Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  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.


No, I said this:

 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?   

My statement is empirically correct. It does not look at any visual or 
audio qualities of a file to determine what kind of a file it is. Anyone 
who has worked with computers for long enough should be able to understand 
why this is indesputably true. Files have flags and pointers which identify 
their type, they are not looked at or listened to by the computer. Even 
speaking into a microphone yields nothing on the other side which is 
fundamentally different from what a camera would yield - voltage changes in 
microelectronics have no origination bias. This is the very thing that 
makes computers useful - they don't care what you do with them. They will 
treat data as data no matter what it is, and never need to reconstruct it 
into anything meaningful to us. These are some of the defining qualities of 
computation. The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not 
at all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory 
experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?

Craig



 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.




Fw: [Mind and Brain] News: Brain-to-brain interface allows transmission oftactile and motor information between rats

2013-03-01 Thread Roger Clough



- Have received the following content - 
Sender: Robert Karl Stonjek 
Receiver: Psychiatry-Research,Cognitive NeuroScience,Mind and Brain 
Time: 2013-03-01, 00:21:49
Subject: [Mind and Brain] News: Brain-to-brain interface allows transmission 
oftactile and motor information between rats


  


Brain-to-brain interface allows transmission of tactile and motor information 
between rats
February 28th, 2013 in Neuroscience 
Enlarge

Researchers have electronically linked the brains of pairs of rats for the 
first time, enabling them to communicate directly to solve simple behavioral 
puzzles. Credit: Duke University Medical Center
Researchers have electronically linked the brains of pairs of rats for the 
first time, enabling them to communicate directly to solve simple behavioral 
puzzles. A further test of this work successfully linked the brains of two 
animals thousands of miles apart?ne in Durham, N.C., and one in Natal, Brazil.
The results of these projects suggest the future potential for linking multiple 
brains to form what the research team is calling an organic computer, which 
could allow sharing of motor and sensory information among groups of animals. 
The study was published Feb. 28, 2013, in the journal Scientific Reports.
Our previous studies with brain-machine interfaces had convinced us that the 
rat brain was much more plastic than we had previously thought, said Miguel 
Nicolelis, M.D., PhD, lead author of the publication and professor of 
neurobiology at Duke University School of Medicine. In those experiments, the 
rat brain was able to adapt easily to accept input from devices outside the 
body and even learn how to process invisible infrared light generated by an 
artificial sensor. So, the question we asked was, 'if the brain could 
assimilate signals from artificial sensors, could it also assimilate 
information input from sensors from a different body?'
To test this hypothesis, the researchers first trained pairs of rats to solve a 
simple problem: to press the correct lever when an indicator light above the 
lever switched on, which rewarded the rats with a sip of water. They next 
connected the two animals' brains via arrays of microelectrodes inserted into 
the area of the cortex that processes motor information.
One of the two rodents was designated as the encoder animal. This animal 
received a visual cue that showed it which lever to press in exchange for a 
water reward. Once this encoder rat pressed the right lever, a sample of its 
brain activity that coded its behavioral decision was translated into a pattern 
of electrical stimulation that was delivered directly into the brain of the 
second rat, known as the decoder animal.
The decoder rat had the same types of levers in its chamber, but it did not 
receive any visual cue indicating which lever it should press to obtain a 
reward. Therefore, to press the correct lever and receive the reward it craved, 
the decoder rat would have to rely on the cue transmitted from the encoder via 
the brain-to-brain interface.
The researchers then conducted trials to determine how well the decoder animal 
could decipher the brain input from the encoder rat to choose the correct 
lever. The decoder rat ultimately achieved a maximum success rate of about 70 
percent, only slightly below the possible maximum success rate of 78 percent 
that the researchers had theorized was achievable based on success rates of 
sending signals directly to the decoder rat's brain.
Importantly, the communication provided by this brain-to-brain interface was 
two-way. For instance, the encoder rat did not receive a full reward if the 
decoder rat made a wrong choice. The result of this peculiar contingency, said 
Nicolelis, led to the establishment of a behavioral collaboration between the 
pair of rats.
We saw that when the decoder rat committed an error, the encoder basically 
changed both its brain function and behavior to make it easier for its partner 
to get it right, Nicolelis said. The encoder improved the signal-to-noise 
ratio of its brain activity that represented the decision, so the signal became 
cleaner and easier to detect. And it made a quicker, cleaner decision to choose 
the correct lever to press. Invariably, when the encoder made those 
adaptations, the decoder got the right decision more often, so they both got a 
better reward.
In a second set of experiments, the researchers trained pairs of rats to 
distinguish between a narrow or wide opening using their whiskers. If the 
opening was narrow, they were taught to nose-poke a water port on the left side 
of the chamber to receive a reward; for a wide opening, they had to poke a port 
on the right side.
The researchers then divided the rats into encoders and decoders. The decoders 
were trained to associate stimulation pulses with the left reward poke as the 
correct choice, and an absence of pulses with the right reward poke as correct. 
During trials in which the encoder 

Re: Fw: [Mind and Brain] News: Brain-to-brain interface allows transmission oftactile and motor information between rats

2013-03-01 Thread Telmo Menezes
I was going to send that article to annoy Craig but then decided to leave
him in alone :)


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013 at 1:47 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:




 - Have received the following content -
 *Sender:* Robert Karl Stonjek ston...@ozemail.com.au
 *Receiver:* Psychiatry-Research,Cognitive NeuroScience,Mind and 
 Brainpsychiatry-resea...@yahoogroups.com,cognitiveneurosciencefo...@yahoogroups.com,mindbr...@yahoogroups.com
 *Time:* 2013-03-01, 00:21:49
 *Subject:* [Mind and Brain] News: Brain-to-brain interface allows
 transmission oftactile and motor information between rats



 **
 http://medicalxpress.com/
  Brain-to-brain interface allows transmission of tactile and motor
 information between ratsFebruary 28th, 2013 in Neuroscience
 [image: Brain-to-brain interface allows transmission of tactile and motor
 information between 
 rats]Enlargehttp://s.ph-cdn.com/newman/gfx/news/hires/2013/braintobrain.jpg

 *Researchers have electronically linked the brains of pairs of rats for
 the first time, enabling them to communicate directly to solve simple
 behavioral puzzles. Credit: Duke University Medical Center*

 *Researchers have electronically linked the brains of pairs of rats for
 the first time, enabling them to communicate directly to solve simple
 behavioral puzzles. A further test of this work successfully linked the
 brains of two animals thousands of miles apart梠ne in Durham, N.C., and one
 in Natal, Brazil.*

 The results of these projects suggest the future potential for linking
 multiple brains to form what the research team is calling an organic
 computer, which could allow sharing of motor and sensory information among
 groups of animals. The study was published Feb. 28, 2013, in the journal 
 *Scientific
 Reports*.

 Our previous studies with brain-machine interfaces had convinced us that
 the rat brain was much more plastic than we had previously thought, said
 Miguel Nicolelis, M.D., PhD, lead author of the publication and professor
 of neurobiology at Duke University School of Medicine. In those
 experiments, the rat brain was able to adapt easily to accept input from
 devices outside the body and even learn how to process invisible infrared
 light generated by an artificial sensor. So, the question we asked was, 'if
 the brain could assimilate signals from artificial sensors, could it also
 assimilate information input from sensors from a different body?'

 To test this hypothesis, the researchers first trained pairs of rats to
 solve a simple problem: to press the correct lever when an indicator light
 above the lever switched on, which rewarded the rats with a sip of water.
 They next connected the two animals' brains via arrays of microelectrodes
 inserted into the area of the cortex that processes motor information.

 One of the two rodents was designated as the encoder animal. This animal
 received a visual cue that showed it which lever to press in exchange for a
 water reward. Once this encoder rat pressed the right lever, a sample of
 its brain activity that coded its behavioral decision was translated into a
 pattern of electrical stimulation that was delivered directly into the
 brain of the second rat, known as the decoder animal.

 The decoder rat had the same types of levers in its chamber, but it did
 not receive any visual cue indicating which lever it should press to obtain
 a reward. Therefore, to press the correct lever and receive the reward it
 craved, the decoder rat would have to rely on the cue transmitted from the
 encoder via the brain-to-brain interface.

 The researchers then conducted trials to determine how well the decoder
 animal could decipher the brain input from the encoder rat to choose the
 correct lever. The decoder rat ultimately achieved a maximum success rate
 of about 70 percent, only slightly below the possible maximum success rate
 of 78 percent that the researchers had theorized was achievable based on
 success rates of sending signals directly to the decoder rat's brain.

 Importantly, the communication provided by this brain-to-brain interface
 was two-way. For instance, the encoder rat did not receive a full reward if
 the decoder rat made a wrong choice. The result of this peculiar
 contingency, said Nicolelis, led to the establishment of a behavioral
 collaboration between the pair of rats.

 We saw that when the decoder rat committed an error, the encoder
 basically changed both its brain function and behavior to make it easier
 for its partner to get it right, Nicolelis said. The encoder improved the
 signal-to-noise ratio of its brain activity that represented the decision,
 so the signal became cleaner and easier to detect. And it made a quicker,
 cleaner decision to choose the correct lever to press. Invariably, when the
 encoder made those adaptations, the decoder got the right decision more
 often, so they both got a better reward.

 In a second set of experiments, the researchers trained pairs of rats to
 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Feb 2013, at 14:58, Stephen P. King wrote:


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'!


I don't see this at all. Motivation is somehow even more a  
psychological notion than 'intuition', which admit logical  
specification.






But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal.


   Justification requires a model and/or implementation,no?


Not necessarily, in case of formal justification, or in first order  
logic: we need only formulas and sequences of formulas, at the meta- 
level.











[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?


Once you agree on the axioms and rules of elementary arithmetic,  
numbers and computations coexist, like even numbers and prime numbers.  
You can' have one without the other.





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?


It is a conclusion. We will come back on step 8 on the FOAR list,  
soon. In your neutral monism, primary matter (and thus time and space)  
also does not exist. I don't see why you have a problem with this non- 
existence at the ontological level, given that those have to be  
explained at some other level.









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?



You can assume the numbers, without assuming sets. That means that set  
will not be first order citizen in the reality that you assume, a  
bit like classes in ZF set theory.
Set appears at the metalevel, when you assume only numbers. They can  
appear also as mental objects in the mind of the relative numbers,  
but they are not existing objects, you can't prove ExP(x) with x  
denoting them, unless you represent a set by a numbers, which can be  
done for the RE sets, but not for any set. But yes, some set will  
exist, even explicitly, through some possible representations. But  
those sets are not assume, then, they are proven to exist.


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

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Feb 2013, at 19:03, meekerdb 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.


Indeed. It is the inductive inference part of the learning process. It  
is very important. All theories, including brains comes from this.








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.


Sure.












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.


OK. I don't see the problem with this. Convenience is a fuzzy notion.  
A brain too is convenient. Universes can be convenient. I am not sure  
to see your point.






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.


That follows from the axiom above. It is easy to prove this, and  
Gödel's incompleteness,  *in* the theory, if the theory has the  
induction axioms. If the theory has no induction axioms, you can 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Feb 2013, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




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.


That's correct, and that's why when we assume comp we need at the  
start a Turing universal theory, capable of representing the partial  
computable functions, incmuding universal functions. With comp the  
universal machine, which compute the universal function (alxays in the  
Church Turing sense) are capable of making sense of the axioms, and  
prove a lot of things about them. Such machines can prove their own  
limitation, and bet on what is beyond them.


Bruno















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 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, 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 
 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.


It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.

Bruno





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.




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

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, 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.


You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think.

Bruno





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.




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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, 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.


It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.


Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by completely random. Things are 
only random in the sense of not being strictly 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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.


OK. I don't see the problem with this. Convenience is a fuzzy notion. A brain too is 
convenient. Universes can be convenient. I am not sure to see your point.




In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we never need 10^120 + 
1.  We make an axiom of succession and assume it applies to 10^120 like other numbers, but 
maybe that is because it easier than thinking of axioms to describe how we really 
calculate: 10^88 + 1 = 10^88. There's a book Ad Infinitum by Rotman that proposes 
something along these lines, but he writes like a French philosopher so I found it hard to 
tell whether his idea really works.  But we do know that real computers work, and their 
mathematics are finite.


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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 3:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

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.


No, I said this:

 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?

My statement is empirically correct. It does not look at any visual or audio qualities 
of a file to determine what kind of a file it is. Anyone who has worked with computers 
for long enough should be able to understand why this is indesputably true. Files have 
flags and pointers which identify their type, they are not looked at or listened to by 
the computer. 


That's why I always point out that intelligence is relative to an environment.  When you 
talk about seeing or listening that implies an environment of photons or acoustic 
waves carrying information about the environment.  When you then switch to a computer that 
has no photon or acoustic wave sensors and say it can't see or hear you have created a 
strawman.


Even speaking into a microphone yields nothing on the other side which is fundamentally 
different from what a camera would yield - voltage changes in microelectronics have no 
origination bias. This is the very thing that makes computers useful - they don't care 
what you do with them. They will treat data as data no matter what it is, and never need 
to reconstruct it into anything meaningful to us. These are some of the defining 
qualities of computation. The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not 
at all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory experiences 
of shapes. Can you dispute this?


Sure. Can you prove it?

Computers prove theorems in geometry.  As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about 
tables, chairs, and beer steins as points, lines, and intersections.


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

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, 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.


 You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think. 


I don't know that all machines cannot think, but I understand why the 
reasons for assuming that they ever could are rooted in bad assumptions 
from the start. If we don't what consciousness actually is and what it 
does, then we skip the important part and reverse engineer a false 
confidence in unconscious programs.

Craig

 


 Bruno




 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-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.
  
  


 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

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:39:05 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/1/2013 3:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  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.
  

 No, I said this:

   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?   
  
 My statement is empirically correct. It does not look at any visual or 
 audio qualities of a file to determine what kind of a file it is. Anyone 
 who has worked with computers for long enough should be able to 
 understand why this is indesputably true. Files have flags and pointers 
 which identify their type, they are not looked at or listened to by the 
 computer. 


 That's why I always point out that intelligence is relative to an 
 environment.  When you talk about seeing or listening that implies an 
 environment of photons or acoustic waves carrying information about the 
 environment.  When you then switch to a computer that has no photon or 
 acoustic wave sensors and say it can't see or hear you have created a 
 strawman.

 Even speaking into a microphone yields nothing on the other side which is 
 fundamentally different from what a camera would yield - voltage changes in 
 microelectronics have no origination bias. This is the very thing that 
 makes computers useful - they don't care what you do with them. They will 
 treat data as data no matter what it is, and never need to reconstruct it 
 into anything meaningful to us. These are some of the defining qualities of 
 computation. The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not 
 at all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory 
 experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?


 Sure. Can you prove it?  


Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?
 


 Computers prove theorems in geometry.  


But they don't need geometry to do it.
 

 As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and beer 
 steins as points, lines, and intersections.


It could be, but it isn't. That's my point. Geometry could be about Boolean 
arithmetic and have no forms at all - which is obviously the case within a 
computer which is designed to have no capacity to render shapes that it can 
see.

Craig
 


 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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all 
indicated
from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory experiences of 
shapes.
Can you dispute this?


Sure. Can you prove it?


Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?


Computers prove theorems in geometry.


But they don't need geometry to do it.

As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and beer 
steins as
points, lines, and intersections.


It could be, but it isn't. That's my point.


Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the axioms and theorems of 
geometry.


Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all - which is obviously 
the case within a computer which is designed to have no capacity to render shapes that 
it can see.


Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to manipulate objects in 
3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as examples of intelligent, and possibly 
conscious, machines.  They certainly understand somethings about geometry and they can see 
shapes.  That's how they avoid running into big rocks.


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.




Why physics is not physical

2013-03-01 Thread Roger Clough

As I observed previously, there was a fork in the road
of the path of science back in the 17th century at which, 
given the Cartesian choice, Newton considered reality
to consist of the physical-- which means entities
such as matter which are extended in space. 

Leibniz, on the other hand, argued that physical
or extended existence is not reality, instead,
inextended or mental existence  is the true reality,
that the physical world we see is, to use Kant's term, 
phenomenol, although it appears as if matter is solid 
and experiments  can be performed on it, and 
you can still stub your toe, etc. 


Such issues are argued by Leibniz with a
friend of Newton's a Mr. Claeke, in a series of 
correspondences. To back up Leibniz' position,
the major physical quantities are actually
inextended in space, and only becoime apparent
or measurable when they act of physical bodies. 
These include

force
mass
temperature
momentum

Kant pointed out, in addition, that space and time 
are only mental intuitions. So I might add

distance
time

to the above list. If not phenomenol, time and distance
are known to be relative quantities since Einstein.

- Roger Clough

-- 
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

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
  The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all 
 indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory 
 experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?


 Sure. Can you prove it?  
  

 Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?
  
  
  
 Computers prove theorems in geometry.  


 But they don't need geometry to do it.
  
  
 As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and beer 
 steins as points, lines, and intersections.
  

 It could be, but it isn't. That's my point. 


 Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the axioms and 
 theorems of geometry. 

  Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all - 
 which is obviously the case within a computer which is designed to have no 
 capacity to render shapes that it can see.
  

 Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to manipulate 
 objects in 3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as examples of 
 intelligent, and possibly conscious, machines.  They certainly understand 
 somethings about geometry and they can see shapes.  That's how they avoid 
 running into big rocks.


You could run the same software the Rover uses in a virtual environment 
which has no 3-space. If you plugged the Rover's inputs into a random 
number generator instead of a camera, it would still try to avoid certain 
kinds of expected patterns in the data, even though there is absolutely no 
connection to shapes, rocks, geometry, or understanding.

Craig
 

 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

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, 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 
 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.


It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.


Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by completely  
random.


Algorithmic incompressability (Chaitin, Martin Loef, Solovay ...) make  
good attempts. This makes sense with Church's thesis. I guess you know  
that. Sequences algorithmically incompressible contains maximal  
information, but no way at all to decode it.


I do have have a notion of completely random though, I define it by   
completely arbitrary.
My favorite completely arbitrary sequence is 000...  
(only zeroes).
But to make this arbitrariness precise you need actual infinities,  
and thus Set Theory, even enriched one by some strong axioms.


There are also definitions by a collection of statistical test of  
normality. In that case PI is comepletely random, apparently. I think  
it is still an open problem to prove that, but it has been proved for  
Champerknow number Cn, if I remember well. Cn =  0,  
1234567891011121314151617 It is normal (pun intended) as it  
contains all arbitrary sequences of digits.




Things are only random in the sense of not being strictly  
deterministic.


In most of the cases. It is easy to build a sequence of 0 and 1 which  
is partially deterministic, and partially non deterministic (in  
different senses).


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

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:37, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
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.


OK. I don't see the problem with this. Convenience is a fuzzy  
notion. A brain too is convenient. Universes can be convenient. I  
am not sure to see your point.




In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but  
we never need 10^120 + 1.


But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.

The number of chess games is about 10^120. The number of GO games is  
far bigger.

And string theory points on 10^500 theories.

And my friends the Roses have never seen a gardener dying. Some rare  
Roses have heard rumors that can happen, but all rational Roses knows  
that belong to fiction.


Frankly, for a logician, 10^100 looks really like an infinitesimal :)



We make an axiom of succession and assume it applies to 10^120 like  
other numbers,


But then working on the prime number distribution, some bound on some  
function get *far* higher than that.




but maybe that is because it easier than thinking of axioms to  
describe how we really calculate: 10^88 + 1 = 10^88.


Like it is easier to make the earth turning around the sun than the  
contrary. If you are for complex theories a priori, ...



There's a book Ad Infinitum by Rotman that proposes something  
along these lines, but he writes like a French philosopher so I  
found it hard to tell whether his idea really works.  But we do know  
that real computers work, and their mathematics are finite.


That's correct on one level, and incorrect on another level. The  
metamathematics of the finite mathematics is not finite. Some proof of  
the correctness of some algorithm in numerical analysis can requires  
big cardinals. Real computers might do finite things, but they do very  
complex things which might involve very large numbers, or high  
cardinal or ordinal, for human figuring out why they acts like they  
can act.


With comp you can put infinities only in the mind, as I do, but we  
have still to study that mind, and needs infinite mathematics for that.
With comp the ontology is finitist, but that ontology is seen by  
inside, by finite creatures,which have to imagine very large  
unboundable structure, needing stronger mathematics, just to get  
notions of meaning, etc.


Also, some could argue that only the mathematical universal machine is  
finite, and that a real computer (if that notion makes sense) is an  
infinite analogical quantum field living in an infinite dimensional  
Hilbert spaces.


I put my card on the table, and reason. I don't defend a truth about  
some reality. To use the notion of universal machine to formulate the  
mind-body problem in the frame of some hypothesis is a different task  
than to program a computer to perform some useful task in real time.


Bruno








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.




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

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, 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.


You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think.

I don't know that all machines cannot think,


Thanks God.



but I understand why the reasons for assuming that they ever could  
are rooted in bad assumptions from the start.



Which bad assumption? You never give them without begging the question.



If we don't what consciousness actually is and what it does, then we  
skip the important part and reverse engineer a false confidence in  
unconscious programs.



And Bruno said, from Memory, in Sylvie and Bruno (Lewis Carroll): I  
am so happy that I hate spinach, because, you know, if ever I could  
appreciate spinach, I guess I would eat some of them, and that is  
exactly what I would like never to think possible.


You beg the question again.

Betting that machine could be conscious does not entail that we know  
what consciousness is or rely on. You have a reductionist view of  
science, leading you to close prematurely an inquiry.


All rational computationalist are open to the falsity of comp, and  
what I show is that [comp + precise theory of knowledge] becomes  
refutable, so that we can progress.


But up to now, comp explains a lot of things, even if incorrect,  
notably the apparent many worlds, the quantum like logic of  
observation, the existence of non communicable truth and sensations,  
and eventually some non trivial Plotinian theology.


In a sense comp explains why first person are not machine, and only  
borrow them to say hello to others machines. Why would not some  
immaterial programs be able to support human first person?


I am not saying that this is true, only that it makes possible to  
formulate the mind problem, indeed to translate it into a problem in  
number theory.


Bruno




Craig



Bruno





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-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all
indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory
experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?


Sure. Can you prove it?


Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?


Computers prove theorems in geometry.


But they don't need geometry to do it.

As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and 
beer steins
as points, lines, and intersections.


It could be, but it isn't. That's my point.


Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the axioms and 
theorems
of geometry.


Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all - which 
is
obviously the case within a computer which is designed to have no capacity 
to
render shapes that it can see.


Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to manipulate 
objects in
3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as examples of intelligent, and 
possibly
conscious, machines. They certainly understand somethings about geometry 
and they
can see shapes.  That's how they avoid running into big rocks.


You could run the same software the Rover uses in a virtual environment which has no 
3-space. If you plugged the Rover's inputs into a random number generator instead of a 
camera, it would still try to avoid certain kinds of expected patterns in the data, even 
though there is absolutely no connection to shapes, rocks, geometry, or understanding.


All that shows is that the camera is part of the rover's understanding.  If we fed false 
signals into your optic nerve you'd run into things too.


There's absolutely no connection between your assertions and any facts.

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

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:41:52 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, 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.


 You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think. 


 I don't know that all machines cannot think,


 Thanks God.



 but I understand why the reasons for assuming that they ever could are 
 rooted in bad assumptions from the start. 



 Which bad assumption? You never give them without begging the question.


The assumption is that sense can be reduced to or produced by arithmetic.

We can see this in the language example that I mentioned:

If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them 
optically, but these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic 
information. Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to any semantic 
information.

Each level of meaning of the text is defined by the capacities of the 
interpreter - not to compute arithmetic relations, but to have experienced 
meaningful expression through different sense modalities (visual, audio, 
grammatical, semantic, poetic...etc) .

The fact that we can formalize these relations mathematically only accounts 
for the idea that any public presentation can be digitized and represented 
presented, not that there could be any such thing as presentation or 
private experience.

There are countless examples of this which I have brought up, showing 
clearly that while logic or arithmetic is an obvious extraction of 
sensory-motor experience (as we ourselves learn math through gestures, 
moving fingers, beads, or other objects), sensory experience is not a 
plausible outcome of any arithmetic process. We have seen no arithmetic 
process which is not part of a human experience or public physics, yet life 
on Earth does not require us to perform mathematics at all.

Some of the examples I have mentioned:

John Wayne's Resurrection: Using a computer to reconstruct John Wayne's 
images and voice, high quality interactive movies are produced in real 
time, with an AI interpreter. While it should be easy to understand that 
this bit of interactive theater does not constitute a conversation with the 
Duke himself, it is argued here that I can't know that this absurdity isn't 
true.

Elvis the Anti-Zombie: Having a computer articulate my limbs and vocal 
chords to imitate Elvis Presley perfectly, by Comp, there is no reason to 
believe that I would begin to experience more and more Elvis qualia. That 
if I acted enough like The King, then I must have memories of his life, 
know the people he knew, etc. Again, the absurdity is plain, but here, it 
is sufficient to dismiss it with You Don't Know That.

Geometry is A Zombie: It's pretty simple really. An abacus can be used to 
compute geometric functions - we could find the length of a hypotenuse if 
we knew the other sides, for example. Moving these beads around and 
counting them does not require any kind of triangular presentation. If the 
universe were truly arithmetic - if it was all one giant quantum 
abacus...where would we get geometry from, even in principle. Forget the 
fact that it is obviously impossible for beads on bamboo sticks to 'imply' 
triangles without an abacus user imagining that - the deeper problem is 
that sense is completely redundant to computation. There is no good reason, 
no bad reason, no maybe reason, no reason at all for computation to assume 
any form other than the one it is already in, which is *no form*.

Then there's the pathetic fallacy. We know that language has these poetic, 
metaphorical layers of meaning. We know that we use language to 
anthropomorphize inanimate objects. We can call a ship 'she' or give a 
computer a name like Watson. Not only is it absurd to take these uses of 
languages literally, we should actively beware of the influence of this 
kind of cognitive bias. It's complicated because we can be too generous 
with some things and too prejudiced against some people, but at the same 
time, we can still be right about correctly recognizing the impersonal 
nature of objects and machines. We don't get in the line of fire of a 
machine gun and try to scare it or bluff it.

If you conflate arithmetic and sense from the beginning, then you have no 
chance of finding the hard problem or explanatory gap, because realism 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, 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.


It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.


Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by completely random.


Algorithmic incompressability (Chaitin, Martin Loef, Solovay ...) make good attempts. 
This makes sense with Church's thesis. I guess you know that. Sequences algorithmically 
incompressible contains maximal information, but no way at all to decode it.


But those always implicitly assume infinite sequences.



I do have have a notion of completely random though, I define it by  completely 
arbitrary.

My favorite completely arbitrary sequence is 000... (only 
zeroes).
But to make this arbitrariness precise you need actual infinities, and thus Set 
Theory, even enriched one by some strong axioms.


There are also definitions by a collection of statistical test of normality. In that 
case PI is comepletely random, apparently. I think it is still an open problem to prove 
that, but it has been proved for Champerknow number Cn, if I remember well. Cn =  0, 
1234567891011121314151617 It is normal (pun intended) as it contains all arbitrary 
sequences of digits.


I thought Karl Popper invented that, except in binary, 
0100100111000100010110001...

Brent






Things are only random in the sense of not being strictly deterministic.


In most of the cases. It is easy to build a sequence of 0 and 1 which is partially 
deterministic, and partially non deterministic (in different senses).


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: 2641/6138 - Release Date: 02/28/13

--
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 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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we never need 10^120 
+ 1.


But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.


I'll bet you've never needed to calculate 10^120 + 1 in the world whose TOE is derived 
from comp either. :-)




The number of chess games is about 10^120. The number of GO games is far bigger.
And string theory points on 10^500 theories.


Exactly why almost all chess, go games, and string theories are uninteresting.



And my friends the Roses have never seen a gardener dying. Some rare Roses have heard 
rumors that can happen, but all rational Roses knows that belong to fiction.


Frankly, for a logician, 10^100 looks really like an infinitesimal :)


And to mathematicians too, almost all numbers are infinitesimal. Except instead of seeing 
this as a bizarre problem indicating something is awry about their theories, they happily 
invent transfinite numbers.


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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 11:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them optically, but 
these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic information. 


Sure they do.  Just try http://www.naturalreaders.com/howto.php?referp=mainbar


Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to any semantic information.


Have it read Fetch the paper. to you dog and see if there's semantic information.  Or if 
you have a modern house, have it read Lights ON.


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

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 3/1/2013 11:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
  If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them 
 optically, but 
  these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic information. 

 Sure they do.  Just try 
 http://www.naturalreaders.com/howto.php?referp=mainbar 


No. That is an example of taking data associated with optical characters 
and data associated with sound card signals as two given data sets and 
deriving a relationship statistically. If you don't have one of those data 
sets however, for example, if I make up a written language of symbols and I 
decide whether or not those symbols have sounds associated with them, the 
computer has no idea what I have decided. It makes no difference whether 
it's my private ad hoc language or a language with millions of speakers.
 


  Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to any semantic 
 information.  


 Have it read Fetch the paper. to you dog and see if there's semantic 
 information.  Or if 
 you have a modern house, have it read Lights ON. 


That depends on whether the dog understands the commands or not, doesn't 
it? I remember back in the days when remote controls were actually 
'clickers'. The Zenith console color TV did indeed respond differently to 
the three different metallic clicks the remote made - and it also responded 
randomly to keys jangling, coins spilling out on a glass table, loud 
noises, etc. There is *nothing* semantic about conditioned response 
behaviorism. It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together 
or in what order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless 
mechanisms.

Craig
 


 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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what order, they 
are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.

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

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what 
 order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


 Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, 
but you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical 
assertions aren't anything other than that. You say that they aren't 
evidence...but how do you know? If a mechanical potato peeler can someday 
learn to taste potatoes, then maybe repeated assertions can become evidence?

Craig
 


 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.




Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg
  

Thinking about how information content of a message has an inversely 
proportionate relationship with the capacity of sender and receiver to 
synchronize with each other.

Think of being in a foreign country, seeing a fellow foreigner who is about 
your same age. There is:

   - An implicit pretext for initiating communication.
   - A probable ease of communication, which manifests as:
   -Words can be used more quickly, fluidly, and precisely.
   -Non-verbal cues and gestures are optional can project more personal 
   content and less generic content (gestures in conversations with natives 
   are more low level attempts at conveying basic meaning).
   -A broader and deeper range of common references. You can talk about 
   many things with each other that the natives around you might understand.
   - Fewer words and signs are needed to convey messages.

By this we can see how little of the informing qualities of messages are 
contributed solely by 'information' itself (really formations...the 
in-forming is always a sensory reception and private interpretation.) This 
is important since when we don’t factor in the familiarity of sender and 
receiver - their common cause or history, then we might mistake silence for 
lack of communication, or noise for meaningful messages. If the content of 
some part of of our neural net is like Twitter, we might assume that this 
huge pipe of advertisements and snark that mostly finds no audience is much 
more significant than it is. Once we realize how poor the content is, we 
might be tempted to discount it when the next Arab Spring breaks out.

Even though in so many ways we have become a world of communications 
experts, I would say that we are still in the Dark Ages of understand what 
communication actually is, and how it relates to expression and perceptual 
relativity. Maybe quantum computing will act as a guide for us, albeit 
accidentally, to appreciating our true cosmic inheritance; beneath rules 
and laws, before forms and functions, is the perception and participation 
which all things share to some degree. 

-- 
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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what 
order,
they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, but you are 
applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical assertions aren't anything 
other than that. You say that they aren't evidence...but how do you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in reply to Bruno, 
I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you turn around and assert,they are 
always going to be empty mindless mechanisms.


If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, then maybe repeated 
assertions can become evidence?


If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more than tomatoes then 
that will be evidence. It's same kind of evidence that would tell you whether a human 
being preferred potatoes to tomatoes.


I suppose you heard about the guy who worked in at fast food place and developed an 
irrational urge to put his penis in the potato peeler.  He knew something bad would happen 
but he couldn't stop himself from thinking about it.  He finally went to a psychiatrist. 
The psychiatrist told him that if he couldn't stop thinking about it he might as well try 
it.  So he did.


When he got home from work, he told his wife what he'd done.

She said,Oh, my God! and rushed to pull down his pants.  She looked at him and said, 
What happened to the potato peeler?


He said, I think she got fired too.

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

2013-03-01 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

 All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation
 quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter.


And a computer can be and often is the interpreter.

 You are really saying that we could use a program that acts like a video
 screen instead of an actual video screen.


Exactly. If you don't want to look at a video screen to see a cat scan then
a X ray computerized tomography machine will be happy to print out the
spacial coordinates of the organs, although I don't know why you'd want
that.

There will never be an app on your iPhone to make it waterproof.


As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated flame
won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object. A real flame
won't burn the laws of chemistry but it will burn your finger. And some
things cross all levels, like information processing; there is no
difference between simulated arithmetic and real arithmetic or between
simulated intelligence and real intelligence.


   Consciousness is the capacity to discern between menu and meal


A computer with a optical character reader and a simple amino acid detector
could easily tell the difference between a menu and a meal.

 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.


Before you were saying only a eye or ear made of meat would do and now
you've abandoned that position, how far back along the chain of perception
will you retreat before you admit you were wrong? My guess is you will
never change your position because a belief that was not formed by logic
can not be destroyed by it.

 it won't be able to open any file without software to identify which
 application to associate it with.


Yes, and you couldn't tell the difference between audio and video without a
neural network inside a bone box sitting on your shoulders.

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?


Nobody has found anything in the human brain that didn't strictly follow
the laws of physics either. And I have never been able to consistently
predict what a computer is going to do even if I'm the one who wrote the
program, and you're no better at making such predictions than I am, nor is
anybody else.

 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.

  computer + user = high quality user experience. Computer + computer = no
 high quality experience.


You have no pathway whatsoever to judge the quality of experience of even
your fellow human beings, the best you can do is observe there behavior and
then guess; and yet you continue to make these grand sweeping statements
about what a computer does and does not feel without a shred of evidence or
theoretical justification, and that's as tiresome as it is stupid.


  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


HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW!

 I understand why computers have no experience.


Your understanding is based on amorphous mystical drivel.


  A computer is only going to say what it is programmed to say.


BULLSHIT! The human programer himself does not know what the computer is
going to say next.

 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.


Of course the computer could comment on aural sensation but it wouldn't
matter if it did it 10 times a day and gave you brilliant insights into
Beethoven's music you never had before, you would not change your ideas one
iota, you'd just say that's just something or another and so it doesn't
count.

 It's a fact that thus far implants do not compare favorably to natural
 cochlea.


Is that what your ideas hinge on, the lack of audio fidelity using current
electronic technology? When future technology makes electronic ears that
provides better fidelity than ears made of meat will you then admit you
were wrong. Of course not!

 It's not important though - even if the implant sounded perfect,


I thought as much.

 you would rather believe that a roll of toilet paper with holes in it is
 as smart as anyone


Although for practical reasons I would recommend using electronics, a roll
of toilet paper can indeed be as smart or 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what 
 order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


 Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
  

 It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, 
 but you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical 
 assertions aren't anything other than that. You say that they aren't 
 evidence...but how do you know? 


 For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in 
 reply to Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you 
 turn around and assert,they are always going to be empty mindless 
 mechanisms.  


It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they are 
always going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be the 
case for all possible machines executed in all possible ways... a fusion of 
biological and inorganic material could strike a thinking balance - the 
point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism (which is 
functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to those 
forms and functions. This is what I keep trying to say - things which have 
a lot of consciousness are the least possible things to control externally. 
By definition, the more robotic something is, the less alive it is, and 
that is not trivial or coincidental. If you understand why that symmetry is 
meaningful, then you will have no problem being confident that although 
life uses mechanisms, it is not, in itself a mechanism at all. It's not 
just the boundary between living and non-living (which I would not rule out 
being more of an anthropic or biopic boundary), but all qualitative 
boundaries, between physics and chemistry, biology and zoology, 
anthropology and psychology, etc may not have purely quantitative bridges. 
The is no combination of yes and no which turns yellow.
 


  If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, then 
 maybe repeated assertions can become evidence?
  

 If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more than 
 tomatoes then that will be evidence. 


Choice is a matter of perspective. It only exists because we (or most of 
us) can see that we can't rule it out without choosing to rule it out. We 
have no reason to extend this condition to inanimate objects. Nothing as 
ever suggest that we should, and it would generally be considered psychotic 
to do so adamantly in public.
 

 It's same kind of evidence that would tell you whether a human being 
 preferred potatoes to tomatoes.


Evidence cannot access consciousness. We can only use sensitivity, 
intuition, reason, and experience. It is consciousness upon which all forms 
of evidence supervene.
 


 I suppose you heard about the guy who worked in at fast food place and 
 developed an irrational urge to put his penis in the potato peeler.  He 
 knew something bad would happen but he couldn't stop himself from thinking 
 about it.  He finally went to a psychiatrist.  The psychiatrist told him 
 that if he couldn't stop thinking about it he might as well try it.  So he 
 did.  

 When he got home from work, he told his wife what he'd done.  

 She said,Oh, my God! and rushed to pull down his pants.  She looked at 
 him and said, What happened to the potato peeler?

 He said, I think she got fired too.


Hehe. Hard times for Spud Sluts.
 


 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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in 
what
order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, 
but you
are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical assertions 
aren't
anything other than that. You say that they aren't evidence...but how do 
you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in 
reply to
Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you turn around 
and
assert,they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms.


It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they are always going 
to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be the case for all possible 
machines executed in all possible ways... a fusion of biological and inorganic material 
could strike a thinking balance


You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them forms 
your brain.

- the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism (which is functions 
of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to those forms and functions.


The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity perpendicular axes is 
just something you made up.



This is what I keep trying to say - things which have a lot of consciousness are the 
least possible things to control externally. By definition, the more robotic something 
is, the less alive it is, and that is not trivial or coincidental. If you understand why 
that symmetry is meaningful,


That's not a symmetry - you shouldn't use big words if you don't know what they 
mean.


then you will have no problem being confident


Yes, I noticed that ignorance begets confidence.

that although life uses mechanisms, it is not, in itself a mechanism at all. It's not 
just the boundary between living and non-living (which I would not rule out being more 
of an anthropic or biopic boundary), but all qualitative boundaries, between physics and 
chemistry, biology and zoology, anthropology and psychology, etc may not have purely 
quantitative bridges.


Qualitative is what you haven't been able to quantify yet.  At one time many and big 
were just qualities.


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

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:37:41 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

  All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation 
 quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter.


 And a computer can be and often is the interpreter. 


If that were the case then computers could not understand an audio file was 
audio until they listened to it with innate computational ears which just 
so happened to match the rendering of human ears. 

This is the same reason why we can't play a DVD with our tongues. There is 
a huge difference to us between detecting pits on a Mylar disc and watching 
a move. To a computer, as long as it is labeled as a dvd image, it will try 
to open it with an application which is specified for that file - even if 
that application controls an electric can opener instead of a video screen.
 


  You are really saying that we could use a program that acts like a video 
 screen instead of an actual video screen. 


 Exactly. If you don't want to look at a video screen to see a cat scan 
 then a X ray computerized tomography machine will be happy to print out the 
 spacial coordinates of the organs, although I don't know why you'd want 
 that.


Right, you wouldn't want that because it would be all but worthless to a 
human being. As worthless as a video screen image is to a computer. All 
video display equipment is useless to computers for that reason; because 
there is no perceiver there. No high level sensory-motor participant. There 
are only numerous low level sensory-motor experiences which we have not 
seen transform themselves into anything more sophisticated by themselves.
 


 There will never be an app on your iPhone to make it waterproof.


 As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated 
 flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object. 


No, that argument is bogus. There is only one physical level. All 
simulations supervene on that physical level. This is why a simulated flame 
need not burn a simulated object at all. It is entirely up to the 
programmer's whim how the laws of physics will work, or indeed if they are 
lawful at all in any given sim, or across many nested sims. Simulated flame 
can work for 10,000 levels of simulation, but not a single one of those 
simulated flames can access the physical level...because they aren't real - 
they are figures..symbols...facades engineered to fool our body's public 
senses.

 

 A real flame won't burn the laws of chemistry but it will burn your 
 finger. And some things cross all levels, like information processing; 
 there is no difference between simulated arithmetic and real arithmetic or 
 between simulated intelligence and real intelligence.


There is no such thing as real arithmetic. It's all a simulation. That's 
why they call numbers figures or data - they have no reality to them except 
what coordinated sensory experience can provide.

 

   Consciousness is the capacity to discern between menu and meal 


 A computer with a optical character reader and a simple amino acid 
 detector could easily tell the difference between a menu and a meal. 


Nope. I could just print a menu on the back of a Turkey and spray a menu 
with aminos. It will be eating the menu in no time.
 


   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.


 Before you were saying only a eye or ear made of meat would do and now 
 you've abandoned that position, how far back along the chain of perception 
 will you retreat before you admit you were wrong? My guess is you will 
 never change your position because a belief that was not formed by logic 
 can not be destroyed by it.


Only an eye or ear made of meat will be 100% satisfying - which is why the 
quality of the implants are crap. I don't see how anything I've said 
contradicts that.
 


  it won't be able to open any file without software to identify which 
 application to associate it with.


 Yes, and you couldn't tell the difference between audio and video without 
 a neural network inside a bone box sitting on your shoulders.


False equivalence. Your computer would have to be missing it's electronics 
to compare properly. You are floating a premise that there is some state of 
consciousness in which we cannot tell the difference between an audio and a 
visual experience but your example allows no experience at all.
 


 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?


 Nobody has found anything in the human brain that didn't strictly 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in 
 what order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


 Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
  

 It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same 
 understanding, but you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated 
 mechanical assertions aren't anything other than that. You say that they 
 aren't evidence...but how do you know? 


 For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in 
 reply to Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you 
 turn around and assert,they are always going to be empty mindless 
 mechanisms.  
  

 It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they 
 are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be 
 the case for all possible machines executed in all possible ways... a 
 fusion of biological and inorganic material could strike a thinking balance 


 You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them 
 forms your brain.


I don't overlook that at all. If there were no important difference among 
atoms though, we would be able to eat sand and photosynthesize. I don't 
assume that atoms built the brain, I think that human experience built 
human brains out of living cells, using specific substances. It's a 
collaboration from top down eternal influences and bottom up trial and 
error.
 


  - the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism 
 (which is functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to 
 those forms and functions. 


 The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity 
 perpendicular axes is just something you made up.


Every scientific discovery is made up by someone. Is that your only 
contribution to the topic - ad hominem sour grapes? 



  This is what I keep trying to say - things which have a lot of 
 consciousness are the least possible things to control externally. By 
 definition, the more robotic something is, the less alive it is, and that 
 is not trivial or coincidental. If you understand why that symmetry is 
 meaningful, 


 That's not a symmetry - you shouldn't use big words if you don't know what 
 they mean.


If you don't understand that it is symmetry, then you don't understand what 
I am talking about, which you just made clear above.


  then you will have no problem being confident 


 Yes, I noticed that ignorance begets confidence.


I have never heard you say anything which was not expressed with confidence.
 


  that although life uses mechanisms, it is not, in itself a mechanism at 
 all. It's not just the boundary between living and non-living (which I 
 would not rule out being more of an anthropic or biopic boundary), but all 
 qualitative boundaries, between physics and chemistry, biology and zoology, 
 anthropology and psychology, etc may not have purely quantitative bridges.
  

 Qualitative is what you haven't been able to quantify yet.  At one time 
 many and big were just qualities.


No. Quantity is a quality of counting. Many and big are still qualities, 
counting just makes them impersonal and precise.

Craig


 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

2013-03-01 Thread Stephen P. King

On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together
or in what order, they are still always going to be empty,
mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same 
understanding, but you are applying a double standard. I say that 
repeated mechanical assertions aren't anything other than that. You 
say that they aren't evidence...but how do you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, 
in reply to Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then 
you turn around and assert,they are always going to be empty mindless 
mechanisms.


If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, 
then maybe repeated assertions can become evidence?


If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more 
than tomatoes then that will be evidence. It's same kind of evidence 
that would tell you whether a human being preferred potatoes to tomatoes.


Hi Brent,

Could you speculate a model of how a potato peeler can make such a 
choice?





I suppose you heard about the guy who worked in at fast food place and 
developed an irrational urge to put his penis in the potato peeler.  
He knew something bad would happen but he couldn't stop himself from 
thinking about it.  He finally went to a psychiatrist.  The 
psychiatrist told him that if he couldn't stop thinking about it he 
might as well try it.  So he did.


When he got home from work, he told his wife what he'd done.

She said,Oh, my God! and rushed to pull down his pants.  She looked 
at him and said, What happened to the potato peeler?


He said, I think she got fired too.

Brent



--
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: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-01 Thread William R. Buckley

Thinking about how information content of a message

Big mistake.  Information is never contained with but 
exactly one exception, an envelope.

I made this point with Jesper Hoffmeyer regarding a 
statement in his book Biosemiotics, that information 
is represented but not contained in that representation.
That marks of chalk upon slate may be taken to represent 
information at a meta level above the reality of streaks 
of a deformed amorphous solid has nothing to do with 
the information represented by that deformation, nor the 
increase of entropy associated with the greater disorder 
obtained from that deformation; these are but three of 
the *informations* to be found upon review of those 
streaks.  Entropy is how nature sees information (not 
yet an established fact but I think the tea leaves read 
clear enough) but that has (presumably) nothing to do 
with how intelligent individuals see information, or 
as von Uexküll called such phenomena, signs.

Most definitely the information is not to be found 
within the material of its expression, its representation.
Rather, the information is already to be found within the 
interpreter.

That which is information is so by virtue of the acceptor 
of that information; else, it is noise.

And, write the information on a piece of paper and seal 
the paper within an envelope and you may justifiably 
claim that the information is contained; else, you are 
deluding yourself.

has an inversely proportionate relationship with the 
capacity of sender and receiver to synchronize with 
each other.


snip

wrb



 
 

-- 
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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 4:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or 
in what
order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same 
understanding, but
you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical 
assertions
aren't anything other than that. You say that they aren't 
evidence...but how
do you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, 
in reply
to Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you turn 
around
and assert,they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms.


It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they are 
always
going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be the case for 
all
possible machines executed in all possible ways... a fusion of biological 
and
inorganic material could strike a thinking balance


You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them 
forms your
brain.


I don't overlook that at all. If there were no important difference among atoms though, 
we would be able to eat sand and photosynthesize.


Do you just write the first thing that comes into your head?  Did you not stop to reflect 
that the difference between organic and inorganic applies to *molecules*, not atoms?




I don't assume that atoms built the brain,


I know.  You assume things like mechanism is perpendicular sensitivity but yes-and-no 
don't make yellow (although in quodlibet logic it does).


I think that human experience built human brains out of living cells, using specific 
substances.


So experience preceded brains.  And what was it experience OF?


It's a collaboration from top down eternal influences and bottom up trial and 
error.






- the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism (which 
is
functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to those 
forms and
functions.


The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity 
perpendicular
axes is just something you made up.


Every scientific discovery is made up by someone. Is that your only contribution to the 
topic - ad hominem sour grapes?


What's ad hominem about calling word salad what it is.






This is what I keep trying to say - things which have a lot of 
consciousness are
the least possible things to control externally. By definition, the more 
robotic
something is, the less alive it is, and that is not trivial or 
coincidental. If you
understand why that symmetry is meaningful,


That's not a symmetry - you shouldn't use big words if you don't know what 
they mean.


If you don't understand that it is symmetry, then you don't understand what I am talking 
about, which you just made clear above.


That's the first thing you've written that I can fully agree with.

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

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 5:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what 
order,
they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, but you are 
applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical assertions aren't anything 
other than that. You say that they aren't evidence...but how do you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in reply to 
Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you turn around and 
assert,they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms.


If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, then maybe repeated 
assertions can become evidence?


If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more than tomatoes then 
that will be evidence. It's same kind of evidence that would tell you whether a human 
being preferred potatoes to tomatoes.


Hi Brent,

Could you speculate a model of how a potato peeler can make such a choice?


Sure.  But it'd be same kind of speculation as to how a human might prefer potatoes to 
tomatoes.


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: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 5:27 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:

Thinking about how information content of a message

Big mistake.  Information is never contained with but
exactly one exception, an envelope.

I made this point with Jesper Hoffmeyer regarding a
statement in his book Biosemiotics, that information
is represented but not contained in that representation.
That marks of chalk upon slate may be taken to represent
information at a meta level above the reality of streaks
of a deformed amorphous solid has nothing to do with
the information represented by that deformation, nor the
increase of entropy associated with the greater disorder
obtained from that deformation; these are but three of
the *informations* to be found upon review of those
streaks.  Entropy is how nature sees information (not
yet an established fact but I think the tea leaves read
clear enough) but that has (presumably) nothing to do
with how intelligent individuals see information, or
as von Uexküll called such phenomena, signs.

Most definitely the information is not to be found
within the material of its expression, its representation.
Rather, the information is already to be found within the
interpreter.


But where is it found within the interpreter?  When the Mars Rover receives photons in 
it's camera which it interprets as an obstructing rock that interpretation is just 
physical tokens too. So isn't it a matter viewpoint whether to look at the causal chain of 
tokens or look at the behavior and call it interpreting information?


Brent



That which is information is so by virtue of the acceptor
of that information; else, it is noise.

And, write the information on a piece of paper and seal
the paper within an envelope and you may justifiably
claim that the information is contained; else, you are
deluding yourself.


has an inversely proportionate relationship with the
capacity of sender and receiver to synchronize with
each other.


snip

wrb



  
  



--
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: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-01 Thread William R. Buckley
And therein do you see the arbitrariness of either choice.

The universe is subjective, not objective.

Read on semiotic theory as it will give much enlightenment 
on this issue, that is *meaning* versus *information*

The fact that the interpreter can interpret means that the 
interpreter already knows the meaning of any accepted 
informational form.  Isn't this how compilers and interpreters 
in a computer work?

wrb

 -Original Message-
 From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
 l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
 Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 7:11 PM
 To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
 
 On 3/1/2013 5:27 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
  Thinking about how information content of a message
  Big mistake.  Information is never contained with but
  exactly one exception, an envelope.
 
  I made this point with Jesper Hoffmeyer regarding a
  statement in his book Biosemiotics, that information
  is represented but not contained in that representation.
  That marks of chalk upon slate may be taken to represent
  information at a meta level above the reality of streaks
  of a deformed amorphous solid has nothing to do with
  the information represented by that deformation, nor the
  increase of entropy associated with the greater disorder
  obtained from that deformation; these are but three of
  the *informations* to be found upon review of those
  streaks.  Entropy is how nature sees information (not
  yet an established fact but I think the tea leaves read
  clear enough) but that has (presumably) nothing to do
  with how intelligent individuals see information, or
  as von Uexküll called such phenomena, signs.
 
  Most definitely the information is not to be found
  within the material of its expression, its representation.
  Rather, the information is already to be found within the
  interpreter.
 
 But where is it found within the interpreter?  When the Mars Rover
 receives photons in
 it's camera which it interprets as an obstructing rock that
 interpretation is just
 physical tokens too. So isn't it a matter viewpoint whether to look at
 the causal chain of
 tokens or look at the behavior and call it interpreting information?
 
 Brent
 
 
  That which is information is so by virtue of the acceptor
  of that information; else, it is noise.
 
  And, write the information on a piece of paper and seal
  the paper within an envelope and you may justifiably
  claim that the information is contained; else, you are
  deluding yourself.
 
  has an inversely proportionate relationship with the
  capacity of sender and receiver to synchronize with
  each other.
 
  snip
 
  wrb
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 --
 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: Messages Aren't Made of Information

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 8:39 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:

And therein do you see the arbitrariness of either choice.

The universe is subjective, not objective.


Is that just your opinion...or is it objectively true.



Read on semiotic theory as it will give much enlightenment
on this issue, that is *meaning* versus *information*

The fact that the interpreter can interpret means that the
interpreter already knows the meaning of any accepted
informational form.  Isn't this how compilers and interpreters
in a computer work?


Sure.  The Mars rover interprets the image of a rock because it was programmed to or 
learned to so interpret the image.  Its interpretation is realized by its behavior in 
going around the rock showing that for the rover the 'meaning' of the rock was 'an 
obstruction'.  If the rock had looked differently or been in a different place it might 
have been interpreted as a 'geological specimen'.


Brent



wrb


-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Friday, March 01, 2013 7:11 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information

On 3/1/2013 5:27 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:

Thinking about how information content of a message

Big mistake.  Information is never contained with but
exactly one exception, an envelope.

I made this point with Jesper Hoffmeyer regarding a
statement in his book Biosemiotics, that information
is represented but not contained in that representation.
That marks of chalk upon slate may be taken to represent
information at a meta level above the reality of streaks
of a deformed amorphous solid has nothing to do with
the information represented by that deformation, nor the
increase of entropy associated with the greater disorder
obtained from that deformation; these are but three of
the *informations* to be found upon review of those
streaks.  Entropy is how nature sees information (not
yet an established fact but I think the tea leaves read
clear enough) but that has (presumably) nothing to do
with how intelligent individuals see information, or
as von Uexküll called such phenomena, signs.

Most definitely the information is not to be found
within the material of its expression, its representation.
Rather, the information is already to be found within the
interpreter.

But where is it found within the interpreter?  When the Mars Rover
receives photons in
it's camera which it interprets as an obstructing rock that
interpretation is just
physical tokens too. So isn't it a matter viewpoint whether to look at
the causal chain of
tokens or look at the behavior and call it interpreting information?

Brent


That which is information is so by virtue of the acceptor
of that information; else, it is noise.

And, write the information on a piece of paper and seal
the paper within an envelope and you may justifiably
claim that the information is contained; else, you are
deluding yourself.


has an inversely proportionate relationship with the
capacity of sender and receiver to synchronize with
each other.


snip

wrb







--
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.