Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 5/26/2019 9:28 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote:

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 05:36:39PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:

On 5/25/2019 8:12 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote:

[...]

researchers should train their methodolody on something that should be
much easier, like, say, proving existence of romantic love? In a lab,
with cameras etc. And, of course, give a prize to those who can
successfully demonstrate it on themselves.

Since each claimant to the prize got to specify themselves what
would demonstrate their supernatural ability, people claiming to
love one another would simply say having passionate sex would prove
it and then proceed to demonstrate it.

Really. I was thinking about something less violent and more along the
lines of Baucis and Philemon.

If you are 18+ I would recommend that you watch even one adult
movie, for educational purposes.

But, if you are serious, how are the claimant(s) going to prove the
passionate-ness of his/her/their (we should not prejudice against
onanists) act? By counting shoutings per minute? broken bones?


You're missing the point.  Randi asked claimants what they could do.  So 
if they said they could demonstrate the existence of passionate love by 
having passionate sex, the Randi would say Ok show me.  But when he did 
that for supernatural claims the claimants consistently failed to do the 
thing they said they could.  Whether it would prove the existence of the 
supernatural was moot, because they didn't do it.


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2cdf9ed9-a743-5d3e-c045-295364f29e6f%40verizon.net.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[John Clark]

On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 4:30 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:


> >> Nobody knows the answer to the "hard problem of consciousness" because
>> nobody knows exactly what the question is or what criteria is to be used to
>> determine if its been successfully answered.
>
>
> > *So you don’t understand it.*
>

Correct, I don't know the question so I have no way of knowing if it's been
successfully answered or not and after communicating with you for years I
don't think even you what would satisfy you. If I could prove with
mathematical certitude that X caused consciousness would you say the issue
had been put to bed and its time to move on to other things? I doubt it, I
think you'd say (correctly) that X may cause consciousness but X is not
consciousness. And the tail chasing would continue because you don't know
what exactly you want to know.


> * >It is not so astonishing. That explains your lack of interest in greek
> philosophy.*
>

The fact that you ARE interested in Greek philosophy is tacit admission on
your part that the field you're so interested in has not advanced one
nanometer in 2500 years; after all no modern astronomer would dream of
studying Greek astronomical theories with the hope of it helping him in has
work because astronomy has advanced light years in the last 2500 years; and
the same is also true for medicine and mathematics and physics, but not for
Greek philosophy..

> The worst theologian are those who claim to know the truth.
>

I agree, and the second worst type of theologian are those that abandon the
idea of God but believe they have made a great philosophical discovery by
not abandoned the ASCII sequence G-O-D.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0dM4Y3eMgYfrXjXze0_f_WPbnK2DC0wWZvBcxDibT2yg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Tomasz Rola]

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 08:20:42PM -0500, howardmarks wrote:
> Well, in James Randi's case, he was saddened by the amount of fraud
> done on innocent people who called themselves "psychic,"
[...]

I wandered around the website a bit. Interesting place and they seem
sincere, from what I could gather in not very much time. What I would
like to see is some kind of simple statistics, like number of
claimants per year, in range of 1980-2015. Or description of one
failed experiment (any one of those many supposedly performed). Could
not find neither of the info.

Do you have any idea if such information is available? I am not going
to claim anything of course (and besides, they stopped receiving
claims) but I easily become curious and I like looking at numbers.

> So, to answer your question, Tomasz, subjects you suggested were not
> part of what Randi pursued, although Randi did work with Dr Stephen
> Barrett of Quackwatch, and accupuncture, and many claims of "natural
> healing" or Chinese medicines would qualify for his million dollar
> prize (not sure if the prize is available, as Randi retired 3-4
> years ago)... look at randi.org for details and his archives.
> Cheers! Howard Marks

The idea I have about those claimants and tests, is that some things
cannot be tested - there simply is no good enough tech to make such
tests right now. Or maybe there is another reason - I have no way to
know if the reason would be technical or something else.

Just as with my previously stated question about testing the existence
of phenomenon called "romantic love". A lot of people claim it
happens. But can it be tested in a similar setup that supernatural was
being tested? Or any other setup. If not this, one can try to test for
existence of goodness.

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/2019052708.GB17832%40tau1.ceti.pl.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[howardmarks]

When one observes a real phenomenon, then one can create (again 
falsifiable) theories to explain the phenomenon. Telepathy is not such.


On 5/26/2019 3:59 PM, howardmarks wrote:
Endless experiments of what you suggest about 
unification/telepathy/precognition/etc. together/separate/etc. has 
been tested and tested and tested, under all sorts of circumstances 
under all conditions thinkable. My father was a lifelong believer 
things like telepathy and failure to confirm his beliefs didn't deter 
him from believing, even though he was a good-thinking electronic 
engineer with >12 patents (you can look him up in USPTO.gov , Meyer 
Marks, before year 1975).

_
Phenomenology infers that there is a phenomenon_, and in the case of 
telepathy and precognition, no phenomena can be demonstrated, whether 
"unified" with emotion/communication etc., when falsifiable 
experiments show every claim to be a "lookalike," such as conjuring 
(magician's tricks), fakers like Uri Geller, random chance, liars, 
clever opportunity seekers, coincidences, or flat misinterpretations, 
etc. The total failure of precognition hotlines demonstrate that 
precognition is unlikely to be a phenomenon - with a score of zero 
hits in probably millions of submissions over maybe 20 years.


There are "treasure chests" of experiments, extremely thoroughly 
investigated and documented by thousands of investigators for 
centuries, including your suggested "unification." Look up the files 
in the archives of randi.org , Dr Shermer's Skeptical Inquirer, Joseph 
Nichol's work, CSICOP (now CSI, Committee for skeptical Inquiry) and a 
dozen more, most discoverable with web searching. Randi has an 
excellent library in Florida that should be accessible for research.


Cosmin, your example of your girlfriend and you "connecting" thru 
facebook fails your own criteria, point 1:/    1) Such precise 
sharable details./
The only way to reconcile the failure to be specific - is to "believe 
anyway."

Cheers! Howard Marks

On 5/26/2019 1:20 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
What ? You didn't realize this yet ? See ? This is why theories are 
lacking (for telepathy, and consciousness generally), because people 
simply fail to see some elements of phenomenology. If people fail to 
see that consciousness is unified, they will search explanations for 
telepathy in terms of "message transmission", which of course they 
will fail. If people on the other hand notice that consciousness 
works by unifications, they will start to search explanations for 
telepathy in terms of unifications, and probably they will have more 
luck. So the whole problem with theories of consciousness is not that 
consciousness is "mysterious", is just that people fail to see key 
aspects of phenomenology. Once those aspects are spotted, theories 
will follow at once.


Now, the problem is: How are those elements of phenomenology to be 
observed ? From my own thinking experience, the central element is 
honesty. Honesty is much more important than intelligence of theories 
learned by heart in schools, etc. If you are looking at consciousness 
in an honest way, chances are you will spot lots of things and you 
will be able to formulate theories. Otherwise, if you just want 
social status (i.e. get a phd from Oxford, etc.) then good luck! 
Solving consciousness is not for you.


On Sunday, 26 May 2019 16:59:34 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:

> /Consciousness works by unification:/


How nice for 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b43451b7-0beb-457b-b7e9-b81646540f06%40googlegroups.com 
.




--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bd1b5134-896b-a6d3-37b7-0ef6a704011d%40doitnow.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[howardmarks]

Endless experiments of what you suggest about 
unification/telepathy/precognition/etc. together/separate/etc. has been 
tested and tested and tested, under all sorts of circumstances under all 
conditions thinkable. My father was a lifelong believer things like 
telepathy and failure to confirm his beliefs didn't deter him from 
believing, even though he was a good-thinking electronic engineer with 
>12 patents (you can look him up in USPTO.gov , Meyer Marks, before 
year 1975).

_
Phenomenology infers that there is a phenomenon_, and in the case of 
telepathy and precognition, no phenomena can be demonstrated, whether 
"unified" with emotion/communication etc., when falsifiable experiments 
show every claim to be a "lookalike," such as conjuring (magician's 
tricks), fakers like Uri Geller, random chance, liars, clever 
opportunity seekers, coincidences, or flat misinterpretations, etc. The 
total failure of precognition hotlines demonstrate that precognition is 
unlikely to be a phenomenon - with a score of zero hits in probably 
millions of submissions over maybe 20 years.


There are "treasure chests" of experiments, extremely thoroughly 
investigated and documented by thousands of investigators for centuries, 
including your suggested "unification." Look up the files in the 
archives of randi.org , Dr Shermer's Skeptical Inquirer, Joseph Nichol's 
work, CSICOP (now CSI, Committee for skeptical Inquiry) and a dozen 
more, most discoverable with web searching. Randi has an excellent 
library in Florida that should be accessible for research.


Cosmin, your example of your girlfriend and you "connecting" thru 
facebook fails your own criteria, point 1:/    1) Such precise sharable 
details./
The only way to reconcile the failure to be specific - is to "believe 
anyway."

Cheers! Howard Marks

On 5/26/2019 1:20 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
What ? You didn't realize this yet ? See ? This is why theories are 
lacking (for telepathy, and consciousness generally), because people 
simply fail to see some elements of phenomenology. If people fail to 
see that consciousness is unified, they will search explanations for 
telepathy in terms of "message transmission", which of course they 
will fail. If people on the other hand notice that consciousness works 
by unifications, they will start to search explanations for telepathy 
in terms of unifications, and probably they will have more luck. So 
the whole problem with theories of consciousness is not that 
consciousness is "mysterious", is just that people fail to see key 
aspects of phenomenology. Once those aspects are spotted, theories 
will follow at once.


Now, the problem is: How are those elements of phenomenology to be 
observed ? From my own thinking experience, the central element is 
honesty. Honesty is much more important than intelligence of theories 
learned by heart in schools, etc. If you are looking at consciousness 
in an honest way, chances are you will spot lots of things and you 
will be able to formulate theories. Otherwise, if you just want social 
status (i.e. get a phd from Oxford, etc.) then good luck! Solving 
consciousness is not for you.


On Sunday, 26 May 2019 16:59:34 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:

> /Consciousness works by unification:/


How nice for 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b43451b7-0beb-457b-b7e9-b81646540f06%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/572e005d-e667-1c04-2e19-49eb5a4fcdaf%40doitnow.com.

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, May 26, 2019 at 12:13:39 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 May 2019, at 08:47, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:30:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 5/21/2019 11:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 6:51:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 5/21/2019 2:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> via Hedda Hassel Mørch @heddamorch
>>> https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/113048705070737817
>>>
>>>
>>> A lot to read:
>>>
>>>
>>> *On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information theory of 
>>> consciousness* 
>>> Tim Bayne [ https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/timothy-bayne ]
>>> https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2018/1/niy007/5047367
>>>
>>> *Symposium on Bayne, “On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated 
>>> information theory of consciousness”*
>>>
>>> http://philosophyofbrains.com/2019/05/20/symposium-on-bayne-on-the-axiomatic-foundations-of-the-integrated-information-theory-of-consciousness.aspx
>>>
>>>
>>> includes 
>>> Hedda Hassel Mørch (commentary):
>>>
>>> "[IIT] can also be and is in some ways better interpreted as a form of 
>>> Russellian monism, the view that conscious or protoconscious properties 
>>> constitute the intrinsic nature of physical properties (which physics 
>>> reveals as purely extrinsic and structural), and therefore would not be 
>>> (purely) physical. This could be understood as compatible with IIT’s claim 
>>> that consciousness is identical with integrated information, which could be 
>>> interpreted to say that consciousness is identical with integrated 
>>> information understood, not as a purely physical property, but as a 
>>> property that may include a non-physical intrinsic nature."
>>>
>>>
>>> But read https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 
>>> 
>>>  
>>> first.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I think Scott (who wrote that in 2014) needs to read this symposium 
>> article.
>>
>> He knows something about - and may be considered an expert in - 
>> computational complexity (classical and quantum), but he doesn't know much 
>> more than anyone else outside his specialty, especially - he doesn't know 
>> much about the subject of consciousness.
>>
>>
>> Neither does Tononi.  And Scott knows how to calculate integrated 
>> information.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> "integrated information" (in the context of consciousness science) is not 
> a well-defined term. That was part of what the underlying paper (on 
> "axioms") and commentary critical of IIT was all about.
>
> So why doesn't Scott write an update post from the one he wrote 5 years 
> ago? Because he is not in the field of conscious science - his field is 
> computational complexity, which is pretty useless in contributing anything 
> to the subject.
>
>
> I could agree with you, in the sense that computational complexity can 
> address some aspect of consciousness, but could be use to hide the 
> conceptual issue. 
>
> As they use mechanism, they should better “just" listen to the machine, 
> and what she says about herself.
> “Just” is in quote because today that requires the study of Gödel 1931, 
> Turing 1936, Church 1936, Löb 1955,  … Solovay 1975 (G and G*).
>
> I don’t remember if you agree with the following quasi-definition of 
> consciousness, which is that “I am conscious”, from the first person point 
> of view of a machine is something verifying the following conditions;
>
> It is immediately known
> It is indubitable
> It is non provable
> It is non definable
>
> The machine has soul, it lives at the intersection of the believable and 
> truth, it is like a inner God, nobody can define it, although everybody can 
> use the indexical “I” to get a local ostensive temporary “not-a-name” but 
> 3p image in the mind of the others.The machine knows that this soul is not 
> just non definable, but she can refute explicitly all effective theories 
> made about her and what she could be. 
>
> The Gödel-Löbian machine can destroy effectively all reductionist 
> conception you could have about her.
>
> And that does not need a lot of complexity. Just Robinson Arithmetic (RA, 
> a sub theory of all branches in “exact sciences” if not implicit in most 
> human sciences as well) + the induction axioms (the axioms responsible for 
> the rich cognitive ability. (RA emulates all machines, and I interview the 
> richer Löbian machine that RA emulates. I mean, the induction axioms are 
> not in the ontological part). Arithmetic emulates/enacted relative numbers 
> believing in sets and infinities.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
The Experientialists are in the right ballpark in this regard: The 
"richest" Löbian machine will still be missing the real semantics and 
entities of experiences.

One needs a Löbian-Husserlian machine.

@philipthrift

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Philip Thrift]

It is ironic that Alan Turing himself thought that actual computing in the 
universe included (to a large extent)  non-Turing computing (where "Turing" 
here means what became the standard definition as being carried out by the 
commonly-defined "Turing machine"). That "computing" became synonymous with 
"Turing-machine computing" can't be blamed on Alan Turing.



Alan Turing
HIS WORK AND IMPACT

Edited by
S. BARRY COOPER
University of Leeds, UK
and
JAN VAN LEEUWEN
Utrecht University, The Netherlands

2013

https://oecdinsights.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Alan-Turing.pdf

Aaron Sloman absolves Turing of —
The Mythical Turing Test 

In his 1950 paper, Turing described his famous ‘imitation game’, defining a 
test that he thought machines would pass by the end of the century. It is 
often claimed that Turing was proposing a test for intelligence. I think 
that assumption is mistaken (a) because Turing was far too intelligent to 
propose a test with so many flaws, (b) because his words indicate that he 
thought it would be a silly thing to do, and (c) because there is an 
alternative, much more defensible, reading of his paper as making a 
technological prediction, whose main function was to provide a unifying 
framework for discussing and refuting some common arguments against the 
possibility of intelligent machines.1 I shall try to explain (i) why the 
common interpretation of Turing’s paper is mistaken, (ii) why the idea of a 
test for intelligence in a machine or animal is misguided, and (iii) why a 
different sort of test, not for a specific machine or animal, but for a 
genome or generic class of developing systems, would be of greater 
scientific and philosophical interest. That sort of test was not proposed 
by Turing, and is very different from the many proposed revisions of 
Turing’s test, since it would require many instances of the design allowed 
to develop in a variety of environments. to be tested. That would be an 
experiment in meta-morphogenesis, the topic of my paper in Part IV of this 
volume.


@philipthrift


On Saturday, May 25, 2019 at 12:19:49 PM UTC-5, howardmarks wrote:
>
> Bruno's statement is quite understandable. Ya gotta know about the work of 
> Alan Turing (circa 1950's). He is referring to Turing's test for human-like 
> intelligent behavior manifestations (of computers, machines) with the 
> halting issue being whether it's possible to discover whether an 
> "intelligent" machine will, at some point, halt or run "forever."
> cheers! Howard Marks
>
> On 5/25/2019 8:12 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> You didn't answer the question (probably the politically correctness 
> indoctrination is keeping you from telling the truth): Did you understand 
> what Bruno is talking about ?
>
> On Saturday, 25 May 2019 13:21:19 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 
>>
>> Obviously, you can't. I'm sorry for you.
>>
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/51db461d-0363-4e91-85de-6002ae584c4a%40googlegroups.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What ? You didn't realize this yet ? See ? This is why theories are lacking 
(for telepathy, and consciousness generally), because people simply fail to 
see some elements of phenomenology. If people fail to see that 
consciousness is unified, they will search explanations for telepathy in 
terms of "message transmission", which of course they will fail. If people 
on the other hand notice that consciousness works by unifications, they 
will start to search explanations for telepathy in terms of unifications, 
and probably they will have more luck. So the whole problem with theories 
of consciousness is not that consciousness is "mysterious", is just that 
people fail to see key aspects of phenomenology. Once those aspects are 
spotted, theories will follow at once. 

Now, the problem is: How are those elements of phenomenology to be observed 
? From my own thinking experience, the central element is honesty. Honesty 
is much more important than intelligence of theories learned by heart in 
schools, etc. If you are looking at consciousness in an honest way, chances 
are you will spot lots of things and you will be able to formulate 
theories. Otherwise, if you just want social status (i.e. get a phd from 
Oxford, etc.) then good luck! Solving consciousness is not for you.

On Sunday, 26 May 2019 16:59:34 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
>  
>
>> > *Consciousness works by unification:*
>>
>
> How nice for 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/b43451b7-0beb-457b-b7e9-b81646540f06%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Symposium on axioms of consciousness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 May 2019, at 08:47, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, May 22, 2019 at 9:30:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 5/21/2019 11:33 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Tuesday, May 21, 2019 at 6:51:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 5/21/2019 2:57 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> via Hedda Hassel Mørch @heddamorch
>>> https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/113048705070737817 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> A lot to read:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated information theory of 
>>> consciousness 
>>> Tim Bayne [ https://research.monash.edu/en/persons/timothy-bayne 
>>>  ]
>>> https://academic.oup.com/nc/article/2018/1/niy007/5047367 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Symposium on Bayne, “On the axiomatic foundations of the integrated 
>>> information theory of consciousness”
>>> http://philosophyofbrains.com/2019/05/20/symposium-on-bayne-on-the-axiomatic-foundations-of-the-integrated-information-theory-of-consciousness.aspx
>>>  
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> includes 
>>> Hedda Hassel Mørch (commentary):
>>> 
>>> "[IIT] can also be and is in some ways better interpreted as a form of 
>>> Russellian monism, the view that conscious or protoconscious properties 
>>> constitute the intrinsic nature of physical properties (which physics 
>>> reveals as purely extrinsic and structural), and therefore would not be 
>>> (purely) physical. This could be understood as compatible with IIT’s claim 
>>> that consciousness is identical with integrated information, which could be 
>>> interpreted to say that consciousness is identical with integrated 
>>> information understood, not as a purely physical property, but as a 
>>> property that may include a non-physical intrinsic nature."
>> 
>> But read https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1799 
>> 
>>  first.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I think Scott (who wrote that in 2014) needs to read this symposium article.
>> 
>> He knows something about - and may be considered an expert in - 
>> computational complexity (classical and quantum), but he doesn't know much 
>> more than anyone else outside his specialty, especially - he doesn't know 
>> much about the subject of consciousness.
> 
> Neither does Tononi.  And Scott knows how to calculate integrated information.
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> "integrated information" (in the context of consciousness science) is not a 
> well-defined term. That was part of what the underlying paper (on "axioms") 
> and commentary critical of IIT was all about.
> 
> So why doesn't Scott write an update post from the one he wrote 5 years ago? 
> Because he is not in the field of conscious science - his field is 
> computational complexity, which is pretty useless in contributing anything to 
> the subject.

I could agree with you, in the sense that computational complexity can address 
some aspect of consciousness, but could be use to hide the conceptual issue. 

As they use mechanism, they should better “just" listen to the machine, and 
what she says about herself.
“Just” is in quote because today that requires the study of Gödel 1931, Turing 
1936, Church 1936, Löb 1955,  … Solovay 1975 (G and G*).

I don’t remember if you agree with the following quasi-definition of 
consciousness, which is that “I am conscious”, from the first person point of 
view of a machine is something verifying the following conditions;

It is immediately known
It is indubitable
It is non provable
It is non definable

The machine has soul, it lives at the intersection of the believable and truth, 
it is like a inner God, nobody can define it, although everybody can use the 
indexical “I” to get a local ostensive temporary “not-a-name” but 3p image in 
the mind of the others.The machine knows that this soul is not just non 
definable, but she can refute explicitly all effective theories made about her 
and what she could be. 

The Gödel-Löbian machine can destroy effectively all reductionist conception 
you could have about her.

And that does not need a lot of complexity. Just Robinson Arithmetic (RA, a sub 
theory of all branches in “exact sciences” if not implicit in most human 
sciences as well) + the induction axioms (the axioms responsible for the rich 
cognitive ability. (RA emulates all machines, and I interview the richer Löbian 
machine that RA emulates. I mean, the induction axioms are not in the 
ontological part). Arithmetic emulates/enacted relative numbers believing in 
sets and infinities.

Bruno




> 
> @philipthrift
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 May 2019, at 05:30, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 5/22/2019 6:31 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 21 May 2019, at 20:59, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>>  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 5/21/2019 2:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 3)  I don't even know what it would mean for consciousness to be 
> provable, nor why that is relevant.
 It is part of the axiomatic definition we search.
 
 Of course it is the proposition “I am conscious” which is both immediately 
 true and not provable.
>>> Of course whether it is immediately true is what is in question.
>> “I am conscious” is the experience, not the 3P description of the brain 
>> which might make that experience manifestable.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> When you speak the words, "I am conscious." are you conscious at that 
>>> moment.
>> Yes. Normally. Obviously, we can have fever, get mad, but all this are 
>> irrelevant for the logical reasoning.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> I remember a scifi story in which aliens who communicate telepathically (by 
>>> EM as I recall) visit Earth.  They can "read the minds" of humans but they 
>>> are frustrated in trying to communicate with humans because the humans keep 
>>> opening their mouths and producing vibrations and whenever they do this, 
>>> their "minds" go blank.
>> OK. But that is science-fiction. The immediacy factor is subjective. If the 
>> human say “I am conscious”, its perception of consciousness seems direct. 
>> Some notorious experience by Libet show that a decision we believe being 
>> made consciously is actually already done unconsciously before the decision 
>> is conscious,
> 
> Also the Grey Walter experiments.


Yes. 

We could say that all this is obvious with mechanism. A machine cannot be 
directly aware of the happenings leading to his awareness or its decision. I 
prove this explicitly in my long-texte, and it can be related to “hen kin 
virus” of Hofstadter and Solovay, and some other theorems in mathematical 
logic. A machine cannot define God, but, curiously enough, it can define the 
singleton God. A machine cannot provides the total trace of its computation 
made to output that trace. Indeed, a machine programmed to do that will either 
never stop, or stop only on partial incomplete description of the trace, yet a 
machine can stop on an output which is a program, which when run, will give the 
entire correct trace. 

Now, to conclude like many that this shows that we have no free-will is a 
confusion of level. 
We are not our body, and our history is not our computations. Everything is in 
the abstract true relation, and the phenomenologies entailed by the difference 
between provable and truth (and knowable, observable, …).



> 
>> which is stronger than what I say. The point is the the subject feel that 
>> consciousness is immediate.
> 
> As Dennett has pointed out your brain synchronizes perceptions by 
> compensating for the different delays in being processed and reaching 
> consciousness.  I have noted this myself.  If something unexpected happens 
> like a small explosion this synchronization fails and you hear the explosion 
> before you see it.

If you are close enough … I mean, with the lightening, r atomic bombs, You see 
the explosion quite before the you hear the low frequency thunder of boom. But 
I guess what you say make sense.

Bruno


> 
> Brent
> 
>> That happens in both the []p & <>t and []p & <>t & p self-reference modes. 
>> The Kripke accessibility relation islets the transitivity in the 
>> communicable part and incommmunicable parts (handled by G and G* 
>> respectively).
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5afbc28e-2f3c-31ba-7993-968990071f18%40verizon.net.
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/bd76cadb-c855-ff33-3a61-f89b6be75270%40verizon.net.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8AF5C7EF-B665-45D3-B434-5A7E02801B6C%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[howardmarks]

Haha! Yes, indeed!
In Florida and telephone, I had the privilege of talking to Randi, and 
the "light"  of truth and justice illuminating his person was marvelous! 
He & Houdini had a lot in common - truth-seeking, and used their skills 
as master magicians to spot deceit. Of course, it helped that Randi was 
an amateur scientist early on. He inspired many, including Penn & Teller 
( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=99_upx8URLI ).

Cheers! Howard Marks

On 5/26/2019 9:35 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 9:20 PM howardmarks > wrote:


> in James Randi's case, he was saddened by the amount of fraud done
on innocent people who called themselves "psychic," telepathic,"
able to "talk with the dead" and so forth.


And Houdini did much the same thing a century ago. Scientist are good 
at finding the truth by observing nature but stage magicians have a 
better skill set at detecting the deceitfulness in people. I respect 
Houdini and Randy because unlike slimeballs such as Uri Geller they 
always said everything they did were just clever tricks but the 
audience was entertained by trying to figure out how they did it.


By the way you can buy Uri Geller spoon bending trick on Ebay, it cost 
$2.68


Spoon Bending Gimmick Close-up Street Magic Magician Trick 



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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1JniVB1pT%2BseLT2rkdepKVtBBC%3DAJpXqNa-BYRjh4NSg%40mail.gmail.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/cc326f0e-984c-8f20-1417-02c5b5eec239%40doitnow.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[Tomasz Rola]

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 05:36:39PM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
wrote:
> 
> On 5/25/2019 8:12 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
[...]
> >researchers should train their methodolody on something that should be
> >much easier, like, say, proving existence of romantic love? In a lab,
> >with cameras etc. And, of course, give a prize to those who can
> >successfully demonstrate it on themselves.
> 
> Since each claimant to the prize got to specify themselves what
> would demonstrate their supernatural ability, people claiming to
> love one another would simply say having passionate sex would prove
> it and then proceed to demonstrate it.

Really. I was thinking about something less violent and more along the
lines of Baucis and Philemon.

If you are 18+ I would recommend that you watch even one adult
movie, for educational purposes.

But, if you are serious, how are the claimant(s) going to prove the
passionate-ness of his/her/their (we should not prejudice against
onanists) act? By counting shoutings per minute? broken bones?

[...]

-- 
Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.  **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home**
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...  **
** **
** Tomasz Rola  mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20190526162825.GA17832%40tau1.ceti.pl.

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

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 23 May 2019, at 01:14, Russell Standish  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, May 22, 2019 at 03:14:43PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> 2147 Breaking News:
>> Alfred has used a very cheap teleportation device to go on Mars. He seemed 
>> OK and claimed he has not changed, but his wife believes he lost his sense 
>> of humour. 
>> An inquest revealed that the the substitution level chose by the candidate 
>> were indeed not always used, and very often the society used a much higher 
>> level.
> 
> This makes more sense if the French word "société" is translated as
> "company" rather than "society". One the many faux frères - pairs of
> similar words with distinctly different meanings in French and
> English.

“Company", yes. You are right. 

My right brain know that, but my left brain is slower than my hands.

I will repeat “company” one hundreds time, hoping my left brain get the message.

Thank you for the correction,

Bruno




> 
>> Many users lost some psychological trait, like sense of humour, or some 
>> memories, or even the ability to have REM sleep.
> 
> -- 
> 
> 
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
> Principal, High Performance Coders
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/20190522231425.GS5592%40zen.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/D39DEA75-EB31-4382-AB14-C32B6C938620%40ulb.ac.be.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

[howardmarks]

You are smarter than all of us, Cosmin!

On 5/26/2019 6:48 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
See ? You don't understand anything from what Bruno is saying. You 
only spot the word "Turing", you also heard about the "Turing test", 
and you shallowly concluded that that is what Bruno is talking about. 
No. He is talking about all kinds of weird stuff, like numbers that 
are alive.


But of course, people always want to show how smart they are, that's 
why they play the "Of course I understand!!!" card. Sorry, this 
doesn't work with me. I'm too smart to be tricked by such cheap tricks.


So let's wait for Bruno to tell us how are numbers alive.

On Saturday, 25 May 2019 20:19:49 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:

Bruno's statement is quite understandable. Ya gotta know about the
work of Alan Turing (circa 1950's). He is referring to Turing's
test for human-like intelligent behavior manifestations (of
computers, machines) with the halting issue being whether it's
possible to discover whether an "intelligent" machine will, at
some point, halt or run "forever."
cheers! Howard Marks

--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/451f30ad-a27d-41f2-b949-0bdba970e0ec%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/6f59eaaa-94c2-c505-1f69-d844b885a52a%40doitnow.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[John Clark]

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 9:20 PM howardmarks  wrote:


> > in James Randi's case, he was saddened by the amount of fraud done on
> innocent people who called themselves "psychic," telepathic," able to "talk
> with the dead" and so forth.
>

And Houdini did much the same thing a century ago. Scientist are good at
finding the truth by observing nature but stage magicians have a better
skill set at detecting the deceitfulness in people. I respect Houdini and
Randy because unlike slimeballs such as Uri Geller they always said
everything they did were just clever tricks but the audience was
entertained by trying to figure out how they did it.

By the way you can buy Uri Geller spoon bending trick on Ebay, it cost $2.68

Spoon Bending Gimmick Close-up Street Magic Magician Trick


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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1JniVB1pT%2BseLT2rkdepKVtBBC%3DAJpXqNa-BYRjh4NSg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: The anecdote of Moon landing

[John Clark]

On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 6:07 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:

> *No. You don't understand how telepathy and consciousness generally
> works.*
>

I never demanded you explain how telepathy works I just want you to show
that there is something about telepathy than needs explaining. And nobody
could do that a century ago (back then it was call spiritualism ) and
nobody can do it today. All the hot air produced in the last century
babbling about telepathy has not advanced our understanding of how the
world works by one nanometer, but the babble continues louder than ever.


> > *Consciousness works by unification:*
>

How nice for consciousness.

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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1pcZfcKWQVaHW1%2BGh4c%2BMDskd8pG0g0MztjX%2B22fY44g%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

See ? You don't understand anything from what Bruno is saying. You only 
spot the word "Turing", you also heard about the "Turing test", and you 
shallowly concluded that that is what Bruno is talking about. No. He is 
talking about all kinds of weird stuff, like numbers that are alive.

But of course, people always want to show how smart they are, that's why 
they play the "Of course I understand!!!" card. Sorry, this doesn't work 
with me. I'm too smart to be tricked by such cheap tricks.

So let's wait for Bruno to tell us how are numbers alive.

On Saturday, 25 May 2019 20:19:49 UTC+3, howardmarks wrote:
>
> Bruno's statement is quite understandable. Ya gotta know about the work of 
> Alan Turing (circa 1950's). He is referring to Turing's test for human-like 
> intelligent behavior manifestations (of computers, machines) with the 
> halting issue being whether it's possible to discover whether an 
> "intelligent" machine will, at some point, halt or run "forever."
> cheers! Howard Marks
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/451f30ad-a27d-41f2-b949-0bdba970e0ec%40googlegroups.com.