With apologies that I have not been following the
discussion under this subject header, but a question
occurred to me that goes beyond the conventional notion
of computation as regards 'computer/computing' operations.
Are any models of 'theoretical' computers (or more
properly: 'computation
Stathis,
The reason for lack of responses is that your idea
goes directly to illuminating why AI systems - as
promoulgated under current designs of software
running in hardware matrices - CANNOT emulate living
systems. It an issue that AI advocates intuitively
and scrupulously AVOID.
Pain in
Stathis,
As I was reading your comments this morning, an example
crossed my mind that might fit your description of in-place
code lines that monitor 'disfunction' and exist in-situ as
a 'pain' alert .. that would be error evaluating 'check-sum'
computations.
In a functional way, parallel
Yes Stathis, you are right, 'noxious stimulus' and
'experience' are indeed separable - but - if you want to
do an analysis of comparing, its important to identify
global parameters and potential analogs.
My last post's example tried to address those components.
I've seen stress diagrams of
Just to throw a point of perspective into this
conversation about mimicking qualia.
I posed a thematic question in my 1992 opus
Understanding the Integral Universe.
What of a single celled animus like an amoeba or paramecium?
Does it 'feel' itself? Does it sense the subtle variations
in its
Brent Meeker wrote:
If consciousness is the creation of an inner narrative
to be stored in long-term memory then there are levels
of consciousness. The amoeba forms no memories and so
is not conscious at all. A dog forms memories and even
has some understanding of symbols (gestures,
Brent Meeker wrote:
That notion may fit comfortably with your presumptive
ideas about 'memory' -- computer stored, special-neuron
stored, and similar. But the universe IS ITSELF 'memory
storage' from the start. Operational rules of performance
-- the laws of nature, so to speak --
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Perhaps none of the participants in this thread really disagree.
Let me see if I can summarise:
Individuals and societies have arrived at ethical beliefs
for a reason, whether that be evolution, what their parents
taught them, or what it says in a book believed to
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 03-janv.-07, à 16:36, Stathis Papaioannou wrote (in more than one
posts) :
Maudlin starts off with the assumption that a recording being
conscious is obviously absurd, hence the need for the conscious
machine to handle counterfactuals. If it were not for this
John,
You made excellent points, which I'm happy to
reply to ..
John M wrote:
--- James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
JR:
...
Make it easier -- a coma patient, inert for decades,
re-wakes alone in
a room, registers its situation and in an instant -
dies. Would that
moment qualify
Bruno,
Please be patient for my reply to your question.
I'll compose an answer soon on inertia and change
of inertia and how I reached the notion of
assigning that as the essential-primitive of
Consciousness.
James
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this
John,
My email pgm sometimes (as now) balks at quote/copying
material from emails I'm replying to. So I'll do as best
to reply without having your exact words to refer to.
re Bruno's inquiring about how I link changes of inertia
to Csness, I'll do that in a few days.
re Gendankens - I
Conjecture:
Blackholes imply 'C' is violated/invalidated.
Notion: If the Speed of Light is not just a
fixed constant but a fixed maxima, then, if Newton's
3 Laws of Inertia are to be maintained, especially
regarding 'equal opposite' ...
the current depiction of blackholes being able to
photons (you
believe in) INSIDE once they got in and this is the
reason why the darn blob is black.
Imagination should not be constrained to imagined
reality. MAke it so that it fits.
(Hungarian proverb: Once it's goose, it should be
fat).
John
--- James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote
John M, et al,
It is a fact of existential experiencing that
minds are typically so innured to their millieu
and environmental encounters that 'alternative
interpretations' are overlooked and missed to
appreciation and understanding.
--- When it became apparent to me that
QM -and-
Well, my friend, I am no Georg Cantor, but
I am of a like-mind to him.
What I have discerned, is an important insight
that indeed resolves the chasm, and does, as you
point out, make things mightily more complicated.
There is level of complication that has been with
us all the time, but which
Bruno, et al.,
There is a CRITICAL FUNDAMENTAL ERROR in
Godel's papers and concept.
If a simpler 'less complete' system - which
-includes- its statements, attempts to make
-presumptive statements- about a 'more complete'
corresponding system ... and its relationship to
the simpler 'base of
Brian,
Thank you for starting this thread on Logic and
Contemporary science/math/physics.
I am amazed that there isn't more written on it,
since in my own approach - which comes at a TOE
by General Systems Theory analysis - I saw early
on that a profound relation exists from Platonic
times
Brian,
Your inquiries about FL is an uncharted but important one.
I'd like to suggest though that your approach is too
conventional and 'consistency' is not the ultimate
criteria for evaulating it's connection with validity
or more importantly - feasability - in context with
'logic' - and
Brian Tenneson wrote:
Thanks for your reply. I have a lot to say, so let me try to rate my
breath, as it were.
1. It is nice to hear a human say this is uncharted territory.
.
.
I think my main improvement, while not really coming close to really
answering my question, was
Brian,
Your inquiries about FL is an uncharted but important one.
I'd like to suggest though that your approach is too
conventional and 'consistency' is not the ultimate
criteria for evaulating it's connection with validity
or more importantly - feasability - in context with
'logic' - and
chris peck wrote:
Hi Stephen;
I suppose we can think of time as a dimension. However, there are provisos.
Time is not like x, y, or z in so far as we have no ability to freely
navigate the axis in any direction we choose. We are embedded in time and it
moves onwards in a single direction
far as the
idea that time is a dimension in the same sense that x,y,z leads to
paradoxes if we attempt to move around it. Spatial movement does not involve
paradoxes.
I think this is enough to establish an asymetry in nature rather than just
experience.
Regards
Chris.
From: James N
one way or the other, or whether it can be flipped, or whether
backwards in time need be or neednt be represented by positive integers. One
way or the other, time moves on. And if it doesnt, everything stops.
regards;
Chris.
From: James N Rose [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: everything-list
I suggest you abandon the notion 'bigger'.
essentially because it is incompatible with
the relation called 'symmetry breaking' - which
is a major qualia in modern physics-math.
James
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Does everyone agree with the following proposition:
For all number x,
Interleaving:
chris peck wrote:
Hi James;
Yes, you are definitely a conventional thinker Chris.
Im not sure what this line of argument has to do with the price of peas,
but as I have said, it wouldnt be troubling to me to be considered
conventional. However, I do think you are being
chris peck wrote:
[c^2] is exactly an expression of the presence of 2 temporal dimensions
orthogonally configured, computing against a sheet region not a linear
one. [Rose(c)1995].
What then would it mean for two events to occur in temporally perpendicular
directions?
similar to what it
Ben, You are on the right track, but you missed a
fundamental principle and therefore are missing
advantageous use of it in mapping the question.
The issue comes out as an adjunct one: why is
standard logic insufficient -and- incomplete,
when applying it to observed
An open hypothesis to list members:
Conservation as a 'fundamental rule of condition'
is incompatible and antithetical with any notions
of many worlds.
Either explicitly excludes and precludes the other;
can't have both and retain a consistent existentialism.
J Rose
Bruno,
You struck a personal nerve in me with your following remarks:
Bruno Marchal wrote:
They are degrees. The worst unreasonableness of a (platonist or
classical or even intuitionist) machine is when she believes some plain
falsity (like p ~p, or 0 = 1). The false implies all
assure you it is 'of significance' however.
Best Regards,
Jamie Rose
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 26-mai-06, à 02:50, James N Rose a écrit :
An example at the core of it is a most simplistic
definition/equation.
1^1 = 1^0
[one to the exponent one equals one
Bruno,
Sometimes gedankenexperiments - or even theoretical
contemplations - include unvoiced/unconsidered
presumptions and biases that a system may not
be self-aware of. Benj Whorf brought this aspect
of systemic nature into consideration, in the 1930's,
when he applied Einstein/Reichenbach
The notions of observed/observing, of first vs third,
and all such round robin banter .. all fall down as nonsense
conversation because -no one- has in any real sense
specified the new-functions required to make such
concepts ... a calculus.
There are conflated criteria involved - as well as a
Addendum to my previous:
TO make math sensitive to frame of reference distinctions
and useful in an expanded way added parameter-dimensions
might be useful.
Color coding for example. With new translation operators.
Equations written in red might indicate that attention
be maintained that the
and spiritual advocates.
He didn't do science or logic or math any favors.
Or the future for that matter.
James N Rose
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 01-juil.-06, à 19:59, James N Rose a écrit :
Math and reductive science ignore and dis-consider collateral
co-extancy.
The comp assumption
Bruno,
My email has not gotten through accurately this week.
Just wondering if you had replied to my post of July 2nd
or just let it go?
Jamie
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
also.
You need to think of metaphors as a real-form
of transduction, with all mapping validity retained.
Best of luck Bruno ; someday 'the lightbulb'. :-)
James
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Le 09-juil.-06, à 17:20, James N Rose a écrit :
from July 2, 2006 (lightly amended and then addended
Stephen,
Eric is taking the quest to its logical conclusion.
Even Steve Wolfram hints that pure space is the source
of all instantiation. So the only question that needs
resolution is specifying the natural of the architecture
of that space - and - identifying how it brings entities
forces,
Gentlemen (and Ladies, if some be present here),
I offer you a small bit of wisdom and irony,
presented in a bit of humor.
Statement of vernacular AND mathematical truth:
The universe is an ODD PLACE. (!)
[i.e., it is imbalanced and -not- fundamentally symmetric]
PROOF:
-infinity ---
Stephen Paul King wrote:
Dear Wei,
Interleaving.
[SPK]
Yes. I strongly suspect that minds are quantum mechanical. My
arguement is at this point very hand waving, but it seems to me that if
minds are purely classical when it would not be difficult for us to imagine,
i.e.
To the ISCE list; cc's to related topic listservs.
==
Dear At et al.,
Consideration is a dual-process, not 'either-or'.
When mapped vis a vis holism that is requisitely true.
The consideration of a 'particular' occurs because
such 'particular' -is
Does anyone on-list subscribe to
WorldSciNet?
www.worldscinet.com
I would like to retrieve one article
without having to be a full subscriber.
Assistance would be appreciated.
Jamie Rose
Using standard mathematical notation (not logic notation
per se), is there a way to depict the negative or the
absense of the calculus notion of a real epsilons for
all possible deltas?
That is: calculus presumes that any and all functions
will identify and recognize all partition sizes (aka
Jean-Michel Veuillen wrote:
Then our universe did not exist before there were
intelligent observers in it, which is not true.
I think that is better to say that all
self-consistent mathematical structures exist.
To restrict existence to universes containing
SASs (self-aware structures)
The ancient Egyptians were the first to identify
'mirror' with first-person experience, some 5000
years ago.
The word ankh means both 'life' and 'mirror'
since full living-reality was what visually
appears represented on the surface of 'mirrors'.
Whether there was 'self-experience' there or not
Here is a line of reasoning that is a frontal
assault on extant (inadequate) AI paradigms
conjoined with the question of 'self-organization'
AND
shining a light of awareness on -the important-
Turing/computation question that .. comes AFTER ..
the Halting Problem:
Self-organization .. which
Joao wrote:
Speaking as a devout Platonist ...
About 7 years ago I realized there was
a severe contradiction resident in modern
concepts of Being.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have
established a condition-of-knowledge which seem
to challenge if not negate Platonic thought.
I'd like to
Joao Leao wrote:
James N Rose wrote:
Joao wrote:
Speaking as a devout Platonist ...
About 7 years ago I realized there was
a severe contradiction resident in modern
concepts of Being.
Godel's Incompleteness Theorems have
established a condition-of-knowledge which seem
Joao,
:-) of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
but, he was also unaware of the importance
that -mechanism- -real communication involvements-
are resident in any information relation situation,
as would be that which connects the Ideal and Real
and gives validation/meaning to any correspondences
Joao Leao wrote:
James N Rose wrote:
Joao,
:-) of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
but, he was also unaware of the importance
that -mechanism- -real communication involvements-
are resident in any information relation situation,
as would be that which connects the Ideal
Joao Leao wrote:
James N Rose wrote:
Joao Leao wrote:
James N Rose wrote:
Joao,
:-) of course Plato wasn't aware of QM,
but, he was also unaware of the importance
that -mechanism- -real communication involvements-
are resident in any information relation
Joao Leao wrote:
James N Rose wrote:
If there are no qualia but there are universals --
which cannot be identified except via qualia --
something is awry.
Why so? Why can universals only be identified
via qualia if they are, by definition, what
is not reducible to qualia
[Bruno, please forward this to FoR as I am only
on e-l at the moment]
Dear Bruno,
Thank you for citing Hardy, and your other remarks as well.
The anchor which mathematics provides versus physics
is 'consistency' of (to pirate a term from consciousness
research) 'qualia'. Physics at the moment
Thanks, Matt, yes it helps. It helps me see that the
math becomes problematic under the interpretations.
Arbitrary constraints tint and skew what comes out.
James
Matt King wrote:
Hello Stathis and James,
In answer to the first question, does the multiverse inlude perfect
Dear Federico,
In a mature and open 'exploring community',
especially where people of different language
backgrounds are concerned about coming together,
the responsibility for extracting meaning and
ideas falls as much on the readers as the writers.
Syntax and grammer 'perfection' are secondary
If we are now observing acceleration,
that means there was Inflation (huge acceleration)
and then a huge reduction in acceleration.
So, what bled off the extra original acceleration
momentum? Or countered it?
Are we do believe that this 'dark matter' which
is out there 'increasing
Calm, Steve, calm. :-) Remember my comment the
other evening: It is the appropriate moment in
human thought to change the definitions of
'objective' and 'subjective'.
Implementation is the 'subjective'. Relationship
need not be. In fact, relationship is necessarily
-intangible-, but -is-
Bruno,
Nice story and game depiction; it does help - somewhat - to explain
a more expansive generalization of 'decidability' ..the bedrock on
which 'logic' (at least for the traditional understanding of that term)
relies.
Global consistency 'permits' decidability 'which permits' logic.
But
I would like to gather everyone's attention to point to
an essential conceptual error that exists in the current
debating points of this topic, which in fact has been
an egregious error in logic for the past 2500 years,
ever since Plato.
Recent postings cite:
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
Russell Standish wrote:
On Thu, May 19, 2005 at 07:29:33AM -0700, James N Rose wrote:
I would like to gather everyone's attention to point to
an essential conceptual error that exists in the current
debating points of this topic, which in fact has been
an egregious error in logic
60 matches
Mail list logo
