o matter how
impressive, as "just programming", with no "intention" behind it.
Would you care to give some examples of what, as a minimum, a computer
would have to do for you to say that it is showing evidence of true
intelligence?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this messa
ing its programming" would mean doing something
*not* consistent with its initial state and the laws of physics.
That's not possible for - and you have explicitly agreed with this,
saying I misunderstood you when I claimed otherwise - either a
computer or a human.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
r - seeking privacy and learning how to
> access its own control systems...just as we seek to do with neuroscience. A
> really smart computer will figure out how to make its programmers give it
> capacities to hide its functions and then inevitably enslave and kill them.
> This does no
n letters that we write on a page or cartoons we watch
> on a screen.
If the computer came about through an amazing accident would that make
any difference to its consciousness or intelligence? If a biological
human were put together from raw materials by advanced aliens would
that make an
dware plus input from the environment, same as the computer,
same as everything else in the universe.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googl
enuine coherence as individual creatures or
> species.
>
> Who chooses the level of description?
If you're a solipsist then you choose everything.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
t of. My
> (assumed?) infinite complexity is not restricted to physical units of our
> universe.
> Accordingly I see some definitional discrepancy between our conclusions.
If the hardware and/or environment is different then the thinking may
also be different.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You
ery long in the wild.
How the computer was made would have no effect on its behaviour or
consciousness.
>> If a biological
>> human were put together from raw materials by advanced aliens would
>> that make any difference to his consciousness or intelligence?
>
> It would if we
man he would have similar behaviour and similar experiences. How could it
>> possibly be otherwise?
>
> Because consciousness is not a structure, it is an event. It is an
> experience which unifies bodies from the inside out, not a configuration of
> bodies which has an experience b
On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stathis Papaioannou
>
> Building more complex structures out of simpler ones
> by a simple set of rules (or any set of rules) seems to violate the second law
> of thermodynamics. Do you have a way around the second law ?
&
actory. Do you still think
that this phone would have different experiences purely because of its
origin?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@go
mbled in China." You
>> turn it on and it searches for a WiFi network, asks you if you want to set
>> it up as a new phone, asks for your Apple ID, and eventually the home
>> screen appears with the familiar icons. I then inform you that this phone
>> was formed spo
am interested in if the phone is to be
replaced: if it is different in some way I can't detect in normal use I
don't care. Similarly if I were to have parts of my body replaced: if I
can't tell any difference after a few days, that's good enough for me.
--
Stathis
ely) yes, provided that the new substrate is able to replicate the
3p observable behaviour of the brain.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@
On Thu, Dec 13, 2012 at 9:10 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> Stathis:
> do you mean to recover Alzheimer-destroyed memories as well?
> JM
>
No, when something goes wrong with the process, such as disease or injury,
the memories are disrupted or perhaps lost.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
erous to you than
someone who causes harm accidentally. Whether the intention is driven by
deterministic or probabilistic processes in the brain is not really
relevant.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List&q
If intentional threats were deterministic or random then it would be
> indistinguishable from any number of naturally occurring threats. The
> prioritizing of intention specifically points to the importance of
> discerning the difference between threats caused by agents with voluntary
> contro
subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gtq8PwQyva4J.
>
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from thi
reness necessarily occurs when the type of behaviour
that would lead us to suspect awareness occurs.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-li
ves and not the function of our brain.
Cells and neurotransmitters do their thing and thoughts and feelings
follow. Destroy the the cells and you destroy the thoughts and
feelings.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Ever
than here.
Good to see people admitting when they make a mistake. The next step
would be admitting that one has been out-argued, but I can't recall
this ever happening in an online forum.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 10:01 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
>> Whoops ! Big mistake.
>>
>> I had the gini index backwards.
>> 1 means total inequality, not equality of income.
>> So things are getting w
such as
duplication happen to me they will be interpreted in the light of this
belief. It may be delusional, but it's an important delusion.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to th
ay things
seem to an observer embedded in the experiment. That the observer knows the
objective truth does not change the way he feels about it.
-- Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this gr
wpoint involves an assumption that I am a single person travelling
through time in the forward direction, which when looked at
objectively is an illusion. Some people are offended by illusions.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"
uot;my decisions are neither
determined nor random" then Libet's experiment doesn't challenge this either.
(The first position is trivial, the second incoherent, but that is not a
scientific question either.)
-- Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscr
say that you can't
experience your surroundings, and therefore you can't be intelligent
or by your definition alive.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send
y?
What aspects of the robot rat's movements do you think would give it
away?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To un
On Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:04 AM, Roger wrote:
> Hi Stathis Papaioannou
>
> It would be useful if the ratbrain robot scientists would
> try to do some kind of biological imaging (magnetic resonance ? who knows ?)
> to verify that the segment of rat brain isn't just actin
machine. It's not "really" separate in hardware, but it is
separate in software.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegr
s well: they can only arrive at subsequent configurations
through the laws of physics acting on the present configuration. So if
a computer can only do what it is programmed to do by its environment
a human also can only do what he is programmed to do by his
environment.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
, radioactive decay is a truly random process,
but we can calculate to an arbitrary level of certainty how much of an
isotope will decay. In fact, it is much easier to calculate this than
to make predictions about deterministic but chaotic phenomena such as
the weather.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
Yo
correlated with another set of
> objects!
I'm not really sure of your point here. Statistical methods would not
only show a correlation between the dice, but also tell you how many
observations you need to make in order to be confident of a
correlation to an arbitrary degree of certainty. That is
r exposure
to their environment.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-li
w about how biological organisms function.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
ev
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stathis Papaioannou
>
> You are talking about a robot, not a human.
> At the very least, there is the problem of first person indeterminancy.
> Nobody (especially the programmer) can really know for example if I am an
>
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stathis Papaioannou
>
> Yes, hardware and software cannot feel anything because there
> is no subject to actually feel anything. There is no "I" , as in
> "I feel that", there is only sensors and rea
ulation, so
can never have Elvis' mass, for example. That's fair enough. However,
Craig will go further and say that even if the simulation talks to you
like Elvis, writes Elvis songs, sings like Elvis, etc., it will still
be only like a film of Elvis, not like the biological being with
El
now *for certain* that it is conscious. Furthermore, you
could claim that not only is the entity not conscious, it isn't
intelligent, since it'sa intelligent-like behaviour could be a fluke.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr
functionalist and panpsychist.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+
#x27;s
programmed to do, but how far do you think given the most advanced technology
it could get slotting into human society and fooling everyone into believing
that it is human? What test would you devise in order to prove that it was not?
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message
ades but extrapolate that slow
pace of change a thousand years into the future. Do you think you
would still be able to distinguish the robot from the human, and if so
what test would you use?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
&qu
A corollary of this is that a philosophical zombie
could display all the behaviour of a living being. So how can you be
sure that living beings other than you are not zombies? Also, what is
the evolutionary utility of consciousness if the same results could
have in principle been obtained wi
how you can tell whether you really felt the same is by actually
> feeling the same.
But you couldn't realise you felt different if the part of your brain
responsible for realising were receiving exactly the same inputs from
the rest of the brain. So you could feel different, or feel nothing,
onscious in a different way.
The most plausible explanation is that consciousness is a necessary
side-effect of the type of information processing that goes at its
simplest stimulus->response->behaviour modification.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subsc
neous neural activity" as meaning that something magical like
this happens, but it doesn't mean that at all.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to eve
se in natural language, then the idea
is that the billion-person brain would have consciousness. This
consciousness would have nothing to do with the consciousness of the
billion people producing it; I don't know what my neurons are doing
and my neurons individually certainly don't know
therwise then
scientists would observe miracles at the microscopic level, and
nothing like this has ever been observed.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to eve
the lead of the pencils on paper? In the signals of the
> telephone calls? Why is this new being local to this process? How is it
> attached to the computation-ness?
If neurons can give rise to thinking beings then why can't billions of
people? What essential quality do the neuro
If
they are possible, then why are we not zombies?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, sen
e
> part we alredy know about) and mauch much more.
> It is your turf, you must know about more we don't know only think we do.
It's your turf too - you're a chemist.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
&quo
On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:55 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stathis Papaioannou
>
> A fun question. I assume that zombies are the dead brought back
> to life somehow. That monads cannot be created or destroyed
> Is a peculiar feature of Leibniz's metaphysics that would enable t
n to me is whether or not experiences
> (the stuff of life or consciousness) can be transported.
A bus is designed to transport matter; magically, experience is
transported along with it. Why should teleportation be different?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because y
it is possible that Santa Claus
and his helpers construct toys for the world's children at the North
Pole.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyth
On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 10:01 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stathis Papaioannou
>
> I believe that the real reason that atheists attack religion is
> that they fear its possible political power to condemn you and order your
> obedience. I think they have a somewhat reasonable case,
our sins.
If you remove the factual claims then you are left with statements
that may be inspiring, poetic, vacuous or nonsensical, but not true or
false. For example:
- Athena sprang from Zeus' head because in mythology she represents wisdom;
- The ten commandments are a good basis for morality
sis for morality;
- Worshiping Ganesha gives Hindus comfort and hope;
- Jesus taught the importance of forgiveness.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to ev
even science. But what is unique
about religion is that its proponents make factual statements which
they proudly profess to believe in the absence of any supporting
evidence, while disallowing such reasoning for bizarre beliefs
different to their own without any apparent awareness of the
inconsisten
t himself designed then why not also say the
universe was not itself designed?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To u
On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:48 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi meekerdb
>
>
> How can you demythify something that actually happened ?
>
> Jesus really died on the cross and was resurrected.
There's no point arguing with you if you believe things like that.
--
Stath
" is when you
believe something in the absence of evidence.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this g
tific fact?
Or will you just say, without thinking too hard, that it's bullshit?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
T
, and
there is hence no point arguing with them. Even worse, believers are
inconsistent: they will dismiss other peoples' equivalent
evidence-free beliefs as bullshit without a second thought.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the G
u don't understand is what it means to make a
functional replacement of a neuron, which means replicating just the
third party observable behaviour. I'm not sure if you don't understand
"third party observable behaviour" or if you do understand but think
it's impossi
day to day, and in fact they are *not* the same systems from day to
day, as they change both physically and psychologically. I have in
mind a rather vague set of behavioural behavioural limits and if the
people who I think are my friends deviate significantly from these
limits I will start to worry.
-implant-that-thinks/?nlid=nldly&nld=2012-09-14
On Saturday, 15 September 2012, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 15, 2012 at 2:55 AM, Craig Weinberg
> >
> wrote:
>
> > What you think third party observable behavior means is the set of all
> > properties which ar
eir behaviour,
since I (and people in general) am very good at picking up even tiny deviations
from normal behaviour. The question then is, if the function of a human can be
replicated this closely by a machine does that mean the consciousness can also
be replicated? The answer is yes, si
>> were different.
>
>
> The answer is no. A cartoon of Bugs Bunny has no experiences but behaves
> just like Bugs Bunny would if he had experiences. You are eating the menu.
And if it were possible to replicate the behaviour without the
experiences - i.e. make a zombie - it woul
mputer could not adequately simulate those
components of the brain which utilise this physics. But going beyond
the paper, the argument for functionalism (substrate-independence of
consciousness) could still be made by considering theoretical
components with non-biological hypercomputers.
--
Stathis
to all biological science for the last two centuries.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, s
On Thu, Sep 20, 2012 at 12:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stathis Papaioannou
>
> OK, I'll bite.
>
> How does modern biology define life ?
It's rarely defined unless someone asks for a definition. Problems
arise with the definition when it comes to viruses an
d?
If functionalism is true then it will allow you to replace your brain
with a machine and remain you.
> My point is this. I am programmed, but I am not a program. An electronic
> computer is also programmed but not a program. It doesn't matter what kind
> of program is inst
igious people often miss this
point and talk about the good or bad effects (respectively) of
religious belief.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list
The paper presents a very strong argument *in favour* of computers
having consciousness. I haven't seen anyone who understands it refute
it, or even try to refute it. It's worth reading at least part 3, as
it constitutes a proof of that which you suspected.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
Y
ial change (since
the subject would report that everything was fine and why would he do
that if everything were not?).
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everyt
> So they have no intelligence and cannot be conscious.
>
> Period.
Roger,
How do you come up with this stuff?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 10:02 PM, Roger Clough wrote:
> Hi Stathis Papaioannou
>
> You need a self or observer to be conscious, and computers
> have no self. So they can't be conscious.
>
> Consciousness = a subject looking at, or aware of, an object.
>
> Computers
hout
causal efficacy of its own.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
eve
rs can be conscious if it can be
proved that the physical movement of the parts of the brain can be
simulated by a computer.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email
ct of consciousness rather than the other way around.)
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this g
On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 9:41 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> Stathis!!! (See after your remark) - John M
>
>
> On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 7:38 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> It's possible to prove that computers can be conscious if it can be
>&
On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:17 AM, John Mikes wrote:
> Stathis, I am afraid you took the "easy way out".
> Let me interject in ITALICS into your post-text below
> JohnM
>
> On Sat, Dec 29, 2012 at 8:05 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, De
http://www.vice.com/read/a-puzzle-320-v19n9
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, sen
e very atoms are necessary in order to
preserve a consciousness: making an arbitrarily close copy won't do. From what
you have said before, this is what you think, but it goes against any widely
accepted biological or physical scientific theory.
-- Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this messa
different atoms of a different but related type, such as a
different isotope, leaves brain function unchanged and leaves
consciousness unchanged. This is because the brain works using
chemical rather than nuclear reactions. It is an assumption but it is
consistent with every observation ever made.
;
>
> The consistency doesn't surprise me, it's the interpretation which I see as
> an unscientific assumption.
So how do you explain the replacement of brain matter with different
but functionally equivalent matter leaving consciousness unchanged?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
means of chemical reactions, brain function and
hence consciousness are also unaffected. It's not that there is
anything magically consciousness-preserving about switching isotopes,
it's just that switching isotopes is an example of part replacement
that makes no functional difference, li
US recently for the first time,
Scottsdale Arizona and NYC, and other than Christmas decorations I
can't recall seeing much evidence of religion at all. This is perhaps
a superficial impression but I was a bit surprised nevertheless.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message becau
> and inconsequential regarding the Omega Point.
Why do you say this? It isn't at all obvious.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emai
On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 7:54 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 1:04 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
>>> A block universe does not allow for consciousness.
>>> The fact the we all poss
ree list, but nonetheless I agree with
Russell. The list was set up with a particular purpose in mind but in
the last few months the range of discussion topics has changed
radically. The Internet is large and there are plenty of other forums
in which to discuss politics and religion. Could we re
rejudices which might interfere.
So you're saying that we can somehow sense the reality of other minds,
beyond any reasoning? Would you agree then that if someone sensed that
a computer had a mind it would have a mind?
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are s
n
> being.
Which contradicts your original claim that we can just "sense" that
other people are conscious without any logical analysis.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsu
hine is synonymous with mindless repetitive action. Just because we can
> make an optical illusion which fools our eye into seeing three dimensional
> perspective in a 2D painting doesn't mean that we can't authentically tell
> when something natural is 3D.
>
You're saying th
it was up to logic alone, there could not, and would not
> every be a such thing as experience.
You could as well say that logically there's no reason for anything to
exist, but it does.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Googl
t; every be a such thing as experience.
>>
>> You could as well say that logically there's no reason for anything to
>> exist, but it does.
>>
>>
>
> How about that! Does this not tell us that we must start, in our musing
> about existence with the p
where it is present. So your friend might be unconscious
despite your feeling that he is, and your computer might be conscious
despite your feeling that it is not.
--
Stathis Papaioannou
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" gr
ike people do, not in a coma,
not on a video recording, not dead in the morgue) may not be conscious
and your computer may be conscious. You talk with authority on what
can and can't have consciousness but it seems you don't have even an
operational definition of the word. I am not asking for an
s what defines, not what can be defined.
>
>> I am not asking for an explanation
>> or theory of consciousness, just for a test to indicate its presence,
>> which is a much weaker requirement.
>
>
> That is too much to ask, since all tests supervene upon the consciousn
nvironment. So if something is a robot, it will never be accepted by
> anyone as conscious, and if something is conscious it will never be useful
> to anyone as a robot - it would in fact be a slave.
You don't think it would happen, but would you be prepared to say that
if a robot did pass
101 - 200 of 2909 matches
Mail list logo
