Re: Does all computation generate heat?

Islam is a religion based almost entirely on threats. Brent On 5/1/2019 10:45 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: فَلَنُذِيقَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا وَلَنَجْزِيَنَّهُمْ أَسْوَأَ الَّذِي كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ But We shall most certainly give those who are [thus] bent on denying the truth

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

فَلَنُذِيقَنَّ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا عَذَابًا شَدِيدًا وَلَنَجْزِيَنَّهُمْ أَسْوَأَ الَّذِي كَانُوا يَعْمَلُونَ But We shall most certainly give those who are [thus] bent on denying the truth a taste of suffering severe, and We shall most certainly requite them according to the worst of their deeds!

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On 5/1/2019 4:24 PM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: I would say that one could have a Jupiter planet-sized network of Intel® Core™ processors + whatever distributed program running on it, and it will not be conscious. Based on what?  Human hubris? Brent -- You received this message

Re: A short and straight to the point speech of Donald Haffman that the brain does not exist

On Wed, May 01, 2019 at 09:42:44AM -0400, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 2:24 AM via Everything List < > everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > > > You certainly demonstrated that you are acting like a disrespectful > frustrated teenager > > > You made my day by

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 7:24 PM wrote: *> I would say that one could have a Jupiter planet-sized network of Intel® > Core™ processors + whatever distributed program running on it, and it will > not be conscious. It is not composed of the kind of matter needed for > consciousness, which could

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 3:39:03 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment is not just wrong it's STUPID. I > say this because it has 3 colossal flaws, just one would render it stupid > and 3 render it stupidity cubed: > > 1) It assumes that a small part of a

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On 5/1/2019 12:34 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: I would argue for "pancyberpsychism" (I'm no good at naming - is there a name for that already?) which is to say that there it is something it is like to do information processing of any kind. However, the quality of the consciousness involved in

Re: for Cosmin

So indeed, only consciousness exists. But there "are" other entities that are unformalizable that have effects on existing entities. Is not a contradiction what I'm saying. Is just how reality is. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List"

Re: for Cosmin

It's late here and I'm going to sleep. But I will add just one point. As I mentioned earlier, the definition that I'm giving for "existence" is the looking-back-at-itself of self-reference, through which self-reference finds objects in itself and identifies with those objects. "Existence" is

Re: Bernardo Kastrup: "Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology) '

I will add, whether testable or not testable (yet) I ask, (my stubborn ignorance free of charge! How can this make life better? Subjective, I know! -Original Message- From: 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List To: everything-list Sent: Wed, May 1, 2019 12:15 pm Subject: Re: Bernardo

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

Searle's Chinese Room thought experiment is not just wrong it's STUPID. I say this because it has 3 colossal flaws, just one would render it stupid and 3 render it stupidity cubed: 1) It assumes that a small part of a system has all the properties of the entire system. 2) It assumes that slowing

Re: for Cosmin

OK, nice, that's a prediction that can be tested. That's getting somewhere. I would bet a significant sum on your prediction being false. A color blind animal would not spontaneously be able to see color, no matter how hungry it was. Anyway, you didn't address my concern about being able to posit

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

Map lookup is a valid implementation for any program you can conceive, albeit a very ineffective one... The chinese room is such implementation... And as much as my parts are not me, i'm not the sum of my parts... Quentin Le mer. 1 mai 2019 à 20:34, Terren Suydam a écrit : > > I would argue

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

I would argue for "pancyberpsychism" (I'm no good at naming - is there a name for that already?) which is to say that there it is something it is like to do information processing of any kind. However, the quality of the consciousness involved in that processing is related to its dynamics. So

Re: for Cosmin

Talking about consciousness itself is a post-hoc statement. Even formulating the sentence "Consciousness is all there is." is a post-hoc statement that is created out of words that are highly contingent entities. So where do you draw the line between what is admitted to be considered "first

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

Le mer. 1 mai 2019 à 18:13, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit : > How is a computer conscious ? Magic ? Are you even aware of the Chinese > Room argument ? > Yes, and how is the chinese room not conscious ? Because you have to associate it either to

Re: for Cosmin

On 5/1/2019 10:36 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: You are confusing people that have by default the instinct to kill Is that a quale?

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 5/1/2019 10:19 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities with natural entities. In an artificial entities the functional parts that they contain are 100% knowable by us, because it is us who put them there in the

Re: for Cosmin

You have no principled basis on which to make claims about evolutionary dynamics of any kind. It's a post-hoc, just-so justification of the kinds of qualia that we experience. Evolution doesn't follow in the slightest from your first principles, which is merely that consciousness is all that

Re: for Cosmin

On 5/1/2019 9:57 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 3) The interaction of consciousnesses is in part evolutionary. We are not living in a "physical" world, we are living in an evolutionary world in which consciousnesses adapt one to another and evolve new qualia in order to meet

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:30:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 1 May 2019, at 10:56, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics > class, for example. > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat > > *Does all computation

Re: for Cosmin

No, I'm saying that cultural institutions whose metaphysics relies on authority (e.g. God's Will) lead to authoritarian systems (crazy, right?) We should rightly distrust any system that relies on revelation or obedience to an authority that cannot be questioned. Likewise, any philosophy that

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On 5/1/2019 7:07 AM, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:33 AM > wrote: > /AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals/ I would maintain that question is of no practical importance whatsoever because AI's won't need our protection. The

Re: for Cosmin

As I already told you: interactions are not random: they are taking place in an evolutionary context. On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 20:14:39 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > I'm saying that it's indistinguishable from one that does. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: for Cosmin

You are confusing people that have by default the instinct to kill with the reasons that those people invoke to make their killing instincts noble. Long

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 1:13 PM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > *How is a computer conscious ?* > The same way I am and perhaps you are. > * Are you even aware of the Chinese Room argument ?* > Yes, the silliest thought exparament in the history of the world, the

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

Is it even possible to physical implement your "machine" ? If so, can you elaborate on it ? What is it about the "physical world" that would allow your "machine" to be "physically" implemented ? On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 19:53:54 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > When I talk about digital

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities with natural entities. In an artificial entities the functional parts that they contain are 100% knowable by us, because it is us who put them there in the first place. On the other hand, in a natural entity, the functional

Re: for Cosmin

Because God's Will is a shitty explanation of reality (it explains precisely zero), and worse, it's been repeatedly abused throughout history to justify all sorts of horrific actions including genocide, torture, theft, and so on. I'm not saying your theory is literally invoking God's Will. I'm

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

How is a computer conscious ? Magic ? Are you even aware of the Chinese Room argument ? Are you even aware of what the phenomenon of Understanding is about ? Are you aware that consciousnesses work by Understanding ? Namely bringing new qualia into existence out of nothing ? Are you aware that

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

This is the most random affirmation that someone can make in a discussion about consciousness. It is so random that it is useless to say that qualia do exist. And qualia are observer-absolutes, since when I see red, I see red. You cannot come to me and tell me that I see blue. On the other

Re: for Cosmin

Besides, you are attacking here a strawman. 1) Not only my consciousness exists, but others as well. 2) Those other consciousnesses can be anything, not only demons and angels. The type of consciousnesses that exist are constrained at least in part by evolutionary context. 3) The interaction of

Re: for Cosmin

And if that's how reality is, that God wills it, what is the problem ? On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 18:45:02 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Exactly: "God wills it". Peace out homey > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 11:14, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > What is the difference ? Basically, what is the difference between this > machine: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and this machine: > >

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

On 5/1/2019 2:24 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: "Computation" doesn't exist. It is an observer-relative concept. So is "qualia". Brent Stepping in mud and letting your footprint there is computation if you want. Throwing a ball into the air is computation if you want. It

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On 5/1/2019 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Apr 2019, at 15:50, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: Semantics means meaning, and meaning is something that exists in consciousness. No problem with this. You cannot use that for any

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

> On 1 May 2019, at 12:16, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 12:15:37 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 29 Apr 2019, at 15:50, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List >> > wrote: >> >> Semantics means meaning, and meaning is something that exists in

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 5/1/2019 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My point is that "qualia" don't exist independent of an environment, and an evolutionary history. That is ambiguous. A human qualia needs a human history. Human qualia are the only kind we know.  Other qualia, independent of environment and

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

> On 1 May 2019, at 10:56, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class, > for example. > - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat > > Does all computation generate heat? > > (Should be a

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

No.  Erasing data generates heat.  So reversible computation is, in principle,  possible without hear generation. Brent On 5/1/2019 1:56 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class, for example. -

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into account all what is relevant. But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.?? Indeed. But I did not use a definition to claim any truth (of existence, or else).

Re: Bernardo Kastrup: "Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology"

But does Kastrup's TOE yield any testable predictions? Brent On 5/1/2019 12:28 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: Not my view of course, but here is *Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology* Bernardo Kastrup Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen (2019)

Re: for Cosmin

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> >> On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 16:17:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Unless you can say what kind of fact you could discover that would >> invalidate your theory, it's a hard no for me. >> > >

Re: for Cosmin

> On 1 May 2019, at 11:06, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Well, I invite you to formalize red in whatever logic you want, and then work > your magic for blind people and make them see red solely by understanding > your formalisation. I can formalise the notion of universal

Re: for Cosmin

Exactly: "God wills it". Peace out homey On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 11:42 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Since the theory is correct, it cannot be invalidated. > > On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 16:17:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: >> >> >> Unless you

Re: for Cosmin

Since the theory is correct, it cannot be invalidated. On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 16:17:48 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > > Unless you can say what kind of fact you could discover that would > invalidate your theory, it's a hard no for me. > > -- You received this message because you are

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 9:33 AM wrote: > *AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals* > I would maintain that question is of no practical importance whatsoever because AI's won't need our protection. The important question is the one a AI might ask himself: Should I give humans

Re: A short and straight to the point speech of Donald Haffman that the brain does not exist

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 2:24 AM via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> You certainly demonstrated that you are acting like a disrespectful > frustrated teenager* > You made my day by confusing me with a teenager! And I solemnly promise I will continue to give you all

Re: for Cosmin

So far, this is all you've been able to unambiguously articulate: - only my consciousness exists - other consciousnesses exist - the world appears the way it does due to the interaction of consciousnesses As you have no way to formalize "interaction of consciousnesses", you're unable

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 12:15:37 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Apr 2019, at 15:50, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > Semantics means meaning, and meaning is something that exists in > consciousness. > > > No problem with this. > > > > You

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

There are different ways of arriving at the shape of my foot in the mud: 1) I step in the mud. 2) I make a super-duper complicated AI that does pattern recognition and plays Chess and make him sculpt the shape of my foot in the mud. 3) I personally using my own consciousness sculpt the shape

Re: for Cosmin

On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:37:01 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Apr 2019, at 18:11, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > > > On Monday, 29 April 2019 17:03:53 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 29 Apr 2019, at 08:44, 'Cosmin Visan' via

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

"Computation" doesn't exist. It is an observer-relative concept. Stepping in mud and letting your footprint there is computation if you want. Throwing a ball into the air is computation if you want. It computes the function H = ut - 1/2 gt2 I don't understand why you keep believing so easily in

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

What is the difference ? Basically, what is the difference between this machine: and this machine:

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

> On 29 Apr 2019, at 14:34, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > There is no definition for such a thing. Of “information processing”? Of course there are definition, even formalised in arithmetic. To be clear, by information I ALWAYS use Shannon 3p definition. It is not the

Re: for Cosmin

Well, I invite you to formalize red in whatever logic you want, and then work your magic for blind people and make them see red solely by understanding your formalisation. Good luck! On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 11:37:01 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > I know you will not do it, but formalising in

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 00:20, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/30/2019 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 28 Apr 2019, at 22:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM,

Does all computation generate heat?

By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class, for example. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat *Does all computation generate heat?* (Should be a simple enough question, I think.) - @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 00:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/30/2019 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 28 Apr 2019, at 21:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/28/2019 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indexical Digital

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 30 Apr 2019, at 13:27, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Maybe if you would stop using words that mean something else, people will > actually understand you. What word have you a problem with? Just ask specific question, and avoid ad hominem comment, please. Also, quote

Re: for Cosmin

> On 29 Apr 2019, at 18:11, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On Monday, 29 April 2019 17:03:53 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 29 Apr 2019, at 08:44, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List >> > wrote: >> >> You cannot invalidate the fact that consciousness is all there

Bernardo Kastrup: "Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology"

Not my view of course, but here is *Analytic Idealism: A consciousness-only ontology* Bernardo Kastrup Dissertation, Radboud University Nijmegen (2019) https://philpapers.org/rec/KASAIA-3 pdf: https://philpapers.org/archive/KASAIA-3.pdf Abstract This thesis articulates an analytic version of

Re: A short and straight to the point speech of Donald Haffman that the brain does not exist

You certainly demonstrated that you are acting like a disrespectful frustrated teenager that instead of trying to understand what people say, start to make fun of them. My conversation with you ends here. Grow up! On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 02:31:51 UTC+3, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30,

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

Sure I have lots of rational responses. But you have to be intelligent to understand them. Otherwise, what can you say to people that believe objects can become alive just by writing a line of code ? On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 01:06:54 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > And I see that you have no rational

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

Whaaa... so magic happens. Santa Claus has been born! And it was so simple... just add a line of code and pufff... the object becomes alive. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )つ──☆*:・ﾟ On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 00:55:09 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/29/2019 11:35 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > > >

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

As Donald Hoffman says, to take things seriously doesn't mean to take them literally. You take the tiger seriously because you need to survive, in the same way you don't put the blue folder on your computer screen on the recycle bin. Not because there is actually there a blue folder that get

Re: for Cosmin

Not at all. As I already told you, for any claim of the form "X exists" (where in this case you assume X is something outside consciousness), "X exists" is actually a thought in consciousness, therefore X doesn't exist since it is just a confabulation of consciousness. More than this, from