombie yourself. They will persecuted the machines and the humans having a different opinion altogether. Craig reassure me. he is willing to offer steak to my sun in law (who get an artificial brain before marriage). But with Baudrillard, not only my sun in law might no more get his steak, but neither my daughter! Brr... Bruno Dear Bruno, Could you re-write this post. It's wording is unintelligible to me. :_( Craig sum up well Baudrillard with the sentence If you don't experience a profound reality, then you might be a p-zombie already. That sentence illustrate the willingness to not attribute a consciousness to a person with a copied, or artificial brain, as such copy is suspected not being able to live a profound reality. This is like saying, we the human with the original carbon brain, can live profound reality, but not the machine, together with and if you doubt that profound reality then *you* are a zombie too. It remind me a fundamentalist of some confessional religion who told me if your machine cannot believe that some man is the son of God, then your machine can't think. I told him ---and what I doubt that a man is the son of God?. he told me that in that case I can't think either ... This leads to the idea that not only a machine cannot be conscious, but any human who would pretend the contrary is also not conscious. As I said: brrr... Bruno -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Does p make sense?
Hello Dan,
On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:31, freqflyer07281972 wrote:
Dear Bruno,
I would like to know what 'doxastic models of consciousness' means,
as well as what means S4Grz - I know Craig was the one who
originally used the term 'doxastic models' but you seemed to know
right away what that meant, so I'd like to know from your
perspective what it means;
Epistemic = knowledge
Doxastic = belief
Epistemic logic are modal (most of the time) logics where the modal
box (here written with a B) represents a unary connector intended for
the knower (Bp = the agent know p, or I know p).
Doxastic logic are modal (most of the time) logics where the modal box
(here written with a B) represents a unary connector intended for the
believer (Bp = the agent believes p, or I believe p).
The main difference between knowledge and belief is that knowledges
are true, by definition, when beliefs can be false.
So among the axioms accepted for knowledge or epistemic logic, we have
that Bp - p (I know p entails p is true).
Contrariwise, modal doxastic logics will NOT have the axiom Bp - p.
For the ideally self-referentially correct machine I consider, the
belief B is modeled by provability. Before Gödel, most people
(mathematicians and philosophers) would have thought that in this case
we do have Bp - p.
But as Gödel already remarked, the provability predicate, even in the
correct case, cannot be modeled by a (normal) modal logic having Bp -
p. Indeed we would have Bf - f, that is ~Bf, and that's consistency,
which cannot be proven by the machine, despite it being true. That's
why the logic of provability (belief) split into a true part and an
believable, or provable part.
But that is also why the Theaetetus definition works non trivially
when we define knowledge by Bp p (that is I know p is I can justify
it, and it is the case that p). Bp p implies trivially p, and in the
arithmetical setting we do get the classical modal logic of knowledge,
known as S4. Indeed we get S4 + a new axiom:
S4 is
Know p - p (main axiom for knowledge)
Know p - Know Know p (self-awareness, or introspective axiom)
Know (p - q) - (Know p - Know q) (rational omniscience, more
used for knowledgeable)
+ the logical inference rule (p/ know p). All this on the top of the
classical propositional logic.
In the arithmetical context, we inherit the following axioms, named
after a formula of Grzegorczyk, Grz):
Know (Know (p- Know p) - p) - p.
It introduces a sort of antisymmetry on the Kripke accessibility
relations, and avoid circular structure (in the finite world case,
when used together with the other axioms). But there are other
semantics too.
Note that the Bp of G represent an arithmetical sentence (beweisbar
('p'), with beweisbar defining provability in arithmetic, and 'p'
being a representation in arithmetic of the sentence put for the
proposition p). We have no choice in the modal logic, and Solovay
provided the relevant completeness of G for the formal effective
theories, which correspond to the rich ideally correct machines.
For Bp p, we have no similar direct definition in arithmetic, but we
can study them at the metalevel by modeling Bp p for each individual
instantiated sentences, so I know 2+2 = 4 is, in arithmetic:
beweisbar ('2+2=4') 2 + 2 = 4.
moreover, I want to know S4Grz or be pointed towards an advanced
level logic book so I can understand what that means.
S4Grz is quite well explained in Boolos 1979, and Boolos 1993.
Together with the logics of self-reference G and G*. Known also as GL
and GLS (Gödel, Löb, Solovay).
Boolos, G. (1979). The unprovability of consistency. Cambridge
University Press, London.
Boolos, G. (1993). The Logic of Provability. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
A good book on Modal logic is the book by Chellas:
Chellas, B. F. (1980). Modal Logic, an introduction. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge.
To get matter from arithmetic, we need to add a consistency condition
(so we get intelligible matter with Bp Dt), and sensible matter with
Bp p Dt. This gives quantum-like logic. It is an open, but well
formulated problem to know if we get quantum computer from them, as we
should, if we are machine, and if the classical theory of knowledge is
correct, by the UD Argument.
This is explained (concisely, with reference) in the sane04 paper:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
Finally, as a simple confirmation, I do assume that when you guys
talk about Bp p you mean the literal proposition someone believes
p it is the case that it is p --
OK.
if I don't get at least that, I should hang up my hat around here!
No worry :)
Best,
Bruno
On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:56:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 12 Feb 2013, at 20:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
When we talk about a Bp, relating to consciousness is that
Re: How can intelligence be physical ?
On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:52, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: The learned men confuse the mathematical tools with the physical reality and therefore we have math-physical fairy-tales. =. That happens too, and is of course even worst than confusing mathematical tools and the mathematical reality. Bruno On Feb 14, 5:39 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 14 Feb 2013, at 08:48, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature. =. Mr. Dexter Sinister wrote: ‘ I understand Euler's Identity, and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it, there's nothing particularly mystical about it, it just demonstrates that exponential, trigonometric, and complex functions are related. Given what we know of mathematics it shouldn't surprise anyone that its various bits are connected. It would be much more surprising if they weren't, that would almost certainly mean something was badly wrong somewhere.’ Mr. Gary wrote: Mathematics is NOT science. Science is knowledge of the REAL world. Mathematics is an invention of the mind. This is of course false in the comp theory. It is also intuitively false for most mathematicians. It is usually asserted by people confusing the mathematical tools, that we invent indeed, and the mathematical reality, which is really a sequence of surprising facts, that we discover. The use of REAL world is dogmatic physicalism. It proposes as a fact what is a theological or metaphysical hypothesis, and this condemns any attempt to be rigorous on the subject. It is as bad as using God as a gap explanation. It is the same mistake. Bruno Many aspects of mathematics have found application in the real world, but there is no guarantee. Any correlation must meet the ultimate test: does it explain something about the real world? As an electrical engineer I used the generalized Euler's equation all the time in circuit analysis: exp(j*theta) = cos(theta) + j*sin(theta). So it works at that particular level in electricity. Does it work at other levels, too? Logic cannot prove it. It must be determined by experiment, not by philosophizing. .. Thinking about theirs posts I wrote brief article: Euler's Equation and Reality. =. a) Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality. Euler's identity is the gold standard for mathematical beauty'. Euler's identity is the most famous formula in all mathematics. ‘ . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo’s statue of David’ ‘It is God’s equation.’, ‘ It is a mathematical icon.’ . . . . etc. b) Euler's Equation as a physical reality. it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it, and we don't know what it means, . . . . .’ ‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence’ ‘ Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?’ ‘It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process using physics.‘ ‘ Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum physics ?’ ==. My aim is to understand the reality of nature. Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality? To give the answer to this question I need to bind Euler's equation with an object - particle. Can it be math- point or string- particle or triangle-particle? No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which says me that the particle must be only a circle . Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories. These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi). a) Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves ( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1. We call such particle - ‘photon’. From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally. From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally. In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge). b) Using its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum ( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle rotates around its axis. In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves ( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is : c1. We call such particle - ‘ electron’ and its energy is: E=h*f. In this way I (as a peasant ) can understand the reality of nature. ==. I reread my post. My God, that is a naïve peasant's explanation. It is absolutely not scientific, not professor's explanation. Would a learned man adopt such simple and naive explanation? Hmm, . . . problem. In any way, even Mr. Dexter Sinister and Mr. Gary wouldn't agree with me, I want to say them ' Thank you for emails and cooperation’ =. Best wishes. Israel Sadovnik Socratus. =. P.S. ' They would play a greater and greater role in mathematics – and then, with the advent of quantum mechanics in the twentieth century, in physics and engineering and any field that deals with cyclical
For athjeists and other seekers of truth; Willard Quine on Truth
http://www.scaruffi.com/phi/quine.html Synopsis: Purely analythic truths do not exist: all truth depends on both language and facts Even Logic and Mathematics are, ultimately, empirical A statement alone cannot be verified: only the totality of statements (science in its totality) can be verified A hypothesis is verified true or false only relative to background assumptions Each statement in a theory partially determines the meaning of every other statement in the same theory The structure of concepts is determined by the positions that their constituents occupy in the web of belief of the individual No part of a scientific theory can be proved or disproved; only the whole can Several different theories may offer equally plausible accounts of the same situation Scientific theories are undetermined by experience There are infinite interpretations of a discourse depending on the context A single word has no meaning, its referent is inscrutable Words have a meaning only relative to the other words they are connected to in the sentences that we assume to be true The meaning of a sentence depends on the interpretation of the entire language. Its meaning can even change in time. The meaning of language is not in the mind of the speaker It is impossible to define what a correct translation of a statement is from one language to another, because that depends on the interpretations of both entire languages. Translation from one language to another is indeterminate Translation is possible only from the totality of one language to the totality of another language -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Sheldrake's Morphic resonance in terms of Leibniz 2-13-13
Sheldrake's Morphic resonance in terms of Leibniz 2-13-13 The concepts discussed here are modified forms of those found in http://www.uky.edu/~look/8899403.pdf , which is a treatise on the meanings of domination and subordination in Leibniz' metaphysics. We will only discuss monads of persons. Morphic resonance is explained in terms of basic definitions as follows: Subject to change. Definitions: These definitions are generally based on Leibniz's Monadology. Monad. The blind and passive mental representation of a corporeal body containing no internal boundaries (a substance). A mental entity. A whole. Being mental, it may contain references to space and time in the perceptions or appetitions given to it, but it exists outside of spacetime. It contains only perceptions and appetitions and an energy source. It has no windows, so all perceptions are given indirectly to it by a Supreme monad. Being mental, it cannot interact directly with other monads, but indirect actions are possible. It cannot be created or destroyed except by a divinity. Substance. A corporeal body which is a whole and contains no internal boundaries, although it may be variegated in qualities. Each body is its own substace, so there are an infinite number of types of substances. So it is chiefly characterized by its form. Soul or spirit. Each person or animal has a soul or spirit which contains its identity and is attached to the dominant monad of its composite monad. Each soul is different and cannot be either created or destroyed except by a divinity. Person. A composite monad consisting of a soul or spirit, mind monad, and body monad Entelechy. The driving force of a monad, its life-force, which strives toward greater realization or perfection. Perfection. The degree to which a monad emulates the best of its type. Perceptions. A set of accumulating data sets in each monad containing representations (reflections or snapshots) from its own perspective of all of the other perceptions in the universe. So each monad contains all of the information in the universe taken from its own perspective. Since a monad had no windows, its perceptions are continually being updated by the Supreme Monad. These perceptions are alwys unclear or distorted to some extent. Appetitions. An accumulating set of indicators pointing to the next perceptions, Will. Desire. Memory. The personal set of perceptions and appetitions contained in each monad. Identity of a monad. Its personal set of perceptions and appetitions. Dominant monad. A monad of greater perfection than a subordinate monad. Subordinate monad. A monad of lesser perfection than a dominant monad. Transformation. The continual change in each monad's perceptions (memory updates) toward greater perfection, guided by the appetions on a monad and powered or provided by a more dominant monad. Preestablished harmony (PEH). The preestablishment of a harmonic order for the transformations. Resonance. Potential transformations between pairs of monads in the universe according to appetition and dominance, toward greater perfections and according to the PEH. Morphism. A potential transformation. - The concepts discussed here are modified forms of those found in http://www.uky.edu/~look/8899403.pdf , which is a treatise on the meanings of domination and subordination in Leibniz' metaphysics. We will only discuss monads of persons. [Roger Clough], [rclo...@verizon.net] 2/13/2013 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. - Woody Allen __._,_.___Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use • Send us Feedback . __,_._,___ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto
On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:01:30 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 2/13/2013 9:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:37:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 2/13/2013 5:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:58:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/13/2013 8:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: *Wouldn�t Simulated Intelligence be a more appropriate term than Artificial Intelligence?* Thinking of it objectively, if we have a program which can model a hurricane, we would call that hurricane a simulation, not an �artificial hurricane�. If we modeled any physical substance, force, or field, we would similarly say that we had simulated hydrogen or gravity or electromagnetism, not that we had created artificial hydrogen, gravity, etc. No, because the idea of an AI is that it can control a robot or other machine which interacts with the real world, whereas a simulate AI or hurricane acts within a simulated world. AI doesn't need to interact with the real world though. It makes no difference to the AI whether its environment is real or simulated. Just because we can attach a robot to a simulation doesn't change it into an experience of a real world. Hi Craig, I think that you might be making a huge fuss over a difference that does not always make a difference between a public world and a private world! IMHO, that makes the 'real' physical world Real is that we can all agree on its properties (subject to some constraints that matter). Many can point at the tree over there and agree on its height and whether or not it is a deciduous variety. Why does our agreement mean on something's properties mean anything other than that though? Hi Craig, Why are you thinking of 'though' in such a minimal way? Don't forget about the 'objects' of those thoughts... The duals... We might be agreeing here. I thought you were saying that our agreeing on what we observe is a sign that things are 'real', so I was saying that it doesn't have to be a sign of anything, just that reality is the quality of having to agree involuntarily on conditions. We are people living at the same time with human sized bodies, so it would make sense that we would agree on almost everything that involve our bodies. We is this we? I am considering any 'object' of system capable of being described by a QM wave function or, more simply, capable of being represented by a semi-complete atomic boolean algebra. We in this case is you and me. I try to avoid using the word object, since it can be used in a lot of different ways. An object can be anything that isn't the subject. In another sense an object is a publicly accessible body. You can have a dream with other characters in the dream who point to your dream tree and agree on its characteristics, but upon waking, you are re-oriented to a more real, more tangibly public world with longer and more stable histories. Right, it is the upon waking' part that is important. Our common 'reality' is the part that we can only 'wake up' from when we depart the mortal coil. Have you followed the quantum suicide discussion any? I haven't been, no. These qualities are only significant in comparison to the dream though. If you can't remember your waking life, then the dream is real to you, and to the universe through you. You are assuming a standard that you cannot define. Why? What one observes as 'real' is real to that one, it is not necessarily real to every one else... but there is a huge overlap between our 1p 'realities'. Andrew Soltau has this idea nailed now in his Multisolipsism stuff. ;-) One can observe that one is observing something that is 'not real' also though. By calling it artificial, we also emphasize a kind of obsolete notion of natural vs man-made as categories of origin. Why is the distinction between the natural intelligence of a child and the artificial intelligence of a Mars rover obsolete?� The latter is one we create by art, the other is created by nature. Because we understand now that we are nature and nature is us. I disagree! We can fool ourselves into thinking that we understand' but what we can do is, at best, form testable explanations of stuff... We are fallible! I agree, but I don't see how that applies to us being nature. We are part of Nature and there is a 'whole-part isomorphism' involved.. Since we are part of nature, there is nothing that we are or do which is not nature. What would it mean to be unnatural? How would an unnatural being find themselves in a natural world? They can't, unless we invent them... Pink Ponies Pink Ponies are natural to imagine for our imagination. A square circle would be unnatural - which is why we can't imagine it. We can
Re: Science is a religion by itself.
Comment: according to (a)+(b), when the cat mass change in cat energy, his image change, the cat is already in life, so there is life after death / laurent.damois / ===.. On Feb 15, 12:28 pm, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net wrote: Schrodinger's cat and “ The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass” =. This law consist of two (2) parts: a) according to “ The law of conservation (!) energy/mass” Schroedinger's cat cannot die. b) according to “ The law of transformation (!) energy/mass” Schroedinger's cat can change its image (geometrical form). c) Of course, it is impossible to separate these two parts of Law, ==. socratus. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto
On Thursday, February 14, 2013 11:20:12 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2013, at 23:37, Stephen P. King wrote, to Craig Weinberg Baudrillard is not talking about consciousness in particular, only the sum of whatever is in the original which is not accessible in the copy. His phrase 'profound reality' is apt though. If you don't experience a profound reality, then you might be a p-zombie already. Right! Right? Here Craig is on the worst slope. It looks almost like if *you* believe that a machine is not a zombie, it means that you are a zombie yourself. No, I was saying that if you don't believe that your own experience is profoundly real, then you are a zombie yourself. They will persecuted the machines and the humans having a different opinion altogether. Craig reassure me. he is willing to offer steak to my sun in law (who get an artificial brain before marriage). But with Baudrillard, not only my sun in law might no more get his steak, but neither my daughter! Brr... Hahaha. How about your son in law gets a simulation of steak which is beneath his substitution level? Even better, I just hack into his hardware and move one of his memories of eating steak up on the stack so it seems very recent. Is your brother in law racist against simulated steaks as memory implants? Craig Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto
On Friday, February 15, 2013 12:23:44 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: * *Wouldn’t Simulated Intelligence be a more appropriate term than Artificial Intelligence? Yes that euphemism could have advantages, it might make the last human being feel a little better about himself just before the Jupiter Brain outsmarted him and sent him into oblivion forever. Then we had better destroy every circuit on Earth to prevent that from happening. By calling it artificial, we also emphasize a kind of obsolete notion of natural vs man-made as categories of origin. What on earth is obsolete about the natural verses man-made dichotomy? The Jupiter brain really was the product of a intelligent designer while the human being was not. But the intelligent designer was the product of nature. It's a seamless continuum, unless you think that human beings came from some other metaphysical universe which is unnatural. Craig John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: The duplicators and the restorers
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: That's what you suspect, but in order for you to be correct there must be a mysterious non-physical entity that cannot be duplicated, even with advanced scientific methods. Not at all. All that is required for me to be correct is that experience not be 100% repeatable, which, because an experience cannot ultimately be limited to anything except everything in the entire universe, is automatically true on that level. For me to be incorrect there would have to be a mysterious non-physical entity which separates any particular event from eternity. If an experience is not 100% repeatable by repeating the presumed physical basis underlying it, then you are saying that there is something other than a physical basis to the experience. This something else is the mysterious non-physical entity. This is equivalent to saying it is magic. You get offended when I say this, perhaps because it has a pejorative connotation, but that's what it is. Calling it something else does not change the facts. I only get offended because you have no idea what I'm talking about, so you strawman it as some kind of weird idealism. Everything that I refer to is either Matter, Energy, Time, Space, Sense, Motive, Entropy, or Significance - all of which can be ultimately reduced to sense. There is nothing else, and I claim nothing else. Sense, motive and significance are non-physical, but the conventional view is that they supervene on the physical. You don't agree with this, so must believe that some other non-physical entity is needed. This would by definition be something magical, like a soul. Can the year 1965 be duplicated? If you wanted just one millisecond from 1965. What I am suggesting is that the entire assumption of the universe as bodies or particles be questioned. The universe is unique variations of a single experience, with a continuum of 'similarity' in between, contingent upon the experiential capacity of the participant. There is no reason in principle why the year 1965 could not be replicated. Except that it happened already and will never happen again - just like every experience. If experience is caused by the brain and the brain is reproduced exactly then the experience will be reproduced exactly. In fact, in several models of cosmology it *is* duplicated. Even if there is only one universe but it is infinite in extent, given a large enough volume there is bound to be an exact copy of anything you care to name. You're not seeing that it begs the question though. No matter what I say, you won't be able to imagine that the universe could be fundamentally experiences rather than objects. The whole notion of 'copies' or 'exact' is based purely on sensitivity. If you have cataracts, it becomes harder to tell people apart and the Jack of Diamonds looks like an exact copy of the Queen of Hearts. If you factor out sensation from the start, everything that comes afterward is misconception. Bruno thinks the universe is fundamentally experiences but his view is consistent with science, eg. a close enough copy of an object will behave like the original, even if neither the copy nor the original have a basic physical existence. So what you have to explain Craig is what you think would happen if you tried to duplicate a person using very advanced science, If you tried to duplicate a person's body, then you get an identical twin - my guess is probably a dead one. If it's dead then you would have made some mistake in the duplication. No, your assumption of duplication is not necessarily possible. If you clone everyone in New York City, and drop them into a model you have built of New York, they aren't suddenly going to know where they live and how to communicate with each other. You are assuming that particles are disconnected generic entities which have no past of future. I am saying that precisely the opposite is also true. Of course they will know where they live and how to communicate with each other. The reason you know where you live and how to communicate is that your brain today is a close copy of your brain yesterday. If something goes wrong in the copying process, like a head injury, you might forget how to do these things. Cells and cell components are constantly being replaced yet you survive. Therefore, it is possible to make a copy of you using inanimate matter; for that is in fact what you are. Because you aren't cells, you are the experiences of cells, molecules, organs, people, civilizations. The cells are like the fuel which experience burns. Copying is an intersubjective relation. It just means that in our particular state of mind two things seem identical. But if you copy the cells you reproduce the experience, and if you don't then something is missing. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed
Re: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto
On 2/15/2013 11:12 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Feb 2013, at 22:00, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/14/2013 11:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2013, at 23:37, Stephen P. King wrote, to Craig Weinberg Baudrillard is not talking about consciousness in particular, only the sum of whatever is in the original which is not accessible in the copy. His phrase 'profound reality' is apt though. If you don't experience a profound reality, then you might be a p-zombie already. Right! Right? Here Craig is on the worst slope. It looks almost like if *you* believe that a machine is not a zombie, it means that you are a zombie yourself. They will persecuted the machines and the humans having a different opinion altogether. Craig reassure me. he is willing to offer steak to my sun in law (who get an artificial brain before marriage). But with Baudrillard, not only my sun in law might no more get his steak, but neither my daughter! Brr... Bruno Dear Bruno, Could you re-write this post. It's wording is unintelligible to me. :_( Craig sum up well Baudrillard with the sentence If you don't experience a profound reality, then you might be a p-zombie already. That sentence illustrate the willingness to not attribute a consciousness to a person with a copied, or artificial brain, as such copy is suspected not being able to live a profound reality. This is like saying, we the human with the original carbon brain, can live profound reality, but not the machine, together with and if you doubt that profound reality then *you* are a zombie too. It remind me a fundamentalist of some confessional religion who told me if your machine cannot believe that some man is the son of God, then your machine can't think. I told him ---and what I doubt that a man is the son of God?. he told me that in that case I can't think either ... This leads to the idea that not only a machine cannot be conscious, but any human who would pretend the contrary is also not conscious. As I said: brrr... Bruno Ah! I see.. Yeah, Craig seems to have some trouble communicating the variability of Sense. It is 1p and thus cannot have a 3p measure, so... I feel his pain. I am trying to use the idea of the difference between a simulation of X as compared to the real X by a large ensemble of observers to parse this distinction to connect with your ideas... -- Onward! Stephen -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
Re: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto
On 2/15/2013 4:07 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 11:01:30 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 2/13/2013 9:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 5:37:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 2/13/2013 5:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, February 13, 2013 2:58:28 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/13/2013 8:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: *Wouldn�t Simulated Intelligence be a more appropriate term than Artificial Intelligence?* Thinking of it objectively, if we have a program which can model a hurricane, we would call that hurricane a simulation, not an �artificial hurricane�. If we modeled any physical substance, force, or field, we would similarly say that we had simulated hydrogen or gravity or electromagnetism, not that we had created artificial hydrogen, gravity, etc. No, because the idea of an AI is that it can control a robot or other machine which interacts with the real world, whereas a simulate AI or hurricane acts within a simulated world. AI doesn't need to interact with the real world though. It makes no difference to the AI whether its environment is real or simulated. Just because we can attach a robot to a simulation doesn't change it into an experience of a real world. Hi Craig, I think that you might be making a huge fuss over a difference that does not always make a difference between a public world and a private world! IMHO, that makes the 'real' physical world Real is that we can all agree on its properties (subject to some constraints that matter). Many can point at the tree over there and agree on its height and whether or not it is a deciduous variety. Why does our agreement mean on something's properties mean anything other than that though? Hi Craig, Why are you thinking of 'though' in such a minimal way? Don't forget about the 'objects' of those thoughts... The duals... We might be agreeing here. I thought you were saying that our agreeing on what we observe is a sign that things are 'real', so I was saying that it doesn't have to be a sign of anything, just that reality is the quality of having to agree involuntarily on conditions. Hi Craig, We are stumbling over a subtle issue within semiotics. This video in 5 parts is helpful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxV3ompeJ-Y We are people living at the same time with human sized bodies, so it would make sense that we would agree on almost everything that involve our bodies. We is this we? I am considering any 'object' of system capable of being described by a QM wave function or, more simply, capable of being represented by a semi-complete atomic boolean algebra. We in this case is you and me. I try to avoid using the word object, since it can be used in a lot of different ways. An object can be anything that isn't the subject. In another sense an object is a publicly accessible body. I use the word 'object' purposefully. We need to deanthropomorphize the observer! An object is what one observer senses of another (potential) observer. You can have a dream with other characters in the dream who point to your dream tree and agree on its characteristics, but upon waking, you are re-oriented to a more real, more tangibly public world with longer and more stable histories. Right, it is the upon waking' part that is important. Our common 'reality' is the part that we can only 'wake up' from when we depart the mortal coil. Have you followed the quantum suicide discussion any? I haven't been, no. It is helpful for the understanding of the argument I am making. The way that a user of a QS system notices or fails to notice her demise is relevant here. The point is that we never sense the switch in the off position... These qualities are only significant in comparison to the dream though. If you can't remember your waking life, then the dream is real to you, and to the universe through you. You are assuming a standard that you cannot define. Why? What one observes as 'real' is real to that one, it is not necessarily real to every one else... but there is a huge overlap between our 1p 'realities'. Andrew Soltau has this idea nailed now in his Multisolipsism stuff. ;-) One can observe that one is observing something that is 'not real' also though. Exactly, but that is the point I am making. There has to be a 'real' thing for there to be a simulated thing, no? Or is that just the standard tacit assumption of people new to this question? By calling it artificial, we
