Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote: On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them. I'm not sure how you mean that? I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal. So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the equational theory: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) + few equality rules, But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the number than elementary arithmetic. We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks. So what are you calling an assumption in this? A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically. But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me. We just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make up, preserve 'true'. We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here the question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano Arithmetic (for example). And with comp we don't need more. Then we prove theorems, which can be quite non trivial. To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more than we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know. Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do have intuition. Well, in physics too. Sure it's important that our model of the world not have inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't justify anything. Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I think you ask too much for a justification. You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it is too much to expect from such a weak source. I look for such justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted to mere motivation. Where did I say motivation? I use the term intuition, and I demote nothing, as it correspond to to the first person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp p; S4Grz1, etc.). But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal. I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc. I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x. Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this. The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in basically all scientific paper though. You need it, or equivalent, to define machine, formal systems, programs, Church's thesis, string theory, eigenvector, trigonometry, etc. My intuition doesn't reach to infinity. It seems like an hypothesis of convenience. I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in infinity, unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based on this. 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: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 2/28/2013 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote: You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it is too much to expect from such a weak source. I look for such justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted to mere motivation. Hi Bruno and Brent, Where did I say motivation? I use the term intuition, and I demote nothing, as it correspond to to the first person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp p; S4Grz1, etc.). ISTM that 'motivation' is a 3p view of 'intuition'! But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal. Justification requires a model and/or implementation,no? [BM] I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc. I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x. Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this. The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in basically all scientific paper though. You need it, or equivalent, to define machine, formal systems, programs, Church's thesis, string theory, eigenvector, trigonometry, etc. I need to be sure that I understand this: Numbers are prior to computations. Is that correct? If so, then ultrafinitism fails, but if computations are prior to numbers, ultrafinitism (of some kind) seems inevitable. I have always balked at step 8 in that is seems a bridge too far... Why does the doubt have to be taken so far? My intuition doesn't reach to infinity. It seems like an hypothesis of convenience. I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in infinity, unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based on this. Bruno I still don't understand how we cannot assume some implicit set with even arithmetic realism. How are integers not a set? -- 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: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video file] that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not any kind of audio or video sensitivity. Please explain the difference between the two. when I play a video on a web page my computer always sends the audio signal to the speaker and the video signal to the screen and not the other way round. How can it do that it it doesn't know if the output should go to the screen or speaker? Is it just lucky? Uh, no. The web browser is explicitly instructed by the code of the file which application list is appropriate. I don't know what to make of that. You're saying that if there was no audio or video properties in the file then the computer could not tell if it was audio or video, but if there are no audio or video properties in it what on earth makes it a audio or video file? It's like saying you can't tell if a book is written in English if there are no English words in it! The computer has no idea what audio is. It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you wrong. A computer can only look at everything one way - as a binary code. And yet a computer can display music, speeches, sound effects, text, and video of anything. Apparently the word look has some weird mystical meaning for you that it doesn't have for me. but the computer has no experience either way. It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you wrong. A computer doesn't know anything about the world beyond its peripherals. It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you wrong. It can't tell whether a bitstream ends up in your ears or eyes. It doesn't know if it's running on a laptop in the middle of a warzone or on a virtual server in a data center. It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you wrong. You don't need file extensions in every OS, but the fact that they exist at all should show you [...] that computer technology advances and things that were once necessary for those machines to operate correctly no longer are. There is no condition which will make a machine queasy It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you wrong. our sense of queasiness is not in any way a logical result of a data mismatch. You are entirely wrong. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_sickness When feeling motion but not seeing it (for example, in a ship with no windows), the inner ear transmits to the brain that it senses motion, but the eyes tell the brain that everything is still. As a result of the discordance, the brain will come to the conclusion that one of them is hallucinating and further conclude that the hallucination is due to poison ingestion. The brain responds by inducing vomiting, to clear the supposed toxin. 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
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y then X is gibberish, X = alcohol Y = poison. becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you get alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish just like I said. If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean. And it's not ad hominem if it's true. Why would it make a difference whether your personal accusations are true or not? It would mean that I did not engage in name calling. What I actually said was that ASCII symbols with zero informational content ( like X is Y and X is not Y) is just blather, you're the one who equated blather with ad hominem; apparently you identify with blather and feel that a attack on blather is a attack on you personally. 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
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:08:07 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video file] that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not any kind of audio or video sensitivity. Please explain the difference between the two. In the former, the computer can read up the file and pick up some bytes which can tell it which applications would be likely to open it. In the latter, the computer could actually see or hear the file when it is being played and know the difference between those two experiences. It's like a computer could be programmed to choose a healthy entree on a menu, but it can't actually eat the meal and tell you whether it was any good. when I play a video on a web page my computer always sends the audio signal to the speaker and the video signal to the screen and not the other way round. How can it do that it it doesn't know if the output should go to the screen or speaker? Is it just lucky? Uh, no. The web browser is explicitly instructed by the code of the file which application list is appropriate. I don't know what to make of that. You're saying that if there was no audio or video properties in the file Meaning that there are no pictures or sounds within the file, yes. The file is only a pattern of countable switch positions, like a piano roll. A player piano has no awareness of music, nor to the paper rolls that it plays have any properties which are musical. If it had properties which were inherently musical, then you would not need ears to hear it, and you could simply hold the piano roll in your hands and experience music. then the computer could not tell if it was audio or video, I didn't say that at all. The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can only tell what application might be associated with opening that file. but if there are no audio or video properties in it what on earth makes it a audio or video file? It's not an audio or video file. Not literally or physically. A file is just a source of generic binary instructions. If you feed those instructions into a monitor, it becomes visual - even if its a song (hence an oscilloscope visualization), if you unplug the monitor, the computer doesn't know the difference. It's like saying you can't tell if a book is written in English if there are no English words in it! No, it's like saying that you can tell if a book is written in Japanese even if you don't speak Japanese. You know enough to be able to identify who of your friends might be able to read it phonetically to someone who speaks Japanese, but nobody understands the meaning of the words except the final Japanese-speaking end-user. Those three levels of quality represent the low level OS recognition, the application level, and the user level. The user level is very different from the other two, however. Identifying the general category of written language and translating language from one generic code into another are mechanical processes which can be easily programmed. We can formalize our expectations about the appearance of written language and write a program which uses that key to guide a translation from one stream of binary instructions to another stream which has been designed to be output to a sound card. This can't be done at the user level, however. It's not a matter of choosing and matching input and output categories as in the optical scanning and phonetic output phases, it's a matter of ultimately experiencing the meaning itself. The Japanese speaking user hears the words not as an a-signifying code or strung together synthetic phonemes, they hear language and significance. This is not just a different function, it is the opposite of all functions. Experience can only be the beginning and ending of all possible functions. The computer has no idea what audio is. It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you wrong. It's funny, sometimes ideas which can't be proved wrong are that way because they are actually right. A computer can only look at everything one way - as a binary code. And yet a computer can display music, speeches, sound effects, text, and video of anything. Apparently the word look has some weird mystical meaning for you that it doesn't have for me. All displays are for the user. A computer, on its own, could not possibly have any use for any kind of display at all. but the computer has no experience either way. It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote: On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them. I'm not sure how you mean that? I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal. So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the equational theory: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) + few equality rules, But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the number than elementary arithmetic. We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks. So what are you calling an assumption in this? A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically. But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me. We just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make up, preserve 'true'. We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here the question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano Arithmetic (for example). And with comp we don't need more. Then we prove theorems, which can be quite non trivial. To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more than we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know. Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do have intuition. Well, in physics too. Sure it's important that our model of the world not have inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't justify anything. Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I think you ask too much for a justification. You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it is too much to expect from such a weak source. I look for such justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted to mere motivation. Where did I say motivation? The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically. I use the term intuition, and I demote nothing, as it correspond to to the first person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp p; S4Grz1, etc.). But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal. Logical proof is relative to axioms. So the justification can be no stronger than the axioms. I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc. I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x. Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this. The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in basically all scientific paper though. It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way. I recognize it difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it may be only a convenience. You need it, or equivalent, to define machine, formal systems, programs, Church's thesis, string theory, eigenvector, trigonometry, etc. My intuition doesn't reach to infinity. It seems like an hypothesis of convenience. I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in infinity, unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based on this. I think you need to accept that every number has a successor in order to prove things like Godel's theorems. Brent Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13 -- 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
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:03:40 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote: On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them. I'm not sure how you mean that? I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal. So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the equational theory: Kxy = x Sxyz = xz(yz) + few equality rules, But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the number than elementary arithmetic. We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks. So what are you calling an assumption in this? A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically. But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me. We just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make up, preserve 'true'. We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here the question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano Arithmetic (for example). And with comp we don't need more. Then we prove theorems, which can be quite non trivial. To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more than we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know. Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do have intuition. Well, in physics too. Sure it's important that our model of the world not have inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't justify anything. Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I think you ask too much for a justification. You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it is too much to expect from such a weak source. I look for such justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted to mere motivation. Where did I say motivation? The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically. I use the term intuition, and I demote nothing, as it correspond to to the first person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp p; S4Grz1, etc.). But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal. Logical proof is relative to axioms. So the justification can be no stronger than the axioms. And axioms are no stronger than the capacity to make sense of them. I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc. I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x. Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this. The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in basically all scientific paper though. It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way. I recognize it difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it may be only a convenience. You need it, or equivalent, to define machine, formal systems, programs, Church's thesis, string theory, eigenvector, trigonometry, etc. My intuition doesn't reach to infinity. It seems like an hypothesis of convenience. I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in infinity, unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based on this. I think you need to accept that every number has a successor in order to prove things like Godel's theorems. Brent Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13 -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving
Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y then X is gibberish, X = alcohol Y = poison. becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you get alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish just like I said. Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real world that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms. If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean. And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act. And it's not ad hominem if it's true. Why would it make a difference whether your personal accusations are true or not? It would mean that I did not engage in name calling. What I actually said was that ASCII symbols with zero informational content ( like X is Y and X is not Y) is just blather, you're the one who equated blather with ad hominem; apparently you identify with blather and feel that a attack on blather is a attack on you personally. John K Clark What about the case where some supposedly conscious being constantly calls itself names? Auto ad hominem? LOL! By your own logic we are force to consider you a self-inflicted zombie. -- 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: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
Thanks. I think you pretty much covered it :) On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:59:55 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y then X is gibberish, X = alcohol Y = poison. becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you get alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish just like I said. Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real world that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms. Yeah I think even seeing a Venn diagram would be too frightening. How can seawater be both the sea and water? It must be gibberish. If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean. And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email johnk...@gmail.com javascript: is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act. And it's not ad hominem if it's true. Why would it make a difference whether your personal accusations are true or not? It would mean that I did not engage in name calling. What I actually said was that ASCII symbols with zero informational content ( like X is Y and X is not Y) is just blather, you're the one who equated blather with ad hominem; apparently you identify with blather and feel that a attack on blather is a attack on you personally. John K Clark What about the case where some supposedly conscious being constantly calls itself names? Auto ad hominem? LOL! By your own logic we are force to consider you a self-inflicted zombie. -- 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: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie
On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y then X is gibberish, X = alcohol Y = poison. becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you get alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish just like I said. Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real world that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms. If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean. And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act. I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either random or deterministic. Brent -- 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.
A Diagram of Free Will
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-AzLqBmVGyOo/US-9KrXclfI/AaY/nqw4xM2a8aM/s1600/evo.jpg http://25.media.tumblr.com/762bc11d112a3e03ecb8a05b39ce14d3/tumblr_miy5uxCcE41qeenqko1_500.jpg -- 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
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video file] that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not any kind of audio or video sensitivity. Please explain the difference between the two. In the former, the computer can read up the file and pick up some bytes which can tell it which applications would be likely to open it. In the latter, the computer could actually see or hear the file You have no way of knowing if I can actually see or hear, all you know is that I behave as if I do. It's exactly precisely the same situation with a smart computer. It's like a computer could be programmed to choose a healthy entree on a menu, but it can't actually eat the meal and tell you whether it was any good. Are you now saying that a digestive system is linked to consciousness? You're saying that if there was no audio or video properties in the file Meaning that there are no pictures or sounds within the file, yes. The file is only a pattern of countable switch positions, like a piano roll. A electronic cochlear implant that enables deaf people to hear produces no sound, all it makes is lots of zeros and ones. The same thing is true of the experimental artificial eye. A player piano has no awareness of music, It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you wrong. The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can only tell what application might be associated with opening that file. As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW? it's not an audio or video file. Not literally or physically. A file is just a source of generic binary instructions. And that's all a cochlear implant produces and yet the deaf report those generic binary instructions give them the qualia of sound. If you believe that the deaf reported truthfully ( do you?) why wouldn't you believe a computer if it said the same thing? But maybe the deaf person is lying too, of course we could tell a story to a deaf person with a cochlear implant and they could correctly answer questions about it but that's just behavior and were talking about qualia and deafness does not make you incapable of lying. Or maybe they think they experience the qualia of sound but its nothing like the grand and glorious thing you experience. Or maybe Mozart would say you think you have experienced the qualia of sound but it's nothing at all like the wonderful thing he has. All this is pointless time wasting speculation because none of it can ever be proved or disproved. It's like saying you can't tell if a book is written in English if there are no English words in it! No, it's like saying that you can tell if a book is written in Japanese even if you don't speak Japanese. Maybe you can but I can't, I couldn't tell if it was Chinese or Korean or just a bunch of squiggles made up by a graphics designer yesterday. translating language from one generic code into another are mechanical processes which can be easily programmed. No, translating languages is extremely difficult and until about 5 years ago computer translations were so bad that the only reason to do it is the belly laugh you'd get out of it. Back in the computer Precambrian of 2007 or 2008 the consensus was that computers couldn't make good translations unless they had some understanding of what was being said, I think they were right, and computers make dramatically better translations now than they did in 2007. It's funny, sometimes ideas which can't be proved wrong are that way because they are actually right. Don't be so modest, your ideas about consciousness are twice as good as that, not only can they never be proven wron they can never be proven right either. People with a hard left-brained approach are not going to be able to look at consciousness independently of forms and functions I understand as well as you do that there is such a thing as consciousness, but I also understand that because it has no observable consequences obsessing over it is a complete waste of time if your goal is to obtain some understanding of how the world works. So when you make rubber stamp comments like a computer can never know X or a computer can never feel Y, comments that you simply decree without evidence, comments you have no way of knowing, comments neither you nor anybody else can ever prove or disprove even if the machine behaves as if it knows and feels those things then I respond with rubber stamp comments of my own. 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
Re: A Diagram of Free Will
Hi Craig, what's your point with this diagram? That free will lies on a continuum of random processes, perhaps? Cheers On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:25:29PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-AzLqBmVGyOo/US-9KrXclfI/AaY/nqw4xM2a8aM/s1600/evo.jpg http://25.media.tumblr.com/762bc11d112a3e03ecb8a05b39ce14d3/tumblr_miy5uxCcE41qeenqko1_500.jpg -- 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. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpco...@hpcoders.com.au University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To 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
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:52:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video file] that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not any kind of audio or video sensitivity. Please explain the difference between the two. In the former, the computer can read up the file and pick up some bytes which can tell it which applications would be likely to open it. In the latter, the computer could actually see or hear the file You have no way of knowing if I can actually see or hear, all you know is that I behave as if I do. It's exactly precisely the same situation with a smart computer. You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. You are using a double standard whereby you claim to be omniscient about what I can or can't know. Of course this is all sophistry. All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter. Since you can open any raw file as a video, audio, text, 3-D printing, etc that would mean that all data would have to inherently have all possible sensory modalities contained within it. You are really saying that we could use a program that acts like a video screen instead of an actual video screen. That would be nice, but it can never happen, regardless of how sophisticated software becomes. There will never be an app on your iPhone to make it waterproof. It's like a computer could be programmed to choose a healthy entree on a menu, but it can't actually eat the meal and tell you whether it was any good. Are you now saying that a digestive system is linked to consciousness? I am saying that the menu is not the meal. Computers do menus, but not meals. Consciousness is the capacity to discern between menu and meal (among other things). You're saying that if there was no audio or video properties in the file Meaning that there are no pictures or sounds within the file, yes. The file is only a pattern of countable switch positions, like a piano roll. A electronic cochlear implant that enables deaf people to hear produces no sound, all it makes is lots of zeros and ones. The same thing is true of the experimental artificial eye. Sure, because there is ultimately a living person there to hear and see. Without the person, the implants won't do anything worthwhile. A player piano has no awareness of music, It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you wrong. Your argument then is that a player piano has an awareness of music. Maybe we should give scarecrows the right to vote also. The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can only tell what application might be associated with opening that file. As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW? Because it won't be able to open any file without software to identify which application to associate it with. If the computer could tell the difference, then we wouldn't need to have programmed instructions. Do you seriously believe that changing an .mp3 to a .txt file makes the computer dizzy? How can you have spent any time programming a computer without noticing that everything must be explicitly defined and scripted or it will just halt/fail/error? How could it be any clearer that a player piano has no experience of music. It's a piano being played by a paper roll. it's not an audio or video file. Not literally or physically. A file is just a source of generic binary instructions. And that's all a cochlear implant produces and yet the deaf report those generic binary instructions give them the qualia of sound. Sure, computer + user = high quality user experience. Computer + computer = no high quality experience. Plug a cochlear implant into a computer and the raw data remains raw all the way through. There is no conversion to any sense modality - no way so simulate synesthesia or blindsight. If you believe that the deaf reported truthfully ( do you?) why wouldn't you believe a computer if it said the same thing? Because I understand why computers have no experience. A computer is only going to say what it is programmed to say. If it has no vocabulary which refers to human experiences of sound, it will have nothing to say about some new stream of generic data that related to aural sensation. It's not going to try to express anything about the experience of sound. But maybe the deaf person is lying too, of course we could tell a story to a deaf person with a cochlear implant and they could correctly answer
Re: A Diagram of Free Will
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 4:29:13 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: Hi Craig, what's your point with this diagram? That free will lies on a continuum of random processes, perhaps? Just the opposite. All processes begin intentionally, but end up appearing more unintentional the further removed from them that you are. Thanks Craig Cheers On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 12:25:29PM -0800, Craig Weinberg wrote: https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-AzLqBmVGyOo/US-9KrXclfI/AaY/nqw4xM2a8aM/s1600/evo.jpg http://25.media.tumblr.com/762bc11d112a3e03ecb8a05b39ce14d3/tumblr_miy5uxCcE41qeenqko1_500.jpg -- 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-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. -- Prof Russell Standish Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) Principal, High Performance Coders Visiting Professor of Mathematics hpc...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript: University of New South Wales http://www.hpcoders.com.au -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To 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
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can know...either. :-) Brent blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable consequences. -- 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
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can know...either. :-) Brent blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable consequences. Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience. Craig -- 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
On 2/28/2013 2:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y then X is gibberish, X = alcohol Y = poison. becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you get alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish just like I said. Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real world that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms. If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean. And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act. I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either random or deterministic. Brent Hi Brent, Perhaps you are trapped in a false dichotomy. Both of those terms (random and deterministic) assume, ISTM, a classical model of the universe. I accept the classical model only as a cartoon that has worked so so for a long time, but has outlived it utility. We know better, the universe is quantum mechanical. I believe that our minds are only capable of comprehending Boolean representable (or degradations thereof) concepts of the universe, thus we fail miserably to comprehend what it means to live in a QM universe. -- 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.
Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
-- Forwarded message -- Apparently so... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23221-first-mindreading-implant-gives-rats-telepathic-power.html The world's first brain-to-brain connection has given rats the power to communicate by thought alone. Many people thought it could never happen, says Miguel Nicolelis at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Although monkeys have been able to control robots with their mind using brain-to-machine interfaces, work by Nicolelis's team has, for the first time, demonstrated a direct interface between two brains – with the rats able to share both motor and sensory information. The feat was achieved by first training rats to press one of two levers when an LED above that lever was lit. A correct action opened a hatch containing a drink of water. The rats were then split into two groups, designated as encoders and decoders. An array of microelectrodes – each about one-hundredth the width of a human hair – was then implanted in the encoder rats' primary motor cortex, an area of the brain that processes movement. The team used the implant to record the neuronal activity that occurs just before the rat made a decision in the lever task. They found that pressing the left lever produced a different pattern of activity from pressing the right lever, regardless of which was the correct action. Next, the team recreated these patterns in decoder rats, using an implant in the same brain area that stimulates neurons rather than recording from them. The decoders received a few training sessions to prime them to pick the correct lever in response to the different patterns of stimulation. * Regards, Dave Palmer dpal...@magicdave.com mailto:dpal...@magicdave.com As much as the author would like to spend precious minutes of the rapidly-dwindling time remaining in his life responding to your kind and thoughtful letter about how he is going to spend eternity in a lake of fire being eaten by rats, he regrets that he is unable to do so, due to the volume of such mail received. *** http://www.magicdave.com http://www.magicdave.com/ *** To contact the list owner: mailto:skeptic-requ...@lists.johnshopkins.edu mailto:skeptic-requ...@lists.johnshopkins.edu -- 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
On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can know...either. :-) Brent blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable consequences. Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience. But I can make an empirically informed one. Brent strawman, n. a misstatement or exaggeration of an opponents position in order to make it easier to refute. -- 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
On 2/28/2013 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/28/2013 2:29 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y then X is gibberish, X = alcohol Y = poison. becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you get alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish just like I said. Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real world that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms. If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish. Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean. And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act. I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either random or deterministic. Brent Hi Brent, Perhaps you are trapped in a false dichotomy. Both of those terms (random and deterministic) assume, ISTM, a classical model of the universe. I accept the classical model only as a cartoon that has worked so so for a long time, but has outlived it utility. We know better, the universe is quantum mechanical. I believe that our minds are only capable of comprehending Boolean representable (or degradations thereof) concepts of the universe, thus we fail miserably to comprehend what it means to live in a QM universe. So what's your third way that is neither random nor deterministic? Brent -- 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
On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can know...either. :-) Brent blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable consequences. Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience. But I can make an empirically informed one. That means that you claim to have empirical information about consciousness beyond another person's information about their own consciousness. How can you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone else can't? Craig Brent strawman, n. a misstatement or exaggeration of an opponents position in order to make it easier to refute. -- 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: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Cool, although brain conjoined twins already do this. On Thursday, February 28, 2013 7:59:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: -- Forwarded message -- Apparently so... http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23221-first-mindreading-implant-gives-rats-telepathic-power.html The world's first brain-to-brain connection has given rats the power to communicate by thought alone. Many people thought it could never happen, says Miguel Nicolelis at Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. Although monkeys have been able to control robots with their mind using brain-to-machine interfaces, work by Nicolelis's team has, for the first time, demonstrated a direct interface between two brains � with the rats able to share both motor and sensory information. The feat was achieved by first training rats to press one of two levers when an LED above that lever was lit. A correct action opened a hatch containing a drink of water. The rats were then split into two groups, designated as encoders and decoders. An array of microelectrodes � each about one-hundredth the width of a human hair � was then implanted in the encoder rats' primary motor cortex, an area of the brain that processes movement. The team used the implant to record the neuronal activity that occurs just before the rat made a decision in the lever task. They found that pressing the left lever produced a different pattern of activity from pressing the right lever, regardless of which was the correct action. Next, the team recreated these patterns in decoder rats, using an implant in the same brain area that stimulates neurons rather than recording from them. The decoders received a few training sessions to prime them to pick the correct lever in response to the different patterns of stimulation. * Regards, Dave Palmer �dpa...@magicdave.com javascript: As much as the author would like to spend precious minutes of the rapidly-dwindling time remaining in his life responding to your kind and thoughtful letter about how he is going to spend eternity in a lake of fire being eaten by rats, he regrets that he is unable to do so, due to the volume of such mail received. *** http://www.magicdave.com *** To contact the list owner: mailto:skeptic...@lists.johnshopkins.edujavascript: -- 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: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Cool, although brain conjoined twins already do this. But this is with electrodes. -- 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.
Re: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
True, but we already know that nerves can be stimulated with electrodes. On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:56:37 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 12:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: Cool, although brain conjoined twins already do this. But this is with electrodes. -- 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.
Re: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: True, but we already know that nerves can be stimulated with electrodes. Yes, and it shows that there is nothing special about biology. It's just a technical problem to find non-biological components that will work as well as the biological ones. Over the next few decades, there will be more and better neurological prostheses. Patients will tell their doctor that they want one that allows them to feel exactly the same as they did before they had the stroke, and manufacturers of the devices will try to satisfy this demand. Ultimately, there will be people walking around with half their head filled with electronics, behaving perfectly normally in every respect. But you will presumably still insist that this is an illusion. -- 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.
Re: Are you thinking what I'm thinking?
Suddenly, everybody was astonished to realise that this has already happened. The Engineers expressly designed the human neocortex so we could get this far and this far only. As Kurzweil says - we only need a brain smart enough to get us to the point where we can design a better brain. We are now entering that place historically. If we want to go farther in our thinking ability, we now have to redesign the brain with better systems. We will probably do this increasingly by merging with our machines; well machines can merge with machines, right? Evolution be buggered. We are in a place of proximal learning sensitivity. The next step takes us into transhumanism. Kim Jones On 01/03/2013, at 1:24 PM, Stathis Papaioannou stath...@gmail.com wrote: On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:10 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: True, but we already know that nerves can be stimulated with electrodes. Yes, and it shows that there is nothing special about biology. It's just a technical problem to find non-biological components that will work as well as the biological ones. Over the next few decades, there will be more and better neurological prostheses. Patients will tell their doctor that they want one that allows them to feel exactly the same as they did before they had the stroke, and manufacturers of the devices will try to satisfy this demand. Ultimately, there will be people walking around with half their head filled with electronics, behaving perfectly normally in every respect. But you will presumably still insist that this is an illusion. -- 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. -- 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
On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can know...either. :-) Brent blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable consequences. Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience. But I can make an empirically informed one. That means that you claim to have empirical information about consciousness beyond another person's information about their own consciousness. (a) I said I have empirical information. I didn't say it is beyond somebody elses. How can you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone else can't? (b) It was you who claimed to know what John couldn't know. Brent -- 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.
