Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Telmo Menezes]

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 21:35, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
> 1) You raise an interesting point. Can you give another example in that 
> direction beside the qualia of good and bad ? Because you made me think about 
> the case that you mentioned, and it seems to me that it only works for cases 
> of good and bad. A similar example to yours would be: blue and green emerge 
> on top of shades-of-gray, but I like blue and I don't like green, so where 
> does the good and bad appear in my final experience of a quale ? So it might 
> be the case that aesthetic components might be something special. That's why 
> I would like to hear if you can come up with a similar example besides 
> aesthetic components, to pinpoint more precisely where there might be a 
> problem with my ideas about emergence.

People describe colors as "warm" and "cold", and alcoholic beverages as 
"fiery". Another thing that occurs to me are the classical elements: water, 
air, fire, earth. Also the fact that separate cultures believed at some point 
in similar sets of elemental substances.

> 
> 2) This is interesting again. And I thought about it before writing my paper 
> about emergence. And indeed I think that your proposal that it might just be 
> something related to brain functioning cannot be discarded. The reason why I 
> prefer to see it as something related directly to consciousness is simply 
> because it can give me the possibility to further pursue the issue. If it is 
> something related to brain, then it might be contingent, and I cannot see how 
> the phenomenon can be understood any further. If it is something related to 
> consciousness, then it is interesting because then it is related to 
> fundamental problems regarding the nature of meaning and how meaning is 
> generated, so deep thinking in these directions can further help us 
> understand consciousness.

To be fair, I am playing devil's advocate here. I like mantra meditation, so 
obviously I find something more profound in this dissolution of meaning than 
simply a brain quirk. My hunch on this is a bit boring: that it is both things 
at the same time.

> 
> 3) There is no ontological/epistemological confusion here. I state that even 
> if you are to take into account the entire history that you mention, the 
> electron would still not follow the same laws as in simple systems, because 
> in the brain it will receive top-down influence from a higher consciousness.

My counter-argument is that the laws remain exactly the same, but they become 
impossible to apply in practice because one would have to know the value of too 
many variables, and with too much precision. Are you familiar with chaos theory?

>  And the more complex the system, the more the consciousness is evolved and 
> its intentions are beyond comprehension, so the ability to describe the 
> movement of electrons using coherent laws vanishes. The electron will simply 
> appear to not follow any law, because the intentions of consciousness would 
> be more and more complex and diverse.

I follow several things that you say with no problem. My biggest point of 
disagreement is with the type of statements like the one above, these ideas of 
an "interactive consciousness" that I find reminiscent of the interface 
problem: if consciousness is not matter, then how does it interact with matter?

I am more inclined towards explanations where consciousness is the stage 
itself, not one of the actors.

> 
> Btw, you can find my ideas also published for free in papers: 
> https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan So if you want to get more 
> details about my ideas regarding emergence and self-reference, you can as 
> well read the papers.

Thanks! I will try to read your book, my problem is lack of time...

Telmo.

> 
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 15:09:54 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>> 
>> 1)
>> 
>> There is something here that still does not convince me. For example, you 
>> say that the "chocolate taste" qualia emerges from simpler qualia, such as 
>> "sweet". Can you really justify this hierarchical relation without 
>> implicitly alluding to the quanti side? Consider the qualias of eating a 
>> piece of chocolate, a spoonful of sugar and french fries. You can feel that 
>> the first two have something in common that distinguishes them from the 
>> third, and you can give it the label "sweet". At the same time, you could 
>> say that the chocolate and french fries are pleasant to eat, while the 
>> spoonful of sugar not so much. You can also label this abstraction with some 
>> word. Without empirical grounding, nothing makes one distinction more 
>> meaningful than another.
>> 
>> What makes the "sweat" abstraction so special? Well, it's that we know about 
>> sweet receptors in the tongue and we know it's one of the four(five?) basic 
>> flavors because of that. I'm afraid you smuggle this knowledge into the pure 
>> qualia world. Without it, there is no preferable hierarchical relation and 
>> 

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 12:13 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 4/22/2019 6:32 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 4/22/2019 4:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Consciousness is a program.
>>>
>>>
>>> Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a program, that
>>> would identify a first person notion with a third person notion, like a
>>> glass of bear and its price.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and becomes that
>>> creature's awareness of the world. For humans it becomes the identity or
>>> soul which responds to anything that affects the organism. It can be
>>> uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it dissipates with death.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot attach its
>>> soul to any particular computations, only to the infinity of (relative)
>>> computations, and there is at least aleph_zero one, of not a continuum.
>>>
>>> Bruno
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:
>>
>> Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with matter
>> but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe it
>> possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from
>> our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that
>> this would be a contradiction in terms. It is possible however but unlikely
>> that such universes may exist.
>>
>> Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body I
>> consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´ and
>> hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two are
>> firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but
>> when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is
>> gone and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately.
>>
>>
>> It seems otiose to postulate a separate spirit.  A pitiful attempt to
>> grasp immortality.  Isn't it plain that what is "immaterial" and
>> distinguishes a brain of a rock is that the brain instantiates processes
>> which incorporate memory, purpose, perception, and action.
>>
>
>
> Is it otiose to make a distinction between a "story" and a "book", or a
> "program" and a "computer", or might there be value in that nuance?
>
> Clearly a program stops executing locally when a computer executing that
> program is destroyed, but of course this says nothing about the
> destruction, existence, non-existence, continuation, quantity, or locations
> of other instances of that program.
>
>
> It does if that program was unique, as any program capable of learning is
> likely to be.
>

This assumes a finite universe and reality (which we have much reason to
doubt).


>
> I think here Turing was making a similar point, in the nuanced distinction
> between a mind and a brain.
>
>
> I quite agree with the distinction between mind and brain.  But why should
> we imagine it is different from the distinction between a locomotive and
> transportation, between a ship and a voyage, between a factory and
> manufacturing?
>

I don't follow.

Jason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 6:32 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 4/22/2019 4:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote:



On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson
mailto:martinabrams...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Consciousness is a program.


Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a
program, that would identify a first person notion with a
third person notion, like a glass of bear and its price.




It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and
becomes that creature's awareness of the world. For humans
it becomes the identity or soul which responds to anything
that affects the organism. It can be uploaded into a data
bank but otherwise it dissipates with death.



How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot
attach its soul to any particular computations, only to the
infinity of (relative) computations, and there is at least
aleph_zero one, of not a continuum.

Bruno



The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:

Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with
matter but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did
believe it possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe
entirely separate from our own, but now I consider that matter
and spirit are so connected that this would be a contradiction in
terms. It is possible however but unlikely that such universes
may exist.

Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body I
consider that the body by reason of being a living body can
``attract´´ and hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive
and awake the two are firmly connected. When the body is asleep I
cannot guess what happens but when the body dies the
``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is gone and the
spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately.



It seems otiose to postulate a separate spirit.  A pitiful attempt
to grasp immortality.  Isn't it plain that what is "immaterial"
and distinguishes a brain of a rock is that the brain instantiates
processes which incorporate memory, purpose, perception, and action.



Is it otiose to make a distinction between a "story" and a "book", or 
a "program" and a "computer", or might there be value in that nuance?


Clearly a program stops executing locally when a computer executing 
that program is destroyed, but of course this says nothing about the 
destruction, existence, non-existence, continuation, quantity, or 
locations of other instances of that program.


It does if that program was unique, as any program capable of learning 
is likely to be.


I think here Turing was making a similar point, in the nuanced 
distinction between a mind and a brain.


I quite agree with the distinction between mind and brain.  But why 
should we imagine it is different from the distinction between a 
locomotive and transportation, between a ship and a voyage, between a 
factory and manufacturing?


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

[Jason Resch]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
>
> On 4/22/2019 4:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:
>
>>
>> On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Consciousness is a program.
>>
>>
>> Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a program, that
>> would identify a first person notion with a third person notion, like a
>> glass of bear and its price.
>>
>>
>>
>> It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and becomes that
>> creature's awareness of the world. For humans it becomes the identity or
>> soul which responds to anything that affects the organism. It can be
>> uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it dissipates with death.
>>
>>
>>
>> How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot attach its
>> soul to any particular computations, only to the infinity of (relative)
>> computations, and there is at least aleph_zero one, of not a continuum.
>>
>> Bruno
>>
>>
>>
> The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:
>
> Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with matter
> but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe it
> possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from
> our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that
> this would be a contradiction in terms. It is possible however but unlikely
> that such universes may exist.
>
> Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body I
> consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´ and
> hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two are
> firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but
> when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is
> gone and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately.
>
>
> It seems otiose to postulate a separate spirit.  A pitiful attempt to
> grasp immortality.  Isn't it plain that what is "immaterial" and
> distinguishes a brain of a rock is that the brain instantiates processes
> which incorporate memory, purpose, perception, and action.
>


Is it otiose to make a distinction between a "story" and a "book", or a
"program" and a "computer", or might there be value in that nuance?

Clearly a program stops executing locally when a computer executing that
program is destroyed, but of course this says nothing about the
destruction, existence, non-existence, continuation, quantity, or locations
of other instances of that program. I think here Turing was making a
similar point, in the nuanced distinction between a mind and a brain.

Jason

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Jason Resch]

Perhaps not, but this video of it is quite fascinating:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SEejivHRIbE

Jason

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 3:57 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> Nobody knows how an embryo develops.
>
> On Monday, 22 April 2019 23:48:16 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>>
>> Then how is it that a fertilized ovum knows what to copy?
>>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 4:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:



On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote:




On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson
mailto:martinabrams...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Consciousness is a program.


Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a program,
that would identify a first person notion with a third person
notion, like a glass of bear and its price.




It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and becomes
that creature's awareness of the world. For humans it becomes the
identity or soul which responds to anything that affects the
organism. It can be uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it
dissipates with death.



How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot
attach its soul to any particular computations, only to the
infinity of (relative) computations, and there is at least
aleph_zero one, of not a continuum.

Bruno



The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:

Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with 
matter but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did 
believe it possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely 
separate from our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are 
so connected that this would be a contradiction in terms. It is 
possible however but unlikely that such universes may exist.


Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body I 
consider that the body by reason of being a living body can 
``attract´´ and hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and 
awake the two are firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot 
guess what happens but when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the 
body, holding the spirit is gone and the spirit finds a new body 
sooner or later perhaps immediately.




It seems otiose to postulate a separate spirit.  A pitiful attempt to 
grasp immortality.  Isn't it plain that what is "immaterial" and 
distinguishes a brain of a rock is that the brain instantiates processes 
which incorporate memory, purpose, perception, and action.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 4:01 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:39:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real.
It is there whether there are any of us (or anyone else)
thinking beings around to agree about or argue about anything.


Really?



What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or
otherwise (and it is questionable these days in 2019 what
agreement there really is) are *theories of reality*.


Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of
reality, they are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a
domain in which the theory makes accurate and reliable
predictions.

Brent
“All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on
the cave wall.”
   --- Sean Carroll



Sean is a Platonist. Just like Vic said.


Have you read the parable of the cave??

Brent




It's the very definition of Platonism: Platonic Forms.


[Wikipedia: The Allegory of the Cave]

The allegory is probably related to Plato's theory of *Forms*, 
according to which the "Forms" (or "Ideas"), and not the material 
world known to us through sensation, possess the highest and most 
fundamental kind of reality. Only knowledge of the *Forms* constitutes 
real knowledge or what Socrates considers "the good".



https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, 
etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm 
of*Forms*.


The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.

In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the *Theory of 
Forms* to prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All 
they can see is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire. 
Between the fire and the prisoners there is a parapet, along which 
puppeteers can walk. The puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, 
hold up puppets that cast shadows on the wall of the cave. The 
prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the real objects, that pass 
behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are shadows and echoes 
cast by objects that they do not see.


OK.  You read it.  Maybe you didn't read the quote of Carroll, in which 
he plainly says the "prisoners" whos pay attention to what they see and 
make inferences from their observations are the ones that advance 
knowledge...not the mystics like Plato to who think mere introspection 
is superior.


Vic would have agreed completely with Carroll on that point.  He called 
Carroll a Platonist once because Carroll considered quantum fields more 
fundamental than particles.  I don't think fields vs particles has much 
to do with Platonism and at other times Vic seemed to agree one was a 
good as the other.  I (and I think Bob and LC) consider fields more 
fundamental because particles come and go depending on acceleration and 
the existence of horizons.


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

[Jason Resch]

On Tue, Nov 6, 2018 at 3:16 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 5 Nov 2018, at 02:56, Martin Abramson 
> wrote:
>
> Consciousness is a program.
>
>
> Consciousness might be related to a program, but is not a program, that
> would identify a first person notion with a third person notion, like a
> glass of bear and its price.
>
>
>
> It explores whatever entity it finds itself within and becomes that
> creature's awareness of the world. For humans it becomes the identity or
> soul which responds to anything that affects the organism. It can be
> uploaded into a data bank but otherwise it dissipates with death.
>
>
>
> How? We can attach a soul to a machine, but a machine cannot attach its
> soul to any particular computations, only to the infinity of (relative)
> computations, and there is at least aleph_zero one, of not a continuum.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
The above reminded me of this quote from Alan Turing:

Personally I think that spirit is really eternally connected with matter
but certainly not always by the same kind of body. I did believe it
possible for a spirit at death to go to a universe entirely separate from
our own, but now I consider that matter and spirit are so connected that
this would be a contradiction in terms. It is possible however but unlikely
that such universes may exist.

Then as regards the actual connection between spirit and body I
consider that the body by reason of being a living body can ``attract´´ and
hold on to a ``spirit,´´ whilst the body is alive and awake the two are
firmly connected. When the body is asleep I cannot guess what happens but
when the body dies the ``mechanism´´ of the body, holding the spirit is
gone and the spirit finds a new body sooner or later perhaps immediately.

Jason


>
>
>
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 7:49 PM John Clark  wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Nov 4, 2018 at 7:22 PM Philip Thrift 
>> wrote:
>>
>> *> By "experience", philosophers (like Galen Strawson, Philip Goff) mean
>>> that which you have within yourself right now: the awareness that* [...]
>>>
>>
>> Awareness? But awareness is just another word for consciousness, so when
>> you say  "*It's that experience (not just information) that needs
>> processing to produc**e consciousness" *you're saying that to produce
>> consciousness you must process consciousness. I don't find that very
>> helpful.
>>
>>> > I assume I can be outsmarted by Watson on Jeopardy!
>>>
>>
>> Then Watson't intelligence isn't very pseudo.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:44:06 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> I think I am used to talk at a certain level and therefore I skip certain 
> details. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness that stands for a system 
> of interactions between consciousnesses. If you damage "the brain", you 
> damage that system of interacting consciousnesses, so you would disrupt 
> certain consciousnesses that represents memories.
>



But damaged brains are being repaired today by implanting new (perhaps 
synthetic, polymer-based) neurons, and full consciousness is restored.

All the entities above may be "ideas", but whether they are "ideas" or 
matter, doesn't that suggest that brains can be copied so that the copy is 
itself conscious?

- pr


-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:39:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there 
>> whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings around to 
>> agree about or argue about anything.
>>
>>
>> Really?
>>
>>
>> What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or otherwise 
>> (and it is questionable these days in 2019 what agreement there really is) 
>> are *theories of reality*.
>>
>>
>> Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of reality, they 
>> are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a domain in which the theory makes 
>> accurate and reliable predictions.
>>
>> Brent
>> “All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on the cave 
>> wall.”
>>--- Sean Carroll
>>
>
>
> Sean is a Platonist. Just like Vic said.
>
>
> Have you read the parable of the cave??
>
> Brent
>



It's the very definition of Platonism: Platonic Forms.


[Wikipedia: The Allegory of the Cave]

The allegory is probably related to Plato's theory of *Forms*, according to 
which the "Forms" (or "Ideas"), and not the material world known to us 
through sensation, possess the highest and most fundamental kind of 
reality. Only knowledge of the *Forms* constitutes real knowledge or what 
Socrates considers "the good".


https://faculty.washington.edu/smcohen/320/cave.htm

Plato realizes that the general run of humankind can think, and speak, 
etc., without (so far as they acknowledge) any awareness of his realm of* 
Forms*.

The allegory of the cave is supposed to explain this.

In the allegory, Plato likens people untutored in the *Theory of Forms* to 
prisoners chained in a cave, unable to turn their heads. All they can see 
is the wall of the cave. Behind them burns a fire.  Between the fire and 
the prisoners there is a parapet, along which puppeteers can walk. The 
puppeteers, who are behind the prisoners, hold up puppets that cast shadows 
on the wall of the cave. The prisoners are unable to see these puppets, the 
real objects, that pass behind them. What the prisoners see and hear are 
shadows and echoes cast by objects that they do not see. 

- pt 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[John Clark]

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 3:13 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

*> A brain is not a heart.*
>

A brain is interesting but a heart is dull as dishwater, it's just a pump.


> *> There are special relations in the brain through which consciousness
> can act upon the world. You cannot copy those relations, since they are not
> material.*
>

Only nouns are material and you are not a noun, you are an adjective  and
adjectives can be copied. Due to technological (not scientific) limitations
at the present time there is only one chunk of matter in the observable
universe that behaves in a Cosminvisanian way, but there is no reason that
will always be true.

*So if you "copy" a brain, you will only end up with a dead piece of
> flesh. And even if you somehow manage to open the doors for consciousness
> to act upon the brain, that consciousness will not have any memory, since
> memories are not stored in the brain, *
>

I just met you but it sounds like you're the type of guy who believes in
the invisible man in the sky theory.  I hope I'm wrong.

John K Clark




>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

You apparently don't know much about embryology.  But that's to be 
expected since you think all knowledge comes from introspection.


Brent

On 4/22/2019 2:34 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
They don't know what matters. They have no ideas how the embryo gets 
to its final form.


On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:23:27 UTC+3, Brent wrote:

They know a helluva a lot of it.

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 2:34 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:



On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:20:49 UTC+3, Brent wrote:


Actually it will work just like the car you replicated.  So why
won't the replicated driver work just like the driver?

No, it won't. Because you need the driver to set it in motion.


That's not what you said.  You said  "There are special relations
in the brain through which consciousness can act upon the world.
You cannot copy those relations, since they are not material." 
So  now you say there are special relations in a brain that
doesn't exist.  But you don't know what they are.

There is no brain.


Do you wear a helmet when riding your motorcycle?




So they are memories that can never be remembered.

They can be remembered if the relations are re-established. Like these 
mice cured of Alzheimer that started to remember:


https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-12-experimental-alzheimer-drug-memory-mice.html


You mean the drug that acted on their brain that doesn't exist by 
reestablishing the relations that are undefined?


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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I think I am used to talk at a certain level and therefore I skip certain 
details. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness that stands for a system 
of interactions between consciousnesses. If you damage "the brain", you 
damage that system of interacting consciousnesses, so you would disrupt 
certain consciousnesses that represents memories.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:33:17 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> How can you assert that access is eliminated when the brain doesn't 
> exist?  In order for that to make sense, you're presupposing a role for the 
> brain in one's consciousness.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I think you don't understand what "X is just an idea in consciousness" 
means. You are adding an extra step to the meaning of this phrase, that 
shouldn't be there. That extra step that you add is that you first create 
the X, and then you put it in consciousness. The correct meaning of this 
phrase is to not create any X, but to let it be just an idea right from the 
start. When I say "Santa Claus comes for Christmas", I don't first create a 
Santa Claus and then put it in consciousness, but it exists right from the 
start only in consciousness. Similar, when I say: "The brain is brown", I 
don't first create a brain and then put it in consciousness, but it exists 
right from the start only as an imaginary object that I fantasize about. So 
wanting to "copy the brain" is like wanting to copy Santa Claus that you 
only invent in your own imagination. How are you going to do that if there 
is no Santa Claus whatsoever ?

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:24:25 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> But the "what matters" part is the basis of dualism.
>
> If everything is consciousness, then the cells of the brain - and the 
> brain itself - are ideas in consciousness. So the brain copy would be 
> conscious according to consciousness monism!
>
> With dualism, you get what you said: Something is left behind in the copy.
>
> I'm pointing out that if you are a true consciousness monist, then the 
> brain copy would be conscious too.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:



On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is
there whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking
beings around to agree about or argue about anything.


Really?



What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or
otherwise (and it is questionable these days in 2019 what
agreement there really is) are *theories of reality*.


Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of
reality, they are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a domain in
which the theory makes accurate and reliable predictions.

Brent
“All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on the
cave wall.”
   --- Sean Carroll



Sean is a Platonist. Just like Vic said.


Have you read the parable of the cave??

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

They don't know what matters. They have no ideas how the embryo gets to its 
final form.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:23:27 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> They know a helluva a lot of it. 
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:20:49 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> Actually it will work just like the car you replicated.  So why won't the 
> replicated driver work just like the driver?
>
> No, it won't. Because you need the driver to set it in motion. 

>
> That's not what you said.  You said  "There are special relations in the 
> brain through which consciousness can act upon the world. You cannot copy 
> those relations, since they are not material."  So  now you say there are 
> special relations in a brain that doesn't exist.  But you don't know what 
> they are.
>
> There is no brain. 

>
> So they are memories that can never be remembered.
>
> They can be remembered if the relations are re-established. Like these 
mice cured of Alzheimer that started to remember:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-12-experimental-alzheimer-drug-memory-mice.html

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Terren Suydam]

How can you assert that access is eliminated when the brain doesn't exist?
In order for that to make sense, you're presupposing a role for the brain
in one's consciousness.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:57 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

>
> Then why are they eliminated by brain damage?
>>
>
> They are not eliminated. Memories are stored forever. The access to memory
> is eliminated.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Philip Thrift]

But the "what matters" part is the basis of dualism.

If everything is consciousness, then the cells of the brain - and the brain 
itself - are ideas in consciousness. So the brain copy would be conscious 
according to consciousness monism!

With dualism, you get what you said: Something is left behind in the copy.

I'm pointing out that if you are a true consciousness monist, then the 
brain copy would be conscious too.

- pt

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:13:13 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> Is just an analogy to make you understand better the problems that will 
> appear in case you want to "copy" the brain. The true reason is that the 
> "brain" is just a very specific image that you see in your own 
> consciousness of a much greater reality that you don't see. And you can 
> only copy what you see. But copying only what you see will leave the 
> reality behind not taken into account. So you will only end up with a 
> picture that will not do anything, because you didn't copy what matters.
>
> On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:05:13 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> "Souls" are entities of  body-soul Dualism: There needs to be a :soul to 
>> enter a Me-2 body.
>>
>> Are you a consciousness monist or a dualist? It sounds like more the 
>> latter than the former.
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

They know a helluva a lot of it.  Will it make a difference when they 
know all of it and can do it in vitro (or a 3D printer)?  No, then 
you'll invoke a the Holy Spirit to supply consciousness, just like the 
Pope demands.


Brent

On 4/22/2019 1:57 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

Nobody knows how an embryo develops.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 23:48:16 UTC+3, Brent wrote:

Then how is it that a fertilized ovum knows what to copy?

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there 
> whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings around to 
> agree about or argue about anything.
>
>
> Really?
>
>
> What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or otherwise (and 
> it is questionable these days in 2019 what agreement there really is) are 
> *theories 
> of reality*.
>
>
> Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of reality, they 
> are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a domain in which the theory makes 
> accurate and reliable predictions.
>
> Brent
> “All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on the cave 
> wall.”
>--- Sean Carroll
>


Sean is a Platonist. Just like Vic said.

- pt

 

>
>
> And theories of reality are just that.
>
> BTW: Today is Kant's birthday [b. 22 April 1724 - 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant ].
>
> - pt 
>
>
> On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 3:41:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>
>> Reality is what we can reach intersubjective agreement on.  There is a 
>> consistency from person to person in perceptions, so that becomes the basis 
>> for hypothesizing there is person and mind independent reality, a common 
>> world.  Conscious thought, like percpetions, are epistemologically 
>> fundamental.  Whether they are ontologically fundamental depends on what 
>> theory proves always accurate in prediction and broad in scope.  
>> Hypothesizing other consciousnesses is not different in principle from 
>> hyposthesizing tables and quarks.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> On 4/22/2019 12:38 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail 
>> nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to 
>> experience reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force 
>> us to deny the possibility of an objective reality.  
>>
>> If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure of the 
>> primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we cannot be sure about 
>> anything of the reality that pushes back on our consciousness. Your 
>> certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.
>>
>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we 
>>> can never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just 
>>> technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we 
>>> cannot search it outside consciousness.
>>> -- 
>>>
>>
>> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 1:57 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:



On Monday, 22 April 2019 23:34:13 UTC+3, Brent wrote:


What are they...exactly.


I cannot tell you what are they exactly, but is like the relation 
between a car and the driver. Only because you replicate the car, it 
doesn't mean that all of sudden it will start to work on its own.


Actually it will work just like the car you replicated.  So why won't 
the replicated driver work just like the driver?




How do you know that if you don't know the "special relations"?


Because there is no "brain". "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness.


That's not what you said.  You said  "There are special relations in the 
brain through which consciousness can act upon the world. You cannot 
copy those relations, since they are not material."  So  now you say 
there are special relations in a brain that doesn't exist. But you don't 
know what they are.




Then why are they eliminated by brain damage?


They are not eliminated. Memories are stored forever. The access to 
memory is eliminated.


So they are memories that can never be remembered.


Brent
"Nobody believes a theory, except the guy who thought of it.
Everybody believes an experiment, except the guy who did it."
 --- Leon Lederman

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Is just an analogy to make you understand better the problems that will 
appear in case you want to "copy" the brain. The true reason is that the 
"brain" is just a very specific image that you see in your own 
consciousness of a much greater reality that you don't see. And you can 
only copy what you see. But copying only what you see will leave the 
reality behind not taken into account. So you will only end up with a 
picture that will not do anything, because you didn't copy what matters.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:05:13 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> "Souls" are entities of  body-soul Dualism: There needs to be a :soul to 
> enter a Me-2 body.
>
> Are you a consciousness monist or a dualist? It sounds like more the 
> latter than the former.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is 
there whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings 
around to agree about or argue about anything.


Really?



What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or otherwise 
(and it is questionable these days in 2019 what agreement there really 
is) are *theories of reality*.


Most theories (and all the useful ones) are not theories of reality, 
they are theories of a part of reality, i.e. a domain in which the 
theory makes accurate and reliable predictions.


Brent
“All human progress has been made by studying the shadows on the cave wall.”
   --- Sean Carroll



And theories of reality are just that.

BTW: Today is Kant's birthday [b. 22 April 1724 - 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant ].


- pt


On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 3:41:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

Reality is what we can reach intersubjective agreement on.  There
is a consistency from person to person in perceptions, so that
becomes the basis for hypothesizing there is person and mind
independent reality, a common world.  Conscious thought, like
percpetions, are epistemologically fundamental.  Whether they are
ontologically fundamental depends on what theory proves always
accurate in prediction and broad in scope.  Hypothesizing other
consciousnesses is not different in principle from hyposthesizing
tables and quarks.

Brent

On 4/22/2019 12:38 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:

Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may
entail nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may
never be able to experience reality directly, or know its true
form, but that doesn't force us to deny the possibility of an
objective reality.

If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure
of the primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we
cannot be sure about anything of the reality that pushes back on
our consciousness. Your certainty on this matter is a red flag
for me.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything
List > wrote:

We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact
that we can never know anything outside consciousness. Sure,
if we want just technology, then all kinds of science can do
it. But if we want truth, we cannot search it outside
consciousness.
-- 



--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Philip Thrift]

"Souls" are entities of  body-soul Dualism: There needs to be a :soul to 
enter a Me-2 body.

Are you a consciousness monist or a dualist? It sounds like more the latter 
than the former.

- pt

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 3:54:44 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> There is no Me-2 brain alive. Me-2 will be a soulless object.
>
> On Monday, 22 April 2019 23:27:52 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> If my Me-1 brain were cellularly copied, there would be a Me-2 brain.
>>
>> Me-2 from that point on would have it's own experiences. It would be like 
>> an identical twin brother's brain, but closer to identical than the 
>> traditional kind where the brains separated in gestation.
>>
>> - pt
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Nobody knows how an embryo develops.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 23:48:16 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> Then how is it that a fertilized ovum knows what to copy?
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Monday, 22 April 2019 23:34:13 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> What are they...exactly.
>

I cannot tell you what are they exactly, but is like the relation between a 
car and the driver. Only because you replicate the car, it doesn't mean 
that all of sudden it will start to work on its own. 

>
> How do you know that if you don't know the "special relations"?
>

Because there is no "brain". "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. 

>
> Then why are they eliminated by brain damage?
>

They are not eliminated. Memories are stored forever. The access to memory 
is eliminated. 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there 
whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings around to 
agree about or argue about anything.

What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or otherwise (and 
it is questionable these days in 2019 what agreement there really is) are 
*theories 
of reality*.

And theories of reality are just that.

BTW: Today is Kant's birthday [b. 22 April 1724 - 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant ].

- pt


On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 3:41:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
> Reality is what we can reach intersubjective agreement on.  There is a 
> consistency from person to person in perceptions, so that becomes the basis 
> for hypothesizing there is person and mind independent reality, a common 
> world.  Conscious thought, like percpetions, are epistemologically 
> fundamental.  Whether they are ontologically fundamental depends on what 
> theory proves always accurate in prediction and broad in scope.  
> Hypothesizing other consciousnesses is not different in principle from 
> hyposthesizing tables and quarks.
>
> Brent
>
> On 4/22/2019 12:38 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail 
> nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to 
> experience reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force 
> us to deny the possibility of an objective reality.  
>
> If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure of the 
> primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we cannot be sure about 
> anything of the reality that pushes back on our consciousness. Your 
> certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.
>
> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can 
>> never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just 
>> technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we 
>> cannot search it outside consciousness.
>> -- 
>>
>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

There is no Me-2 brain alive. Me-2 will be a soulless object.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 23:27:52 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> If my Me-1 brain were cellularly copied, there would be a Me-2 brain.
>
> Me-2 from that point on would have it's own experiences. It would be like 
> an identical twin brother's brain, but closer to identical than the 
> traditional kind where the brains separated in gestation.
>
> - pt
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

Then how is it that a fertilized ovum knows what to copy?

Brent

On 4/22/2019 12:55 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
Is just an analogy to make you understand better the problems that 
will appear in case you want to "copy" the brain. The true reason is 
that the "brain" is just a very specific image that you see in your 
own consciousness of a much greater reality that you don't see. And 
you can only copy what you see. But copying only what you see will 
leave the reality behind not taken into account. So you will only end 
up with a picture that will not do anything, because you didn't copy 
what matters.


On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:51:37 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:


This is just Dualism which says there is (material) Matter and
there is (immaterial) Mind, and Mind operates with brains, not
hearts.

If you were a *true* *consciousness-only ontologist*, then you
would say a brain could be bio-printed just like a heart could be
bio-printed, because bio-printing is just putting cells/molecules
together, and in the consciousness-only ontology. a cell/molecule
is just an idea (of consciousness) anyway!

- pt

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

Reality is what we can reach intersubjective agreement on.  There is a 
consistency from person to person in perceptions, so that becomes the 
basis for hypothesizing there is person and mind independent reality, a 
common world.  Conscious thought, like percpetions, are 
epistemologically fundamental.  Whether they are ontologically 
fundamental depends on what theory proves always accurate in prediction 
and broad in scope.  Hypothesizing other consciousnesses is not 
different in principle from hyposthesizing tables and quarks.


Brent

On 4/22/2019 12:38 PM, Terren Suydam wrote:
Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail 
nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to 
experience reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't 
force us to deny the possibility of an objective reality.


If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure of the 
primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we cannot be sure 
about anything of the reality that pushes back on our consciousness. 
Your certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.


On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List 
> wrote:


We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that
we can never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want
just technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we
want truth, we cannot search it outside consciousness.
-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 12:13 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
A brain is not a heart. There are special relations in the brain 
through which consciousness can act upon the world.


What are they...exactly.

You cannot copy those relations, since they are not material. So if 
you "copy" a brain, you will only end up with a dead piece of flesh.


How do you know that if you don't know the "special relations"?

And even if you somehow manage to open the doors for consciousness to 
act upon the brain, that consciousness will not have any memory, since 
memories are not stored in the brain,


Then why are they eliminated by brain damage?

Brent


so you would only get a baby in the body of an adult.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:07:53 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:



There is a video there of printing a heart.

- pt

--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Philip Thrift]

If my Me-1 brain were cellularly copied, there would be a Me-2 brain.

Me-2 from that point on would have it's own experiences. It would be like 
an identical twin brother's brain, but closer to identical than the 
traditional kind where the brains separated in gestation.

- pt

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 2:55:49 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> Is just an analogy to make you understand better the problems that will 
> appear in case you want to "copy" the brain. The true reason is that the 
> "brain" is just a very specific image that you see in your own 
> consciousness of a much greater reality that you don't see. And you can 
> only copy what you see. But copying only what you see will leave the 
> reality behind not taken into account. So you will only end up with a 
> picture that will not do anything, because you didn't copy what matters.
>
> On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:51:37 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> This is just Dualism which says there is (material) Matter and there is 
>> (immaterial) Mind, and Mind operates with brains, not hearts.
>>
>> If you were a *true* *consciousness-only ontologist*, then you would say 
>> a brain could be bio-printed just like a heart could be bio-printed, 
>> because bio-printing is just putting cells/molecules together, and in the 
>> consciousness-only ontology. a cell/molecule is just an idea (of 
>> consciousness) anyway!
>>
>> - pt
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 11:12 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
Biology is not doing atoms arrangements, but is doing creation of 
conscious systems. Atoms are just ideas in consciousness. Is like 
looking on a computer screen and concluding: "Aha, so that's how the 
letters are displayed on the screen: pixels gets lighted!", when in 
fact the reason for letters appearing on the screen is that a 
consciousness is typing them from somewhere outside of the screen.


You mean like the consciousness of my cat.

You never think of a counterexample do you.  You just assume you can say 
"consciousness" as the answer to everything.


Brent



On Monday, 22 April 2019 20:28:59 UTC+3, Brent wrote:



On 4/22/2019 1:28 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:

Only if you never did some serious thinking you can consider AI
can be conscious. Is not at all the same thing like other similar
statements across history like "objects heavier than air can
never fly". In that case you were only dealing with arrangements
of atoms. But in the case of consciousness you are dealing with
the nature of reality. And the nature of reality just is. You
don't conjure it up just by arranging atoms,


But I did.  I conjured up four children by rearranging atoms.  You
should try some serious thinking before you spout off unsupported
assertions.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Is just an analogy to make you understand better the problems that will 
appear in case you want to "copy" the brain. The true reason is that the 
"brain" is just a very specific image that you see in your own 
consciousness of a much greater reality that you don't see. And you can 
only copy what you see. But copying only what you see will leave the 
reality behind not taken into account. So you will only end up with a 
picture that will not do anything, because you didn't copy what matters.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:51:37 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> This is just Dualism which says there is (material) Matter and there is 
> (immaterial) Mind, and Mind operates with brains, not hearts.
>
> If you were a *true* *consciousness-only ontologist*, then you would say 
> a brain could be bio-printed just like a heart could be bio-printed, 
> because bio-printing is just putting cells/molecules together, and in the 
> consciousness-only ontology. a cell/molecule is just an idea (of 
> consciousness) anyway!
>
> - pt
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Philip Thrift]

This is just Dualism which says there is (material) Matter and there is 
(immaterial) Mind, and Mind operates with brains, not hearts.

If you were a *true* *consciousness-only ontologist*, then you would say a 
brain could be bio-printed just like a heart could be bio-printed, because 
bio-printing is just putting cells/molecules together, and in the 
consciousness-only ontology. a cell/molecule is just an idea (of 
consciousness) anyway!

- pt

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 2:13:12 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> A brain is not a heart. There are special relations in the brain through 
> which consciousness can act upon the world. You cannot copy those 
> relations, since they are not material. So if you "copy" a brain, you will 
> only end up with a dead piece of flesh. And even if you somehow manage to 
> open the doors for consciousness to act upon the brain, that consciousness 
> will not have any memory, since memories are not stored in the brain, so 
> you would only get a baby in the body of an adult.
>
> On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:07:53 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a video there of printing a heart.
>>
>> - pt
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

And there are other reasons as well. The nature of self-reference is of 
such a kind that the very meaning of the word "existence" is "the 
looking-back-at-itself of self-reference", so existence can only be 
subjective.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

For every "Reality is X" statement, where X doesn't refer to an experience 
in consciousness, that statement is just a thought in consciousness, so it 
cannot be anything more than a fabricated theory.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:38:20 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail 
> nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to 
> experience reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force 
> us to deny the possibility of an objective reality. 
>
> If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure of the 
> primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we cannot be sure about 
> anything of the reality that pushes back on our consciousness. Your 
> certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Terren Suydam]

Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail nothing
more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to experience
reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force us to deny
the possibility of an objective reality.

If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure of the
primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we cannot be sure about
anything of the reality that pushes back on our consciousness. Your
certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 2:21 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can
> never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just
> technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we
> cannot search it outside consciousness.
>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

A brain is not a heart. There are special relations in the brain through 
which consciousness can act upon the world. You cannot copy those 
relations, since they are not material. So if you "copy" a brain, you will 
only end up with a dead piece of flesh. And even if you somehow manage to 
open the doors for consciousness to act upon the brain, that consciousness 
will not have any memory, since memories are not stored in the brain, so 
you would only get a baby in the body of an adult.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:07:53 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> There is a video there of printing a heart.
>
> - pt
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What exactly is it that you print when you print a brain ? Is like saying 
that you print a picture of a rain and you expect to make you wet. Or like 
making a printscreen of your facebook chat and expect to receive new 
messages on the printscreen.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 21:46:27 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> Think of a brain bioprinter, a next generation of
>
>THE BIOLIFE4D BIOPRINTING PROCESS
>
> https://biolife4d.com/process/
>
> - pt
>
>  
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 1:21:50 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can 
> never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just 
> technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we 
> cannot search it outside consciousness.
>

Matter is like Certs [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Certs ] ("two mints in 
one"):
physical + psychical.

I think that is operationally better.

- pt

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Philip Thrift]

There is a video there of printing a heart.

- pt

 

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 1:58:24 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> What exactly is it that you print when you print a brain ? Is like saying 
> that you print a picture of a rain and you expect to make you wet. Or like 
> making a printscreen of your facebook chat and expect to receive new 
> messages on the printscreen.
>


> On Monday, 22 April 2019 21:46:27 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> Think of a brain bioprinter, a next generation of
>>
>>THE BIOLIFE4D BIOPRINTING PROCESS
>>
>> https://biolife4d.com/process/
>>
>> - pt
>>
>>  
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[Philip Thrift]

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 3:37:23 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> I don't see where in your link it is given any definition of SI.
>
> On Monday, 22 April 2019 08:04:50 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>> But Conscious SI [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_intelligence ] 
>> may not be.
>>
>> - pt 
>>
>

Think of a brain bioprinter, a next generation of

   THE BIOLIFE4D BIOPRINTING PROCESS

https://biolife4d.com/process/

- pt

 

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Are you aware of Donald Hoffman's work ? He too starts from interacting 
conscious agents and from there we deduces quantum mechanics. I don't agree 
with his theory, because he is not aware of the emergent nature of 
consciousness, but it's an interesting exercise of how physics can be 
derived from consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oadgHhdgRkI

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can 
never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just 
technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we 
cannot search it outside consciousness.

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Biology is not doing atoms arrangements, but is doing creation of conscious 
systems. Atoms are just ideas in consciousness. Is like looking on a 
computer screen and concluding: "Aha, so that's how the letters are 
displayed on the screen: pixels gets lighted!", when in fact the reason for 
letters appearing on the screen is that a consciousness is typing them from 
somewhere outside of the screen.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 20:28:59 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/22/2019 1:28 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> Only if you never did some serious thinking you can consider AI can be 
> conscious. Is not at all the same thing like other similar statements 
> across history like "objects heavier than air can never fly". In that case 
> you were only dealing with arrangements of atoms. But in the case of 
> consciousness you are dealing with the nature of reality. And the nature of 
> reality just is. You don't conjure it up just by arranging atoms, 
>
>
> But I did.  I conjured up four children by rearranging atoms.  You should 
> try some serious thinking before you spout off unsupported assertions.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/22/2019 1:28 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
Only if you never did some serious thinking you can consider AI can be 
conscious. Is not at all the same thing like other similar statements 
across history like "objects heavier than air can never fly". In that 
case you were only dealing with arrangements of atoms. But in the case 
of consciousness you are dealing with the nature of reality. And the 
nature of reality just is. You don't conjure it up just by arranging 
atoms,


But I did.  I conjured up four children by rearranging atoms.  You 
should try some serious thinking before you spout off unsupported 
assertions.


Brent

atoms which don't even exist, being themselves ideas in consciousness. 
Is like you are given a picture of a dead person and you try to revive 
that person by painting the picture pixel by pixel. You will not 
revive anything. You will just make a picture. That's all. If you are 
to make an "artificial brain" atom by atom, all that you will ever get 
will be a dead object that will not do anything.


On Monday, 22 April 2019 04:02:32 UTC+3, Brent wrote:


AI can't be conscious like me = the hubris of the 21st century.

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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Terren Suydam]

My feedback for you, if you care for it, is to find a way to disprove your
ideas in principle. What fact, if uncovered, what clearly show your ideas
to be false?  What counter-intuitive prediction could be used to test them?

Without that, all you appear to have is a set of ideas, a little too close
to solipsism, in which explanations for anything can be generated in terms
of mysterious forms of consciousness.

Terren

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 11:22 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> You can still continue to make science as you are doing it today, in order
> to increase the quality of life. The thing is that you never had causality,
> determinism, prediction, and any hope of understanding the universe to
> start with. What we gain is precisely this: the ability to understand
> existence. You can still make predicitons, but they will be prediciton of
> the kind: "If you put your hand into the fire, you will get burned. Don't
> you believe me ? Try it!", namely predictions by way of experience. First
> someone experiences something (without prediction what it will be, because
> you cannot predict something that you never experienced), and then by
> understanding the context that generated that specific meaning, you will
> invite other consciousness to put themselves into that precise context. God
> himself created the world in order to experience things. He couldn't have
> imagined by his own will new qualia, because he didn't have the proper
> contexts for those qualia to be brought into existence. So he forgot about
> himself and reincarnated in all the consciousness in the world, and those
> consciousness through their interactions establish contexts and contexts
> give birth to meaning/qualia. This way, God gets to know himself. Is the
> only way.
>
> On Monday, 22 April 2019 15:48:32 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> So to summarize:
>>
>>- We lose: causality, determinism, prediction, and any hope of
>>understanding the universe without getting into the minds of competing
>>consciousnesses, some proportion of which don't inhabit biological bodies
>>- We gain:
>>
>> Can you help me out with that second line? Why should anyone take your
>> theory seriously when it means jettisoning science? What's the payoff?
>>
> --
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You can still continue to make science as you are doing it today, in order 
to increase the quality of life. The thing is that you never had causality, 
determinism, prediction, and any hope of understanding the universe to 
start with. What we gain is precisely this: the ability to understand 
existence. You can still make predicitons, but they will be prediciton of 
the kind: "If you put your hand into the fire, you will get burned. Don't 
you believe me ? Try it!", namely predictions by way of experience. First 
someone experiences something (without prediction what it will be, because 
you cannot predict something that you never experienced), and then by 
understanding the context that generated that specific meaning, you will 
invite other consciousness to put themselves into that precise context. God 
himself created the world in order to experience things. He couldn't have 
imagined by his own will new qualia, because he didn't have the proper 
contexts for those qualia to be brought into existence. So he forgot about 
himself and reincarnated in all the consciousness in the world, and those 
consciousness through their interactions establish contexts and contexts 
give birth to meaning/qualia. This way, God gets to know himself. Is the 
only way.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 15:48:32 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> So to summarize:
>
>- We lose: causality, determinism, prediction, and any hope of 
>understanding the universe without getting into the minds of competing 
>consciousnesses, some proportion of which don't inhabit biological bodies
>- We gain: 
>
> Can you help me out with that second line? Why should anyone take your 
> theory seriously when it means jettisoning science? What's the payoff? 
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

[John Clark]

On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 9:33 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> The question is about the first person experience,*
>

I don't want to know what the question is about, I want to know precisely
what the question is. And even after all this time you are unable to
unambiguously state the question, so it's not surprising I am unable to
answer it.

>
> *> why do you keep saying that a computation is real only when implemented
> in a primary physical reality?*
>

So you're asking why are things real only when they are real. I don't think
that needs an answer.

> God is defined by
>

God is real unless defined an integer.

> *From Plato came neoplatonism. From this came mathematics and physics.*
>

You always ignore Archimedes, the greatest ancient Greek of them all. If
anyone is the father (or maybe grandfather) of modern physics and
mathematics it's him. Unlike Plato or Aristotle he discovered things that
are just as true today as they were on the day he discovered them.


> *> God is defined by ...*
>

... a grey amorphous blob. With that nifty definition one can state with
confidence that God exists because grey amorphous blobs certainly do.


> *> 2+2 = 5 is grammatically correct in arithmetic,*
>

2+2=5  can not be formed by lawfully manipulating Peano's axioms, if it
could be then arithmetic would be a silly useless enterprise.

> ?
>
!

> >> with no clear referent that a personal pronoun with no clear referent
>> is supposed to answer.
>
>
> *> The referent is the first person experience possible.*
>

Which "the" first person experience is being refers to, the one in Moscow
or the one in Washington? If it's both then stop saying "the". If it's
neither then you're using a personal pronoun with no referent and the word
means precisely nothing.


> *> I will be duplicated, but I know with certainty that I will taste some
> coffee, but I am not sure, nor can I be sure if it will taste like Russian
> coffee or American coffee.*
>

That's 5, count them 5, uses of the personal pronoun "I" in the short
sentence above describing an exparament to be performed in a world that
contains personal pronoun duplicating machines. And Bruno is baffled that
John Clark believes Bruno is talking gibberish, Weird.


> *> You keep denying the first person report of the copies, *
>

I keep insisting there is no such thing as *THE* first person if there is a
copy of it in Moscow and a copy of it in Washington.


> *> that is the reason of the FPI.*
>

You've forgotten IHA.


> >>In a world with people duplicating machines there is no such thing as
>> *THE* first person experience;
>
>
> *> Proof?*
>

"The" is singular and "copy" implies 2 and 2 is greater than 1. QED.
I await the Field Medal with eager anticipation.

> *Just read both diaries.*
>

Oh no, not those goddamn idiot diaries again!!!


> > *You are the only one who have a problem with this,*
>

You say that a LOT and If it was really true I'd have to conclude that I'm
far smarter than I thought I was,  but I don't believe for one nanosecond
that it is true.

>> if you really meant what you said about the Helsinki Man being anyone
>> who remembers being the Helsinki Man yesterday, but of course you didn't
>> really mean it and will now start equivocating.
>
>
> > *I will just distinguish the first person 1 from* [...]
>

Just as I predicted you now start equivocation and that sort of mental mush
and evasion is exactly precisely what I thought would happen. So please
stop saying that we agree on the definition of the Helsinki man because we
most certainly do *NOT*. I have a clear consistent definition and all you
have is gibberish


> >> Everybody correctly predicted that the Moscow Man will see Moscow and
>> the Washington man will see Washington and everybody correctly predicted
>> that both will have a first person experience tomorrow,
>
>
> *>Indeed, and in particular that first person experience is, for both
> copies, I see one city and not the other, *
>

If so then where is this grand indeterminacy that you keep talking about?
Exactly what was NOT correctly predicted yesterday in Helsinki? I now await
an avalanche of personal pronouns in answer to my question not one of which
will have a clear unambiguous referent.


> > *and I could not have written, in Helsinki, which one. *
>

Which *ONE*?? Forget yesterday even today you can't say which one ended up
seeing which city because the question makes no sense. Yesterday in
Helsinki there was only one so it's ridiculous to expect to be able to
point to 2 people and say you will see Moscow but you won't, but anybody
can correctly predict that the Moscow Man will see Moscow only and the
Washington man will see Washington only and both will have a first person
experience tomorrow, And if today "The Helsinki Man" means anybody who
remembers being The Helsinki man yesterday (and I can't think what else it
could mean) then The Helsinki Man will see 2 cities, provided that 1 +1 =2.


> *That is the FPI*.
>

Once again you've forgot

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Terren Suydam]

So to summarize:

   - We lose: causality, determinism, prediction, and any hope of
   understanding the universe without getting into the minds of competing
   consciousnesses, some proportion of which don't inhabit biological bodies
   - We gain:

Can you help me out with that second line? Why should anyone take your
theory seriously when it means jettisoning science? What's the payoff?

On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 4:46 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> On Monday, 22 April 2019 07:41:14 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>
>> 1) Causality can still exist even if time is an illusion. For example in
>> block-time, time is an indexical - all times can be said to exist at once -
>> but that in no way diminishes the role of causality in describing the
>> dynamics and interactions of the system as time 't' varies.
>>
>> No, it cannot. It is just the story of the movie. I guess that in dreams
> when a rock falls and hits the ground, you don't consider that the rock
> fell because it was causally attracted by the earth. It is just the story
> of the dream.
>
>
>> 2) I don't even know how to make sense of this claim. The whims of
>> competing consciousnesses are what determine the laws of physics? To me
>> this is indistinguishable from "God did it". There's no way to reason about
>> it, no hope for making predictions or improving understanding. You'd have
>> to understand the minds of the consciousnesses whose competition creates
>> reality.
>>
>
> Yes, you cannot make predictions anymore, because it all depends on the
> thinking of each individual consciousness. Is like in society. You can only
> make vague general predictions, but you will never have exact predictions
> like in physics, because you are dealing with complex consciousnesses. The
> predictions in physics are more precise because you are dealing there with
> primitive consciousnesses and they act in simple manners.
>
>>
>> 3) Also, other consciousnesses want me to die... right?
>>
>> They don't want you to die. What happens is that interaction is disrupted
> at some point, and your highly evolved consciousness falls apart. Is also
> similar to how society works. When the component consciousnesses don't
> interact anymore in the proper ways, society falls apart.
>
>>
>> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 4:41 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:15:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:

 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without
 causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means
 to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it
 otherwise would have. It *causes* it to change.

>>>
>>> The thing is that time itself is a quale in consciousness. You can have
>>> temporal extended periods in consciousness that happen all at once. You can
>>> see it as a movie that already exists. If you attend-along to the movie it
>>> appears to you as if there are causal powers happening there. But the movie
>>> exists all at once, so causality is an illusion. I'm writing about this in
>>> "The Quale of Time".
>>>

 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing
 consciousnesses, and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence.
 What evolutionary dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to
 flap my arms and fly. Why can't I?

>>>
>>> Because there are other consciousness that don't want you to fly. And
>>> they are many and they win. Gravity is an external appearance of internal
>>> interactions that take place in other consciousnesses. Those
>>> consciousnesses are not necesseraily linked to biological bodies, so there
>>> is no easy way to pinpoint them. They are living in their internal worlds.
>>> And their interactions are as such that to us it appears that there is a
>>> thing that we call "gravity".
>>>

 3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no
 such things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate
 constraint?  Why do people die?

 In my view, death is just a transition to another life. Since Self is
>>> eternal, it means that death is just a point in which the experiences of
>>> the Self are changing. Why exactly it turned out to be this way has to do
>>> again both with evolution and probably also to some inerent fact about the
>>> very nature of self-reference to need diversity to be able to exist.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Monday, 22 April 2019 07:41:14 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> 1) Causality can still exist even if time is an illusion. For example in 
> block-time, time is an indexical - all times can be said to exist at once - 
> but that in no way diminishes the role of causality in describing the 
> dynamics and interactions of the system as time 't' varies.
>
> No, it cannot. It is just the story of the movie. I guess that in dreams 
when a rock falls and hits the ground, you don't consider that the rock 
fell because it was causally attracted by the earth. It is just the story 
of the dream.
 

> 2) I don't even know how to make sense of this claim. The whims of 
> competing consciousnesses are what determine the laws of physics? To me 
> this is indistinguishable from "God did it". There's no way to reason about 
> it, no hope for making predictions or improving understanding. You'd have 
> to understand the minds of the consciousnesses whose competition creates 
> reality.
>

Yes, you cannot make predictions anymore, because it all depends on the 
thinking of each individual consciousness. Is like in society. You can only 
make vague general predictions, but you will never have exact predictions 
like in physics, because you are dealing with complex consciousnesses. The 
predictions in physics are more precise because you are dealing there with 
primitive consciousnesses and they act in simple manners. 

>
> 3) Also, other consciousnesses want me to die... right?
>
> They don't want you to die. What happens is that interaction is disrupted 
at some point, and your highly evolved consciousness falls apart. Is also 
similar to how society works. When the component consciousnesses don't 
interact anymore in the proper ways, society falls apart. 

>
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 4:41 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:15:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without 
>>> causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means 
>>> to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it 
>>> otherwise would have. It *causes* it to change.
>>>
>>
>> The thing is that time itself is a quale in consciousness. You can have 
>> temporal extended periods in consciousness that happen all at once. You can 
>> see it as a movie that already exists. If you attend-along to the movie it 
>> appears to you as if there are causal powers happening there. But the movie 
>> exists all at once, so causality is an illusion. I'm writing about this in 
>> "The Quale of Time". 
>>
>>>
>>> 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing 
>>> consciousnesses, and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence. 
>>> What evolutionary dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to 
>>> flap my arms and fly. Why can't I?
>>>
>>
>> Because there are other consciousness that don't want you to fly. And 
>> they are many and they win. Gravity is an external appearance of internal 
>> interactions that take place in other consciousnesses. Those 
>> consciousnesses are not necesseraily linked to biological bodies, so there 
>> is no easy way to pinpoint them. They are living in their internal worlds. 
>> And their interactions are as such that to us it appears that there is a 
>> thing that we call "gravity". 
>>
>>>
>>> 3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no such 
>>> things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate constraint?  
>>> Why do people die?
>>>
>>> In my view, death is just a transition to another life. Since Self is 
>> eternal, it means that death is just a point in which the experiences of 
>> the Self are changing. Why exactly it turned out to be this way has to do 
>> again both with evolution and probably also to some inerent fact about the 
>> very nature of self-reference to need diversity to be able to exist.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I don't see where in your link it is given any definition of SI.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 08:04:50 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> But Conscious SI [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_intelligence ] 
> may not be.
>
> - pt 
>

-- 
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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Only if you never did some serious thinking you can consider AI can be 
conscious. Is not at all the same thing like other similar statements 
across history like "objects heavier than air can never fly". In that case 
you were only dealing with arrangements of atoms. But in the case of 
consciousness you are dealing with the nature of reality. And the nature of 
reality just is. You don't conjure it up just by arranging atoms, atoms 
which don't even exist, being themselves ideas in consciousness. Is like 
you are given a picture of a dead person and you try to revive that person 
by painting the picture pixel by pixel. You will not revive anything. You 
will just make a picture. That's all. If you are to make an "artificial 
brain" atom by atom, all that you will ever get will be a dead object that 
will not do anything.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 04:02:32 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> AI can't be conscious like me = the hubris of the 21st century. 
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.