Re: Unput and Onput

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 2:56:05 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 18:04, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:57:45 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb wrote: &g

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:36:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 2/4/2014 12:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > But I don't believe that. I think that consciousness is a necessary > aspect of intelligence, > > > OK. > > > and that is functionally observable. > > > It is not. Leibn

Re: Unput and Onput

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:57:45 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 17:32, meekerdb >wrote: > > I don't think there's anything wrong with criticizing a theory on >> something other than "it's own terms". I think Craig might accept Bruno's >> argument as valid but regard i

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 11:54:26 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 04 Feb 2014, at 12:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 4 February 2014 22:32, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > > > >>> My view is that if consciousness is epiphenomenal it's meaningless > >>> to > >>> ask why bodi

Re: Unput and Onput

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 10:51:02 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 14:52, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:19:51 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 8:57:26 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, February 4, 2014, David Nyman > > wrote: > >> On 4 February 2014 11:46, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> >> > Why? You agree that there is still one way causal link. That is >>> > consciousness is a necessary side,

Re: Unput and Onput

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 9:19:51 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 13:19, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > Because silicon happens to have been disallowed for biological experience. >> Silicon and carbon are symbols and signs of the footprint of

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:57:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Feb 2014, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:17:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote: >&g

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:37:59 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 11:19, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> It's because you're stuck on the idea that consciousness is something > >> extra and optional. If you could see that

Re: Unput and Onput

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 3:01:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 03 Feb 2014, at 15:33, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Monday, February 3, 2014 2:57:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 02 Feb 2014, at 19:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: &g

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, February 4, 2014 12:17:46 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 09:29, David Nyman > > wrote: > > >> > Does it? You still haven't explained why bodies emit utterances that > >> > appear > >> > to refer to this putative epiphenomenon. Or are you saying that > they're >

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, February 3, 2014 4:25:14 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 4 February 2014 02:26, David Nyman > > wrote: > > On 3 February 2014 12:06, Stathis Papaioannou > > > > wrote: > > > >> If consciousness is epiphenomenal I don't see how that diminishes its > >> importance in any way, let

Re: Edgar, Personal Attacks, and the Real Consequences of Comp

On Thursday, January 16, 2014 3:19:40 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 15 Jan 2014, at 20:14, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Liz, (and Dan) > > When people die they vanish from existence. To believe otherwise may be > comforting, but it's just superstition.. > > > In your "theory" perhaps. But

Re: How to define finite

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:46:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > On 2/2/2014 2:36 PM, John Mikes wrote: > > You just scolded John Mikes for assuming he knew what reality is. > > Brent > > Brent: could you refresh my aging memory and 'quote me' with this stupid > misunderstanding? > It was

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:21:21 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:48, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > I have no problem with (what I understand of) Bruno's schema, except that > like all computational or information-theoretic schemas, it places lo

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, February 3, 2014 3:17:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 02 Feb 2014, at 20:31, meekerdb wrote: > > On 2/2/2014 5:37 AM, David Nyman wrote: > > Craig, nothing you have said so far diminishes by a single iota the > significance of the paradox to your theory. It's not so easy

Re: Unput and Onput

Kruger_effect) > > Terren > > > On Sun, Feb 2, 2014 at 12:40 AM, LizR >wrote: > >> On 2 February 2014 06:47, David Nyman >> > wrote: >> >>> On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg >>> > wrote: >>> >>> If you don'

Re: Unput and Onput

On Monday, February 3, 2014 2:57:11 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 02 Feb 2014, at 19:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:36:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 01 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Craig Weinberg wrote: >

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

e physics of privacy is the source and destination of all forms and functions. Forms are a side view of experience which can be appreciated. Functions are a side view of experience which represent participation. Craig David > > > On Sunday, February 2, 2014 7:43:33 PM UTC-5, David Nyman

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 7:43:33 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 2 February 2014 19:48, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > What do you mean by "laying claim to conscious phenomena"? In what way >> does a brain or body lay claim to conscious phenomena? &g

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:18:28 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:28:38 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> > >> On Fri, J

Re: Unput and Onput

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 4:36:46 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 01 Feb 2014, at 21:12, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:16:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: &g

Re: Unput and Onput

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 10:04:35 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 2 February 2014 03:52, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > It's because you don't listen, and then project that quality onto me. It's >> very common I've found. Not everyone is

Re: The Robot and the Wizard

On Sunday, February 2, 2014 6:51:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 10:01 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Friday, January 31, 2014 3:54:54 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> Like,

Re: Unput and Onput

elf is no > cause for shame in such a traditionally intractable subject) but your > reluctance to confront the real difficulties faced by your type of theory > makes further discussion too frustrating to sustain, at least for me. Sorry > if that seems harsh, but there it is. Over and out.

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 6:30:52 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 21:49, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> Found it! >> >> On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:45:24 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 31 January

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 7:56:29 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 20:33, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:53:30 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: >> >>> On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:48:04 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 2 February 2014 08:41, Bruno Marchal > > wrote: > > >> There can be no zombies if consciousness is epiphenomenal. > > > > > > Just to be sure, I agree with that. > > > > I asked "why?" because I was thinking at the meta

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

Found it! On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:45:24 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 31 January 2014 01:52, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > The "we" of individual human beings relies on physical consistency because >> that is a common sensory experience of the ani

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:53:30 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > I get around that with perceptual relativity. When flying over a city, it >> doesn't look like there are millions of conscious ent

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:16:43 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 01 Feb 2014, at 13:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:54:10 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > I must have lost the thread. This Google Groups format is always burying >> threads for me. If I can find it, I'll definitely reply. &g

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:47:31 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 16:55, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > If you don't see how my 'theory' automatically trumps any logical >> objection then you don't understand my theory f

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 11:32:03 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 15:44, Craig Weinberg > > wrote > > Neither comp nor any other TOE can consistently make reference to input or >>> output extrinsic to itself, >>> >> >> U

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 8:54:12 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 12:13, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > No. The UD has no output. It is a non stopping program. "everything >>> physical and theological" appears through its intens

Re: Block Universes

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 2:05:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > There seems to be a bit of confusion about this idea. Some people on the > list seem to abhor the idea of a block universe, but when they attack the > concept, they invariably go for straw men, making statements like "change > ca

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 4:54:47 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Jan 2014, at 21:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 5:09:05 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Jan 2014, at 22:58, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >> On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>

Re: Unput and Onput

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:26:34 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 17:30, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> It's not an assumption, it is a question. I am asking, what good is >> computation without input/output and isn't the f

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, February 1, 2014 12:15:26 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 13:22, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: >> >> On Friday, January 31, 2014 5:32:49 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> It emerges along the time axis. Evolution, for example, can op

Re: Unput and Onput

On Friday, January 31, 2014 11:03:14 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 10:52, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> Right, but that's my point. Computationalism overolooks its own >>>> instantiation through input. It begins assuming that cod

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Friday, January 31, 2014 5:32:49 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 01:40, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:22:12 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>

Re: Unput and Onput

On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:16:12 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> > Is there any instance in which a computation is employed in which no >>> > program or data is input and from which no data is

Re: Unput and Onput

On Friday, January 31, 2014 4:09:38 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 1 February 2014 01:33, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:15:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >>

Re: The Robot and the Wizard

ar so I'm playing with ideas (and cannibalizing clipart). > > > On 1 February 2014 08:40, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> <https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-jOYKKp02FSU/Uuv8Dx3eOmI/AdU/bjA76WPypzU/s1600/robotwiz3.jpg> >> >> --

Re: Unput and Onput

On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:47:01 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Jan 2014, at 03:23, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > Maybe it will help to make the sense-primitive view clearer if we > > think of sense and motive as input and output. > > > > Th

The Robot and the Wizard

-- 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 eve

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:28:38 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > > > > On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > >> > >> Hi Edgar, > &

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Friday, January 31, 2014 8:08:32 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > Hi Edgar, > > On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 1:13 PM, Edgar L. Owen > > wrote: > > Liz, > > > > Your mouth sure has to move a lot to tell us it's not moving! > > > > The problem is not that static equations DESCRIBE aspects of

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 7:14:18 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 31 January 2014 02:51, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> > Had we not already discovered the impossibility of resurrecting a > dead > >> > person with raw electricity, wou

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:22:12 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 31 January 2014 17:19, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> Why do some people have such a problem with "how change can

Re: Unput and Onput

On Friday, January 31, 2014 2:15:55 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 31 January 2014 17:13, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> >> On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> >>> It isn't *essential. *Technically, I belie

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:24:48 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > Why do some people have such a problem with "how change can emerge from > something static" ? It's as simple as F = ma - a static equation describing > something changing. Change is by definition things being different at > diff

Re: Unput and Onput

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > It isn't *essential. *Technically, I believe I/O can be added to a > computer programme as some sort of initial settings (for any given run of > the programme). > Added how though? By inputting code, yes? > Obviously this is

Unput and Onput

Maybe it will help to make the sense-primitive view clearer if we think of sense and motive as input and output. This is only a step away from Comp, so it should not be construed to mean that I am defining sense and motive as merely input and output. My purpose here is just to demonstrate that

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 4:08:31 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 16:33, Bruno Marchal >wrote: > > Not really. Somehow, you conflate levels and points of view. It is a sin >> of reductionism :) >> You do the "mistake" of those who deny compatibilistic free-will. >> >> Of

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:45:51 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 29 January 2014 05:39, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:37:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > >> > >> On 27 January 2014 16:07, Craig Wei

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 10:48:55 AM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 02:19, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> But how then could any such sequence of extrinsic events possibly be >>> linked to anything outside its causally-closed circle of

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 6:46:52 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 29 Jan 2014, at 23:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >> >> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 11:26:17 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 13:30, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> > What's wrong with the way a cadaver functions? > >> > >> Many changes occur after death, the end result of whic

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Thursday, January 30, 2014 12:19:56 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 16:00, meekerdb > > wrote: > > On 1/29/2014 5:06 PM, David Nyman wrote: > > > > On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >>> > >>&g

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:21:44 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 10:00, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:46:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > >> > >> On 30 January 2014 09:39, C

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 8:06:03 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 29 January 2014 22:15, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> The problem that concerns me about this way of looking at things is that >>> any and all behaviour associated with consciousness -

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 7:10:30 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 12:45, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:38:22 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 30 January 2014 12:32, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >&

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:38:22 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 12:32, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:22:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 30 January 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >&

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:22:43 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 12:21, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:13:35 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 30 January 2014 12:09, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >&

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:13:35 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 12:09, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:01:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 30 January 2014 11:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >&

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 6:01:19 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 11:39, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>> >&

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:46:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> > >> On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Wein

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:46:25 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > > > On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > >> > >> On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Wein

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 5:38:04 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 30 January 2014 11:24, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:34:48 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > > NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS. >> > > And we know that because we can say it in all capital letters, or possibly > fro

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 3:56:34 PM UTC-5, David Nyman wrote: > > On 28 January 2014 18:25, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > That's because the theory prevents the truth about it from being accessed. >> The theory of comp is blind to its blindness, and demands to

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 8:37:04 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 27 January 2014 16:07, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> Do you think Barack Obama is conscious? If you do, then in whatever > sense > >> you understand that, can the Chinese Room a

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 12:31:07 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Jan 2014, at 13:36, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:23:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 6:09:33 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Jan 2014, at 07:52, LizR wrote: > > On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: >> >> On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>>

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 1:52:47 AM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 28 January 2014 17:35, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: >> >> On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >> >>> On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg wrote: >>&g

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Tuesday, January 28, 2014 5:23:02 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Jan 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: &g

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:24:06 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 28 January 2014 10:59, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> >> I think that 0+1=1 already requires consciousness. If we assume that from >>> the start, then all further argument is begging the qu

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, January 27, 2014 6:15:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:28, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:18:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 25 Jan 2014, at 15:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: >

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Monday, January 27, 2014 5:57:55 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 27 Jan 2014, at 06:07, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> >> >> On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 5:18:53 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 25 Jan 2014, at 15:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:41:30 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: >> >> On 25 January 2014 00:26, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 11:36:11 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > > On 26 January 2014 01:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >> But that doesn't answer the question: do you think (or understand, or > >> whatever you think the appropriate term is) that t

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 1:41:30 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 25 January 2014 00:26, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > >> Tell me what you believe so we can be clear: > >> > >> My understanding is that you believe that if the parts of the C

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Friday, January 24, 2014 12:31:33 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 24 January 2014 01:15, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > > > > > On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:39:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > >> > >> On 13 January 2014 00:40, Craig W

Re: A humble suggestion to the group

On Thursday, January 23, 2014 2:18:50 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Jan 2014, at 15:29, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > > > Consider the posts

Re: A humble suggestion to the group

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 6:14:35 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > Consider the posts by Craig. He said clearly "no" to that question, > making his assumption (existence of a primitive sense) coherent. But > he used his assumption to justify his negation of comp, but that is > u

Re: Better Than the Chinese Room

On Thursday, January 23, 2014 5:39:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > On 13 January 2014 00:40, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > > Here then is simpler and more familiar example of how computation can > differ > > from natural understanding which is not susceptible to an

Re: what is the definition of computation?

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:46:26 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 23 January 2014 03:13, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> Consciousness uses computation to offload that which is too monotonous to >> find meaningful any longer. That is the function of computation, &

Re: what is the definition of computation?

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:17:25 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Craig, > > On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:19:54 AM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:08:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: >>> >&g

Re: Donald Hoffman Video on Interface Theory of Consciousness

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:26:15 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote: > > Dear Craig, > > On Thursday, January 16, 2014 2:54:19 PM UTC-5, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, January 15, 2014 2:59:50 PM UTC-5, freqflyer07281972 wrote: >>&g

Re: what is the definition of computation?

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:08:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform symbolic >> bodies. The effectiveness of computation derives from its metaphorical

Re: what is the definition of computation?

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 11:08:45 PM UTC-5, Liz R wrote: > > On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg > > wrote: > >> Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform symbolic >> bodies. The effectiveness of computation derives from its metaphorical

Re: what is the definition of computation?

irritating features. > > > On 22 January 2014 17:08, LizR > wrote: > >> On 22 January 2014 15:04, Craig Weinberg >> > wrote: >> >>> Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform symbolic >>> bodies. The effectiveness of c

Re: what is the definition of computation?

Computation is the nested, recursive enumeration of uniform symbolic bodies. The effectiveness of computation derives from its metaphorical application to material bodies, which can, through physical properties, be manipulated to deliver results which satisfy our expectations. Computation is no

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

That's pretty much what I thought. The idea that the sum of such a series *equals* 1/2 I think is only one way to make sense of it. Who says that a rational number is even an option? What if +1 and -1 are absolute, like 'moving' and 'static'. There is no 1/2 moving. Still, it's interesting to p

Re: everything list note :)

At least the music metaphor has aesthetic appreciation, performance, and an audience. Information/computation has none of those things unless we arbitrarily add them. Craig On Friday, January 17, 2014 4:10:50 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: > > Mostly lurking here… and have off and on for years >

Re: Tegmark's New Book

On Friday, January 17, 2014 11:30:16 AM UTC-5, Edgar L. Owen wrote: > > Quentin, > > No, not at all. They are NOT at the same spacetime coordinates because > their clock time t values are different. Only if their clocktime t values > as well as their x,y,z values were the same would they be at

Re: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

On Friday, January 17, 2014 1:03:15 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 17 Jan 2014, at 03:11, LizR wrote: > > On 17 January 2014 14:17, Stathis Papaioannou > > wrote: > >> Historically, AI researchers did not consider the question of whether >> a computer that behaves intelligently was cons

Re: Sum of all natural numbers = -1/12?

> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_Thought_(The_Hitchhiker%27s_Guide_to_the_Galaxy)#Deep_Thought > > > 2014/1/17, Alberto G. Corona >: > > That is absolutely wrong. Everyone know that the result is 42 ;) > > > > 2014/1/17, Craig Weinberg >: > >> > http://s

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >