Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Friday, February 13, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/11/2015 10:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> On 12 February 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 2/11/2015 7:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >>> If zombies are impossible then what can be shown is that IF a certain >> being

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

meekerdb wrote: On 2/12/2015 9:34 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: John, Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a confusion. I can only repeat what I said before: 'My position is that the idea that you can expl

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

On 2/12/2015 9:34 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: John, Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a confusion. I can only repeat what I said before: 'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

meekerdb wrote: On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: John, Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a confusion. I can only repeat what I said before: 'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of "a universe from nothing" is absurd.' Eith

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 9:54 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/12/2015 9:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> On 12 February 2015 at 18:14, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> > Which means that consciousness tests are in theory possible, and >>

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

On 2/12/2015 6:24 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: John, Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a confusion. I can only repeat what I said before: 'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of "a universe from nothing" is absurd.' Either you have pre-ex

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 2/12/2015 9:15 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: On 12 February 2015 at 18:14, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: >> > Which means that consciousness tests are in theory possible, and >

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/12/2015 8:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Yes it does assume an unexplainable first intelligence. However, the unexplainable is simply because of our lack of knowledge of that. The absence of an intelligent designer is more illogical. It's just filling the gap with nothing. Hmm What if

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/12/2015 3:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:26, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Feb 10

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/12/2015 3:15 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:53 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/11/2015 8:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:42 AM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 2/10/2015 6:15 PM, Stathi

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/12/2015 2:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:26, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Jason Resch > wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote: On Tue, Feb

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/12/2015 2:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Feb 2015, at 05:59, meekerdb wrote: On 2/11/2015 10:48 AM, LizR wrote: On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch > wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 11

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/12/2015 1:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: But again, that is due to its competence. By definition I would say that this is not intelligent behavior. That is why I distinguish intelligence and competence. Competence tend to oppose itself to intelligence. But then there is no operational defini

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 2/11/2015 10:39 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 February 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb wrote: On 2/11/2015 7:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: If zombies are impossible then what can be shown is that IF a certain being is conscious THEN it is impossible to make a zombie equivalent. But this

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

John, Calling 'empty space' 'nothing' in the philosophical sense is just a confusion. I can only repeat what I said before: 'My position is that the idea that you can explain the origin of "a universe from nothing" is absurd.' Either you have pre-existing laws and substrate -- which is not '

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/11/2015 10:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:59 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/11/2015 10:48 AM, LizR wrote: On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, Liz

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/11/2015 10:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:51 PM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/11/2015 7:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Stathis Papaioannou mailto:stath...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Wednesday, Febru

RE: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Bruce, No one can logically doubt the following: "BEFORE THERE WAS ANYTHING THERE WAS NOTHING" Let's start with that and explain how we now live in a universe with 100 to 400 billion galaxies. You propose a "background space-time". Where did this background space-time come from? Who crea

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Liz, I think you are generally correct in what you write below. Current writing by cosmologists etc on "getting a universe from nothing" assume the prior existence of at least a background space-time. More usually, this is assumed to be the vacuum of quantum field theory. So there is a clear as

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Now that we've sorted out the acronyms, I'd appreciate a response to the points I made - see below. Empty space *is *the same as nothing. > I would say far from it. Why should empty space exist? The questions "why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe go to the bother of

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:47, Samiya Illias wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote: Can you show that 1 + 8 = 9. Better, tell me how many times you will need to use the second axioms? Nine times. Here: 1+8=9 Prove

Re: Robot Dog

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 LizR wrote: > > I don't think people attributing sentience to something is very > meaningful. > I'm a "something" so I guess you don't attributing sentience to me; if so then you've made a mistake although I have no way of proving it. John K Clark -- You received this

Re: evangelizing robots

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> The light sensitive cells in the retina of our eyes are on the wrong >> side, so we can't have been produced by a intelligent designer. A very very >> stupid designer maybe. > > > > Unless God created the cuttlefish in its own image, as cut

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 6:20 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 12 February 2015 at 18:14, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> > Which means that consciousness tests are in theory possible, and > >> > non-conscious zombies that exhibit those certain behaviors are > >> > prohibited. > >> > >> No, as per m

RE: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Thanks. From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of LizR Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 3:22 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential LOP = Laws of physics On 12 February 2015 at 12:32, Jo

Re: evangelizing robots

On 12 Feb 2015, at 14:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 12-Feb-2015, at 1:54 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2015, at 05:37, Samiya Illias wrote: On 11-Feb-2015, at 6:40 am, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I can´t even enumerate the number of way

Re: evangelizing robots

On 12 Feb 2015, at 12:19, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:26, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: On Tue, Feb 10,

Re: evangelizing robots

On 12 Feb 2015, at 11:13, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 Feb 2015, at 7:54 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2015, at 05:37, Samiya Illias wrote: On 11-Feb-2015, at 6:40 am, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I can´t even enumerate the number

Re: evangelizing robots

On 12 Feb 2015, at 11:11, LizR wrote: On 12 February 2015 at 22:50, Bruno Marchal wrote: Emotion provides an efficacious way to retrieve self-satisfaction, by bypassing reason, which would be too much slow. We are "programmed" (by evolution, perhaps) to dislike anything threatening our sa

Re: evangelizing robots

> On 12-Feb-2015, at 1:54 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> On 11 Feb 2015, at 05:37, Samiya Illias wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 11-Feb-2015, at 6:40 am, John Clark wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 12 February 2015 at 18:14, Jason Resch wrote: >> > Which means that consciousness tests are in theory possible, and >> > non-conscious zombies that exhibit those certain behaviors are >> > prohibited. >> >> No, as per my answer to Brent. > > > The logic above alone does not tell us what the te

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Feb 2015, at 08:21, Samiya Illias wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 08 Feb 2015, at 05:07, Samiya Illias wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 8:27 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>>

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

LOP = Laws of physics On 12 February 2015 at 12:32, John Ross wrote: > Liz, > > > > You and your acronyms! I looked up “IMHO” Google says most of the time > when people use the phrase their opinion in not humble. I could not find a > definition for “LOP” that made sense as you used it. > > >

Re: evangelizing robots

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:26, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Re

Re: evangelizing robots

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 4:53 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/11/2015 8:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:42 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/10/2015 6:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >>> The implication is that if you believe in universal personhood then even >>> if you

Re: evangelizing robots

On 10 Feb 2015, at 22:26, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 9:07 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:59 PM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 6:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 12:04 PM, Telmo Menezes > wrote: On Tue, F

Re: evangelizing robots

On 10 Feb 2015, at 19:04, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 4:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: If you define increased intelligence as decreased probability of having a false belief on any randomly chosen proposition, then superintelligences will be wrong on almost nothing, and the

Re: evangelizing robots

> On 12 Feb 2015, at 7:54 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> On 11 Feb 2015, at 05:37, Samiya Illias wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 11-Feb-2015, at 6:40 am, John Clark wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which tha

Re: evangelizing robots

On 12 Feb 2015, at 05:59, meekerdb wrote: On 2/11/2015 10:48 AM, LizR wrote: On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 11 February 201

Re: evangelizing robots

On 12 February 2015 at 22:50, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Emotion provides an efficacious way to retrieve self-satisfaction, by > bypassing reason, which would be too much slow. > We are "programmed" (by evolution, perhaps) to dislike anything > threatening our satisfaction. That is why a burn is pa

Re: evangelizing robots

On 12 Feb 2015, at 05:53, meekerdb wrote: On 2/11/2015 8:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:42 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/10/2015 6:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The implication is that if you believe in universal personhood then even if you are selfish you will be

Re: evangelizing robots

On 11 Feb 2015, at 22:22, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 February 2015 at 02:50, Jason Resch wrote: Sure, but the AI may still decide to do evil, perverse or self destructive things. There is no contradiction in superintelligence behaving this way. It's an assumption to say there

Re: evangelizing robots

On 11 Feb 2015, at 19:48, LizR wrote: On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR wrote: On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb wrote: On 2/10/201

Re: evangelizing robots

On 11 Feb 2015, at 19:29, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Samiya Illias > wrote: >> So you think that random mutation and natural selection can produce a intelligent being but a intelligent designer can't. Why? > I am so happy to read this comment of yours. I hope som

Re: evangelizing robots

On 11 Feb 2015, at 11:25, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrot

Re: evangelizing robots

On 11 Feb 2015, at 05:37, Samiya Illias wrote: On 11-Feb-2015, at 6:40 am, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 Alberto G. Corona wrote: > I can´t even enumerate the number of ways in which that article is wrong. I stopped reading after the following parochial imbecility "I don't