On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:23:57PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> On 9 May 2015 at 11:59, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:43:32PM +1200, LizR wrote:> Assuming a
> > recording *can* be conscious (i.e. that the MGA's conclusion
> > > isn't absurd) then of course it can be.
> > >
> >
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:41:46PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> On 9 May 2015 at 13:07, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:02:29AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > >
> > > In 1987, when I present the argument, in the room some come up with
> > > similar idea, and I answered. But some
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 01:39:43PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> >
>
> It's map and territory, like the finger and the Moon. The finger points to
> the Moon to indicate it, but isn't itself the Moon. Likewise with "2+2=4"
>
But when the map is in one-to-one correspondence with the territory?
Isn't it jus
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 03:22:40PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> On 9 May 2015 at 14:58, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > But to really draw that conclusion requires accepting the absurdity of
> > noncounterfactual program instantiating consciousness. I think more
> > work is actually needed here, as we're t
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 03:11:43PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> On the subject of modifying the recording, let's say we recorded the states
> of all the brain cells and so on. This would mean that the signals coming
> in from the senses were encoded in the recording. If we assume the
> experience was of lo
Hi John (Mikes),
If it helps I went into academia and got 'Doctored' specifically so I had
some way to get listened to by science ... That might actually have an impact.
I am now out... But have ties. I am taking the alternate route: The detestable
soul-sucking devil called commerce. I buil
On 5/8/2015 6:38 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 May 2015 at 11:24, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 5/8/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 May 2015 at 09:02, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 5/8/2015 1:33 AM, LizR wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 18:37, meeker
On 9 May 2015 at 14:58, Russell Standish wrote:
> But to really draw that conclusion requires accepting the absurdity of
> noncounterfactual program instantiating consciousness. I think more
> work is actually needed here, as we're talking about very large
> recordings, something like 1e14 bits p
On the subject of modifying the recording, let's say we recorded the states
of all the brain cells and so on. This would mean that the signals coming
in from the senses were encoded in the recording. If we assume the
experience was of looking at a red dot, it might be fairly easy to replace
the red
On 9 May 2015 at 10:37, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:33:43PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> >
> >
> > But comp is based on the assumption that consciousness is the result of
> > classical computation. If that assumption's wrong then comp fails, of
> > course, from step 0 - no need t
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 07:47:42AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> It is because it does not, indeed, and because of the insanity you
> need to believe that a movie of a computation is a computation, that
Replaying the movie is a computation, so saying this idea is insane
doesn't help.
The qu
Quite clearly the Chinese Room's instruction manual (whether a computer
programme or a lookup table) is of finite size under most reasonable
assumptions, while the UD should have an infinite output. So the CR is
indeed not nearly as big as the UD.
On 9 May 2015 at 12:52, Russell Standish wrote:
On 01-05-2015 17:59, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 30 Apr 2015, at 17:07, smitra wrote:
On 30-04-2015 09:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 30 April 2015 at 13:20, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
The way I understand it, nothing happens in Platonia. Which is to
say
nothing ever happen
On 9 May 2015 at 13:07, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:02:29AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > In 1987, when I present the argument, in the room some come up with
> > similar idea, and I answered. But some told me after that when
> > people come up with idea like a recor
On 9 May 2015 at 11:28, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/8/2015 3:24 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:47:22AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> It is only a new recent fashion on this list to take seriously that
>>> a recording can be conscious, because for a logician, that
On 9 May 2015 at 11:24, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/8/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 9 May 2015 at 09:02, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 5/8/2015 1:33 AM, LizR wrote:
>>
>> On 8 May 2015 at 18:37, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>> On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>>
We can use an orig
On 9 May 2015 at 10:48, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 09:58:47AM +1200, LizR wrote:
> >
> > Plus, assuming no quantum entanglement with the environment is involved
> in
> > consciousness (as seems likely given the decoherence times of neurons
> etc)
>
> I would have thought th
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:26:38PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
>
> But I'm interested in Russell's argument that the Chinese Room would
> have to be so big as to be absurd. ISTM it's not nearly as big as
> the UD. Is there some principle that rules out things that are to
> big or to improbable?
>
I
Indeed.
On 9 May 2015 at 12:11, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, May 9, 2015, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:43:32PM +1200, LizR wrote:
>> > On 8 May 2015 at 05:14, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Russell
On 9 May 2015 at 11:59, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:43:32PM +1200, LizR wrote:> Assuming a
> recording *can* be conscious (i.e. that the MGA's conclusion
> > isn't absurd) then of course it can be.
> >
>
> But such a recording is so large (probably consuming all the matte
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:45:53PM -0400, John Clark wrote:
> On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish wrote:
>
> > In the case of chaotic systems (or Og for that matter), a
> > hypothetical Laplace daemon could simulate the system using exact
> > initial conditions
> >
>
> Even if we ignore Quantu
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 09:02:29AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> In 1987, when I present the argument, in the room some come up with
> similar idea, and I answered. But some told me after that when
> people come up with idea like a recording is conscious, or 2+2 might
Really? Why are people so
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:47:22AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> All argument in math are from incredulity.
Not at all. They should be precise deductions from a given set of
premisses, using agreed rules of logic.
Even argument by contradiction deductively demonstrates an
inconsistency bet
On Saturday, May 9, 2015, Russell Standish wrote:
> On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:43:32PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> > On 8 May 2015 at 05:14, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Russell Standish > wrote:
> > >
> > > All computational supervenience gets you is th
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 12:43:32PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> On 8 May 2015 at 05:14, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > On Thursday, May 7, 2015, Russell Standish wrote:
> >
> > All computational supervenience gets you is that two counterfactually
> >> equivalent programs will generate the same
On 5/8/2015 3:48 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 09:58:47AM +1200, LizR wrote:
Plus, assuming no quantum entanglement with the environment is involved in
consciousness (as seems likely given the decoherence times of neurons etc)
I would have thought that the connection betwe
On 5/8/2015 3:24 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:47:22AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
It is only a new recent fashion on this list to take seriously that
a recording can be conscious, because for a logician, that error is
the (common) confusion between the finger and the m
On 5/8/2015 2:58 PM, LizR wrote:
On 9 May 2015 at 09:02, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 5/8/2015 1:33 AM, LizR wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 18:37, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
We can
On Sat, May 09, 2015 at 09:58:47AM +1200, LizR wrote:
>
> Plus, assuming no quantum entanglement with the environment is involved in
> consciousness (as seems likely given the decoherence times of neurons etc)
I would have thought that the connection between consciousness and the
environment is e
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:33:43PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> On 8 May 2015 at 18:37, meekerdb wrote:
>
> > On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> We can use an original biological brain, or an equivalent digital
> >>> replacement -- it does not make any significant difference to
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 08:47:22AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> It is only a new recent fashion on this list to take seriously that
> a recording can be conscious, because for a logician, that error is
> the (common) confusion between the finger and the moon, or between
> "2+2=4" and 2+2=4.
On 9 May 2015 at 09:02, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/8/2015 1:33 AM, LizR wrote:
>
> On 8 May 2015 at 18:37, meekerdb wrote:
>
>> On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We can use an original biological brain, or an equivalent digital
replacement -- it does not make any sign
Neat!
--
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@googl
On 5/8/2015 1:33 AM, LizR wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 18:37, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
We can use an original biological brain, or an equivalent digital
replacement -- it does not make any significant di
On 5/8/2015 1:00 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-08 8:39 GMT+02:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>:
On 5/7/2015 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the string of bits is all that is required for conscious, then the cable
connected to the camera, or the optic nerve would be v
On 5/8/2015 12:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2015, at 02:35, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:19:48AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 10:14, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:14:42AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Why can't
On 5/8/2015 12:12 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 16:10, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Bruce Kellett
wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Counterfactual correctness has not been shown to be necessary -- it is
just
On 5/8/2015 12:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 00:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/6/2015 10:32 AM, John Clark wrote:
You said the dovetailer "leads to an irreduciable indeterminism", but if the machine
is finite then a faster but still finite computer could predict what the dovetailer
On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish wrote:
> In the case of chaotic systems (or Og for that matter), a
> hypothetical Laplace daemon could simulate the system using exact
> initial conditions
>
Even if we ignore Quantum Mechanics that would still be untrue because
today we know something that
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 1:39 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 5/7/2015 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> If the string of bits is all that is required for conscious, then the
> cable connected to the camera, or the optic nerve would be visually
> conscious. But I think those bits need to be interpreted, b
On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 11:47 PM, LizR wrote:
> So all these hottest years on record we keep getting are made up?
>
> Just curious.
>
>
>
> Admittedly this is from 2010, maybe the trend has reversed in last 5 years?
>
How long is the record? What is the p-value for the hypothesis of this
being
On 08 May 2015, at 10:00, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2015-05-08 8:39 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :
On 5/7/2015 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If the string of bits is all that is required for conscious, then
the cable connected to the camera, or the optic nerve would be
visually conscious. But I think t
Here's my counter argument to this. If solar really worked, nations with more
need for less or no fossil fuels would have implemented clean tech already.
Sweden, Japan, Israel, Switzerland, etc, would say screw you to oil, and coal,
no matter how much the US is owned by Big Petro. So we need ba
On 08 May 2015, at 10:31, LizR wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 18:24, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 May 2015, at 02:15, LizR wrote:
Nicely summarised. I may have comments once I've had a chance to
digest your summary (and any subsequent comments).
In the meantime, if you aren't familiar with Maudlin
Enthusiastically yes. Remove all subsidies but if we can fund engineering
research. In the US, much of the subsidies go into the pockets of boards of
directors rather than engineering progects, as with Solyndra, Then the money
given is then split off and given back to the PACs of favored politi
On 08 May 2015, at 10:33, LizR wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 18:37, meekerdb wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
We can use an original biological brain, or an equivalent digital
replacement -- it does not make any significant difference to the
argument. The first point is tha
From
http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html
---
I’m honored that this often shows up on the internet. Here’s the correct
version, as published in Omni, 1990.
THEY'RE MADE OUT OF MEAT
"They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"Meat. They're made out of meat."
"Meat?"
"
On 8 May 2015 at 18:37, meekerdb wrote:
> On 07 May 2015, at 14:45, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>>
>> We can use an original biological brain, or an equivalent digital
>>> replacement -- it does not make any significant difference to the argument.
>>> The first point is that in some conscious experie
On 8 May 2015 at 18:24, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 08 May 2015, at 02:15, LizR wrote:
>
> Nicely summarised. I may have comments once I've had a chance to digest
> your summary (and any subsequent comments).
>
> In the meantime, if you aren't familiar with Maudlin's "Olimpia" argument
> that is
On 8 May 2015 at 19:14, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 08 May 2015, at 02:35, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> This is why I draw the comparison with the Chinese room. If all the
>> intelligence is encoded in a book, then intuition says that book
>> cannot be conscious. This intuition is undoubtedly rig
2015-05-08 8:39 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :
> On 5/7/2015 11:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> If the string of bits is all that is required for conscious, then the
> cable connected to the camera, or the optic nerve would be visually
> conscious. But I think those bits need to be interpreted, by the Mars
>
On 08 May 2015, at 03:30, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2015, at 09:47, Bruce Kellett wrote
If a non-physicist shows that they do not really understand the
Standard Model of particle physics, or the Higgs mechanism, then I
attempt to explain it to the in simple term
On 08 May 2015, at 06:25, LizR wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 15:40, Russell Standish
wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:21:10PM +1200, LizR wrote:
> >
> > Another possibility - suppose we develop AIs, and they boostrap
themselves
> > into benig vastly cleverer than us - might they not design
co
On 08 May 2015, at 05:40, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 01:21:10PM +1200, LizR wrote:
Another possibility - suppose we develop AIs, and they boostrap
themselves
into benig vastly cleverer than us - might they not design conscious
experiences that have never been experienc
On 08 May 2015, at 03:00, LizR wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 07:59, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, May 7, 2015 Russell Standish wrote:
>> When a recording of consciousness is played back does the
consciousness exist during the playback or just when the computer
was actually making calculations? If
On 08 May 2015, at 02:35, Russell Standish wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 10:19:48AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 10:14, Russell Standish
wrote:
On Fri, May 08, 2015 at 03:14:42AM +1000, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Why can't playing the equivalent of a recording made
On 8 May 2015 at 16:10, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 7:28 AM, Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>>
>> Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06 May 2015, at 04:19, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Counterfactual correctness has not been shown to be necessary -- it is
just an ad hoc move
On 07 May 2015, at 00:26, meekerdb wrote:
On 5/6/2015 10:32 AM, John Clark wrote:
You said the dovetailer "leads to an irreduciable indeterminism",
but if the machine is finite then a faster but still finite
computer could predict what the dovetailer will do; it still could
not of course
On 08 May 2015, at 06:28, LizR wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 15:25, PGC wrote:
On Friday, May 8, 2015 at 4:56:54 AM UTC+2, Liz R wrote:
On 8 May 2015 at 14:04, Bruce Kellett wrote:
Which was rather my conclusion. Since the MGA is not a rigorous
argument, it was always of very limited utility --
59 matches
Mail list logo
