Re: The duplicators and the restorers

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:
>> 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.
>
>
> No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that the idea of something
> repeating is a subjective concept. No moment can be repeated. When I was
> writing those words, it was a few seconds ago. In that time, the TV show on
> in the background has changed, a quantity of snow has fallen in my back
> yard, etc. If I say "No moment can be repeated" again, nothing as been
> repeated 100%. The repetition arises from our sense to compare remembered
> experiences and string them together as similar enough to be considered
> identical.

If I tell you to make a copy of my copper bar which is 100mm x 100mm
x10mm with a tolerance of 0.5mm at 25 degrees Celsius would you
complain that you can't do it because the idea of repeating something
is subjective?

>> > 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,
>
>
> No, they are physical, but they are private.
>
>>
>> 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.
>
>
> Just the opposite. It is the conventional view which requires a belief in a
> magical non-physical never-never land in which our private experience takes
> place. Once you realize that the conventional view is impossible, then you
> can begin to look for more realistic alternatives based on the concrete
> reality of experience rather than the abstract theory based on measuring
> interactions of public bodies. I say that every presence is physical.
> Thoughts, feelings, dreams, symbols - all physical, all physics. The
> relevant distinction within physics should be private time vs public space,
> not "real" vs "illusion".

You can't make an immaterial soul part of physics simply by defining
it as such. You say that it is impossible to duplicate a mind by
duplicating the body, so the mind must not be supervenient on physical
properties.

>> If experience is caused by the brain and the brain is reproduced
>> exactly then the experience will be reproduced exactly.
>
>
> Experience isn't caused by the brain, any more than the internet is caused
> by your computer. Reproducing your computer from 2000 won't resurrect
> Napster of 2000. Nothing, and I mean nothing at all has ever been reproduced
> exactly.

Perhaps you could explain what you mean by "reproduce exactly".
Obviously reproducing your computer from 2000 would not reproduce
Napster, but reproducing the entire system of computers and users
would. And in any case, we don't want to reproduce the Internet of
2000, just the computer from 2000 that will behave the same as the
original computer given the same inputs, which is not very difficult
to do at all.

>> 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.
>
>
> Behave like the original to whom? There is no way to copy water without it
> being water. If I pour sulfuric acid from a pitcher into a water glass, I
> might be able to fool someone into thinking that this clear liquid is a
> perfect copy, but the smell and the severe chemical burns will reveal that
> the copy is actually very different in many other ways. Plants know it, even
> inorganic matter will not be fooled. It's only in the visual sense that the
> two liquids seem equivalent.

You've never acknowledged that you understand the concept a good
enough copy. All biological components have a certain engineering
tolerance, for if *exact* replacements were required when parts wore
out no living thing could survive more than a few moments.

>> 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.
>
>
> No, that's the same pre-affirmation you are smuggling in. If you can't let
> go of the certainty that the public shapes of the brain define experience,
> then you won't ever locate experience at all. Our brain is necessary but not
> sufficient to explain human quality of consciousness, just as a TV set is
> necessary but not sufficient to explain

Re: The duplicators and the restorers

[Jason Resch]

On Feb 16, 2013, at 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg   
wrote:





On Saturday, February 16, 2013 3:22:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:


On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg   
wrote:



On Friday, February 15, 2013 6:48:03 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Weinberg   
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.

No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that the idea of  
something repeating is a subjective concept. No moment can be  
repeated. When I was writing those words, it was a few seconds ago.  
In that time, the TV show on in the background has changed, a  
quantity of snow has fallen in my back yard, etc. If I say "No  
moment can be repeated" again, nothing as been repeated 100%.


Do you have any theory that explains sensation?

Explanation is already a type of sensation. We use explanation to  
make cognitive sense of sensations of other types or of other  
conceptual sensations (thoughts).


In other words, you are saying there can be no explanation?





  Does an infinite amount of information go into producing your  
conscious experience over some finite period of time?


Information is not physically real. Formations are representations  
which inform our sensitivity. Our conscious experience is not  
produced, it is presented.


Well are there an infinite or finite number of formations in that  
presentation?


Jason





  If not, then it seems plausible that whatever information needs to  
go into creating some sensory experience can be duplicated.  If it  
is non infinite then the pigeon hole principle applies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle 
 ).


Sensory experience is not created by information, information is a  
consequence of sensory experience and conceptual-level motives.  
Sensory experience is private physics. Information is a conceptual  
abstraction of sensory experience, so that while our thoughts about  
information are physical events, the bits and bytes to which they  
refer are not physically real.


Craig


Jason


The repetition arises from our sense to compare remembered  
experiences and string them together as similar enough to be  
considered identical.



>> 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,

No, they are physical, but they are private.

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.

Just the opposite. It is the conventional view which requires a  
belief in a magical non-physical never-never land in which our  
private experience takes place. Once you realize that the  
conventional view is impossible, then you can begin to look for more  
realistic alternatives based on the concrete reality of experience  
rather than the abstract theory based on measuring interactions of  
public bodies. I say that every presence is physical. Thoughts,  
feelings, dreams, symbols - all physical, all physics. The relevant  
distinction within physics should be private time vs public space,  
not "real" vs "illusion".



>> > 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

Re: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 6:46:46 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 2/16/2013 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Friday, February 15, 2013 7:23:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>
>>  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
>>
>>  
> Is there something in particular that we're not semiotically square on?
>  
>
> We seem to talk passed each other on some details within semiotic 
> theory. For example, what is a 
> 'sign'?
>

In my terms I'll say that a sign is a public form which is intended to 
present a private experience which re-presents another private experience, 
typically in a different sense modality. A sign which is intended to 
signify another form within the same sense modality would be an icon, 
likeness, or simulation.


>
>   
>  
>>   
>>>  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.
>>  
>
> I agree but would add that we need to demechanemorphize the observed also. 
>  
>
> Mechanisms are zombies, at best, in your thinking, no?
>

It could maybe be said that mechanisms are to time what signs are to space. 
They are the undeveloped, outsider's view of a sensory-motor interaction. A 
clockwork mechanism, for instance, is a zombie as far as how the clock 
functions for us, both mechanically and as a time-telling sign, but each 
physical part of the clock, the gears, escapement, etc, are made of 
material substances which aren't zombies. On the micro-level, the tension, 
temperature, density, friction, motion, etc, are 

Re: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto

[Stephen P. King]

On 2/16/2013 2:17 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, February 15, 2013 7:23:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

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



Is there something in particular that we're not semiotically square on?


We seem to talk passed each other on some details within semiotic 
theory. For example, what is a 'sign'? 









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.


I agree but would add that we need to demechanemorphize the observed 
also.


Mechanisms are zombies, at best, in your thinking, no?









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 dem

Re: The duplicators and the restorers

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 3:22:36 PM UTC-5, Jason wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg 
> 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, February 15, 2013 6:48:03 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Weinberg  
>>> 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. 
>>>
>>
>> No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that the idea of something 
>> repeating is a subjective concept. No moment can be repeated. When I was 
>> writing those words, it was a few seconds ago. In that time, the TV show on 
>> in the background has changed, a quantity of snow has fallen in my back 
>> yard, etc. If I say "No moment can be repeated" again, nothing as been 
>> repeated 100%. 
>>
>
> Do you have any theory that explains sensation?
>

Explanation is already a type of sensation. We use explanation to make 
cognitive sense of sensations of other types or of other conceptual 
sensations (thoughts). 
 

>   Does an infinite amount of information go into producing your conscious 
> experience over some finite period of time?
>

Information is not physically real. Formations are representations which 
inform our sensitivity. Our conscious experience is not produced, it is 
presented.
 

>   If not, then it seems plausible that whatever information needs to go 
> into creating some sensory experience can be duplicated.  If it is non 
> infinite then the pigeon hole principle applies ( 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle ).
>

Sensory experience is not created by information, information is a 
consequence of sensory experience and conceptual-level motives. Sensory 
experience is private physics. Information is a conceptual abstraction of 
sensory experience, so that while our thoughts about information are 
physical events, the bits and bytes to which they refer are not physically 
real.

Craig
 

>
> Jason
>
>  
>
>> The repetition arises from our sense to compare remembered experiences 
>> and string them together as similar enough to be considered identical.
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> >> 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, 
>>
>>
>> No, they are physical, but they are private.
>>  
>>
>>> 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. 
>>>
>>
>> Just the opposite. It is the conventional view which requires a belief in 
>> a magical non-physical never-never land in which our private experience 
>> takes place. Once you realize that the conventional view is impossible, 
>> then you can begin to look for more realistic alternatives based on the 
>> concrete reality of experience rather than the abstract theory based on 
>> measuring interactions of public bodies. I say that every presence is 
>> physical. Thoughts, feelings, dreams, symbols - all physical, all physics. 
>> The relevant distinction within physics should be private time vs public 
>> space, not "real" vs "illusion". 
>>  
>>
>>>
>>> >> > 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 exper

Re: The duplicators and the restorers

[Jason Resch]

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

>
>
> On Friday, February 15, 2013 6:48:03 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Weinberg 
>> 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.
>>
>
> No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that the idea of something
> repeating is a subjective concept. No moment can be repeated. When I was
> writing those words, it was a few seconds ago. In that time, the TV show on
> in the background has changed, a quantity of snow has fallen in my back
> yard, etc. If I say "No moment can be repeated" again, nothing as been
> repeated 100%.
>

Do you have any theory that explains sensation?  Does an infinite amount of
information go into producing your conscious experience over some finite
period of time?  If not, then it seems plausible that whatever information
needs to go into creating some sensory experience can be duplicated.  If it
is non infinite then the pigeon hole principle applies (
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigeonhole_principle ).

Jason



> The repetition arises from our sense to compare remembered experiences and
> string them together as similar enough to be considered identical.
>
>
>>
>> >> 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,
>
>
> No, they are physical, but they are private.
>
>
>> 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.
>>
>
> Just the opposite. It is the conventional view which requires a belief in
> a magical non-physical never-never land in which our private experience
> takes place. Once you realize that the conventional view is impossible,
> then you can begin to look for more realistic alternatives based on the
> concrete reality of experience rather than the abstract theory based on
> measuring interactions of public bodies. I say that every presence is
> physical. Thoughts, feelings, dreams, symbols - all physical, all physics.
> The relevant distinction within physics should be private time vs public
> space, not "real" vs "illusion".
>
>
>>
>> >> > 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.
>>
>
> Experience isn't caused by the brain, any more than the internet is caused
> by your computer. Reproducing your computer from 2000 won't resurrect
> Napster of 2000. Nothing, and I mean nothing at all has ever been
> 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 

Re: The duplicators and the restorers

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 6:48:03 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 5:03 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> > 
> 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. 
>

No, I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that the idea of something 
repeating is a subjective concept. No moment can be repeated. When I was 
writing those words, it was a few seconds ago. In that time, the TV show on 
in the background has changed, a quantity of snow has fallen in my back 
yard, etc. If I say "No moment can be repeated" again, nothing as been 
repeated 100%. The repetition arises from our sense to compare remembered 
experiences and string them together as similar enough to be considered 
identical.
 

>
> >> 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, 


No, they are physical, but they are private.
 

> 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. 
>

Just the opposite. It is the conventional view which requires a belief in a 
magical non-physical never-never land in which our private experience takes 
place. Once you realize that the conventional view is impossible, then you 
can begin to look for more realistic alternatives based on the concrete 
reality of experience rather than the abstract theory based on measuring 
interactions of public bodies. I say that every presence is physical. 
Thoughts, feelings, dreams, symbols - all physical, all physics. The 
relevant distinction within physics should be private time vs public space, 
not "real" vs "illusion". 
 

>
> >> > 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. 
>

Experience isn't caused by the brain, any more than the internet is caused 
by your computer. Reproducing your computer from 2000 won't resurrect 
Napster of 2000. Nothing, and I mean nothing at all has ever been 
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 clos

Re: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto

[Craig Weinberg]

On Friday, February 15, 2013 7:23:28 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  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
>
>
Is there something in particular that we're not semiotically square on?
 

>   
>>  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.
>

I agree but would add that we need to demechanemorphize the observed also. 


>   
>  
>>  
>>  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...
>

I can follow the concept of not sensing the off position (as in the retinal 
blindspot) if that's where you're going.
 

>
>   
>  
>>  
>>  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 h

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

[Craig Weinberg]

On Saturday, February 16, 2013 12:19:08 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Feb 13, 2013  Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
> > all that says is that the geometry which we experience in the universe 
>> does not arise from my conscious control 
>>
>
> I thought you were the fellow who said consciousness was behind everything.
>

I never said that our personal consciousness was behind everything. I'm not 
a naive idealist. Only a very few things in the universe are under a human 
being's conscious control, but everything in the universe is here because 
it relates to some experience.
 

>
>  > a universe which is purely arithmetic is incompatible with a universe 
>> which contains any geometry.
>>
>
> With complex numbers you can make a one to one relationship between the 
> way numbers add subtract multiply and divide and the way things move in a 
> two dimensional plane. What more could you want arithmetic to do in support 
> of geometry, where on earth is the incompatibility?? 
>

You don't see that you are making my point. It doesn't matter whether 
arithmetic *supports* geometry or not. What matters is that if we cannot 
explain to how arithmetic *actually becomes geometry*, why it *must become 
geometric* under some arithmetic condition, then we *certainly cannot* 
claim that a purely arithmetic universe could possibly contain any geometry 
at all.


> > The AI can never experience triangles.
>>
>
> If technology is advanced enough to make a AI it's advanced enough to have 
> TV cameras and robotic claws. AI programs have been identifying and picking 
> up triangular blocks in a bin full of blocks of other shapes since the 
> 1960's.  
>

Obviously, but you are missing the point. AI programs wouldn't need to be 
written if computers could use cameras to see. The program is to convert 
the optical events into digital code. As long as the code matches the 
expectations which have been programmed, it doesn't matter whether the 
peripheral i/o device is a camera and claws or a microphone and eyedropper, 
or just a graphic avatar. The program can't tell the difference. If 
anything were experienced by a program (which is is not), then it would be 
digital instructions, not triangles. There is no collection of digital 
instructions that is a triangle.
 

>
> > I know for a fact that I have multi-dimensional presentations,
>>
>
> But the only way to prove that to others is by successfully maneuvering 
> something through a 3D obstacle course, and existing AI programs can 
> already do this.
>

Why would I need to prove that to others? If they don't have 
multi-dimensional presentations themselves then there is nothing I could do 
to prove my own to them. If I am the only sighted person in a world of 
blind people, I can't prove that there is a such thing as seeing, only that 
I seem to be able to some things that others cannot (and maybe that I 
refuse to do some things that everyone else seems compelled to do.)

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: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

[John Clark]

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> all that says is that the geometry which we experience in the universe
> does not arise from my conscious control
>

I thought you were the fellow who said consciousness was behind everything.

 > a universe which is purely arithmetic is incompatible with a universe
> which contains any geometry.
>

With complex numbers you can make a one to one relationship between the way
numbers add subtract multiply and divide and the way things move in a two
dimensional plane. What more could you want arithmetic to do in support of
geometry, where on earth is the incompatibility??

> The AI can never experience triangles.
>

If technology is advanced enough to make a AI it's advanced enough to have
TV cameras and robotic claws. AI programs have been identifying and picking
up triangular blocks in a bin full of blocks of other shapes since the
1960's.

> I know for a fact that I have multi-dimensional presentations,
>

But the only way to prove that to others is by successfully maneuvering
something through a 3D obstacle course, and existing AI programs can
already do this.

  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: Simulated Intelligence Mini-Manifesto

[John Clark]

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013  Craig Weinberg  wrote:

*>>> *Wouldn’t Simulated Intelligence be a more appropriate term than
>>> Artificial Intelligence?
>>>
>>
>> >> Yes that euphemism [Simulated Intelligence] 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.
>

If we did that at least 90% of the world's population would be dead within
a year. Planet Earth simply cannot keep 7 billion people alive with 17'th
century technology, much less give them a living standard that wasn't full
of sewage and was just plane gruesome. We're long past the point of turning
back, the path is set.

>> 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.
>

Exactly, and that's why the God hypothesis is so utterly useless; if
explaining why life exists is hard explaining why God exists is harder.

  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: Science is a religion by itself.

[socra...@bezeqint.net]

  socratus
Schrodinger's cat ( as a quantum particle) is inseparable from
" The law of conservation and transformation energy/mass"
and this  unity  shows,  how QT is right,  saying that
 there is a life after death.

Robittybob1
Do you really believe that Socrates?
I find you too obscure to understand properly.

  socratus
 You are right saying
‘ I find you too obscure to understand properly.’
 “ The law of conservation and  transformation energy/mass”
  need's detailed explanation.
For example :
how to understand the unity between electron and
“ The law of conservation and  transformation  energy/mass”
during its interaction with vacuum ? . . . . .
 . . .  what was happened with electron during its interaction
with vacuum ?

 Renormalization   . . . .?
==.


On Feb 15, 10:12 pm, "socra...@bezeqint.net" 
wrote:
>   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" 
> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

-- 
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.