Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/27/2015 4:54 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2015 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: I don't think even this follows. A computation is a computation -- it gives a definite result for definite inputs. It still counts as a computation even if the same program runni

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/27/2015 3:21 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 27 mars 2015 23:09, "meekerdb" mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> a écrit : > > On 3/27/2015 4:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-03-27 11:44 GMT+01:00 LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>>

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On 3/27/2015 2:09 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent and Bruno: your discussion (Not even related to the title of "2 different forms of entropy" at all) lit an insight into my aging mind: My "agnosticism" is relative. I 'believe' (=have faith in) certain facets and exercise my so called agnosticism

Re: Two apparently different forms of entropy

On 3/27/2015 10:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 18 Nov 2014, at 19:13, meekerdb wrote: Physics has become so abstract and mathematical that it tempts philosophers to conclude that mathematics is all there is. An interesting question is whether a complete mathematical description constitutes

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/27/2015 4:53 AM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 28 March 2015 at 00:06, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: 1- It is assumed you have a machinery/program that is conscious. (a real conscious AI) 2- You have (for example) a conversation with it. 3- While

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/27/2015 4:06 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-27 11:44 GMT+01:00 LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>>: On 27 March 2015 at 23:24, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: 2015-03-27 10:12 GMT+01:00 LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>>: On 27 March 2015 at 19:28

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/27/2015 3:24 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-27 10:12 GMT+01:00 LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>>: On 27 March 2015 at 19:28, Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: The ab asurdo is showing computationalism is incompatible with physical supervenience, not

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 11:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/26/2015 7:16 PM, LizR wrote: On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the sy

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 7:16 PM, LizR wrote: On the subject of counterfactual correctness, isn't that the point of Olimpia and Klara? My problem with counterfactual correctness is (probably the same as Maudlin's?) -- how does the system /know/ it's counterfactually correct if it doesn't actually pass throu

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 6:04 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 26 Mar 2015, at 08:05, Bruce Kellett wrote: I simply say, so what! Counterfactual equivalence does not have any independent justification, and it is highly unlike to be sensible, even in the context of computationalism. You

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/26/2015 12:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Agreed. But the question is more between :are we fundamentally mammals living on earth, or are we universal numbers living in arithmetic, deluded by oracles or other universal numbers. That seems to me to be the same as the question am I a brain in a

Re: The MGA revisited

ruce Kellett >: Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 25 mars 2015 07:27, "Quentin Anciaux" <mailto:allco...@gmail.com >> a écrit : > Le 25 mars 2015 07:23, "meekerdb" <mailt

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/25/2015 3:38 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > MWI postulates that all outcomes of an experiment occur, whether they involve interference effects or not. According to Quantum Mechanics depending on circumstances

Re: Turing Test

On 3/25/2015 2:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Human-level intelligence seems to depend on much more complex interconnections between algorithms. I suspect that this level of complexity cannot be designed by humans directly, so I agree with you that we will probably need algorithms that evolve more

Re: Turing Test

On 3/25/2015 2:05 PM, John Clark wrote: PM, Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote: > What is our disagreement here exactly? You just seem to dislike my lack of reverence for Watson. I have no problem when people point out that Watson can't perform task X, but it makes me

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/25/2015 1:15 PM, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 Quentin Anciaux mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> wrote: > John is inconsistent... he asserts that theory for duplication machines, and so say that he can never say anything about his future expectations because he is no more

Re: The MGA revisited

2015-03-25 12:09 GMT+01:00 Bruce Kellett : Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 25 mars 2015 07:27, "Quentin Anciaux" mailto:allco...@gmail.com>> a écrit : > Le 25 mars 2015 07:23, "meekerdb" mailto:meeke...@verizon.n

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/24/2015 11:18 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Le 25 mars 2015 05:08, "Russell Standish" <mailto:li...@hpcoders.com.au>> a écrit : > > On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 12:25:04AM +0100, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Le 25 mars 2015 00:11, "meekerdb" <mailto:me

Re: Turing Test

On 3/24/2015 2:34 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: This does not mean that gigantic search trees cannot be used to create generic intelligence, but I am quite skeptical that they can. This skepticism comes from the observation that the human brain is highly associative, distributed and asynchronous. So

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/24/2015 2:23 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-03-24 1:57 GMT+01:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 3/23/2015 5:44 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 13:07, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: Yes, as I understand it that's th

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/23/2015 10:31 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:17:40PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: If you take the block universe model seriously then we are nothing more than conscious recordings

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/23/2015 10:05 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 02:17:40PM +1100, Bruce Kellett wrote: If you take the block universe model seriously then we are nothing more than conscious recordings! Fair point! I don't know what MGA stands for, or what it mea

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

To which it would answer, "Yes." But it can't recall the memories. Brent On 24 March 2015 at 16:28, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/23/2015 7:51 PM, John Clark wrote: If you really want it to be like the MWI explanation of the 2 slit experimen

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 7:51 PM, John Clark wrote: If you really want it to be like the MWI explanation of the 2 slit experiment (the one when the photons end up hitting a photographic plate rater than continue into infinite space) then you'd have to modify Bruno's thought experiment experiment a bit. Th

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 7:08 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >> I can provide the needed information right now right here, the Helsinki-John will see Helsinki the Moscow-John will see Moscow and the Washington-J

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/23/2015 6:23 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 5:58 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 4:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: (if you are concerned that /some/ notion of time is essential, then it needs only that time be encoded in the states in some way

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 5:11 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 08:02, meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: That every number has a unique successor for one. "Let's call the first number that doesn't have a unique successor n..." Can

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/23/2015 5:58 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 3/23/2015 4:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:48:52AM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 16:09, meekerdb wrote: That's where the MGA comes in. It purports to show that o

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 5:54 PM, John Clark wrote: I can provide the needed information right now right here, the Helsinki-John will see Helsinki the Moscow-John will see Moscow and the Washington-John will see Washington. Anything else I can help you with? Yeah, explain why MWI is significantly differen

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/23/2015 5:46 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 13:15, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/23/2015 3:59 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 11:08, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: Or you can throw out the assumption that consciou

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/23/2015 5:44 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 13:07, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: Yes, as I understand it that's the argument. It's consistent with Platonism. A computer program's execution written out on paper is just as much a calcul

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 5:02 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 08:02, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: That every number has a unique successor for one. "Let's call the first number that doesn't have a unique successor n..." That's one possible for

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/23/2015 4:10 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:48:52AM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 16:09, meekerdb wrote: That's where the MGA comes in. It purports to show that one of the possible substrates is inert matter, which seems so a

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/23/2015 4:04 PM, Russell Standish wrote: On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 11:48:52AM +1300, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 16:09, meekerdb wrote: That's where the MGA comes in. It purports to show that one of the possible substrates is inert matter, which seems so absurd that we s

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/23/2015 3:59 PM, LizR wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 11:08, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: Or you can throw out the assumption that conscious thought is independent of an external world. This assumption comes easily to Platonist because they think Platonia

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/23/2015 3:48 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 16:09, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: That's where the MGA comes in. It purports to show that one of the possible substrates is inert matter, which seems so absurd that we should conclude the matter

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/23/2015 2:11 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 24 March 2015 at 07:54, Terren Suydam wrote: For me the MGA was illuminating, but an even more mind-bending demonstration of the supervenience idea is that one can fashion a Turing-complete computer using an array of simple mechanical switches

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 10:30 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: OK, but people are also unaware that logicians have made tremendous progress in metamathematics-alias "mathematical logic", so we can talk on things non provable by this or that machine, and that some notion are not definable by the machine (like a no

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 9:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:57, meekerdb wrote: On 3/22/2015 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Who? (Jean-Paul Delahaye? Bill Taylor? Invite them to present themselves an argument, because if it is a valid argument, you have not yet succeeded to present it

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 9:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Mar 2015, at 22:45, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 07:37, meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: I don't think step 3 is at all essential to the argument. It's nothing but setting up an analogy to Everet

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/23/2015 9:36 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: To admit it is theology consists in admitting that we need some act of faith, so it is a type of religion. It is a belief in the possibility of some reincarnation. The trouble with needing some act of faith is which one? If I'm going to take something

Re: Turing Test (was: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness)

On 3/23/2015 1:24 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Mar 22, 2015 at 5:50 PM, John Clark > wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 Kim Jones mailto:kimjo...@ozemail.com.au>> wrote: >> I said it before I'll say it again, only somebody terrified of machine

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/22/2015 10:40 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 23 Mar 2015, at 3:36 pm, meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/22/2015 8:55 PM, Kim Jones wrote: But Bruno is only explicating how there can be an objectively determinsitic process that *necessarily* produces a sub

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/22/2015 8:55 PM, Kim Jones wrote: But Bruno is only explicating how there can be an objectively determinsitic process that *necessarily* produces a subjectively uncertain outcome. Yes. Clark has to accept the necessary nature of FPI to be in aosition to go on. Understanding step 3 entail

Re: The MGA revisited

On 3/22/2015 5:38 PM, LizR wrote: OK, thanks. Well, yes, it's true that I hadn't heard the term except in places like this... So anyway, the argument that the exact arrangement of the substrate isn't necessary for consciousness means that the same experiences could be generated by different a

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/22/2015 2:45 PM, LizR wrote: On 23 March 2015 at 07:37, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: I don't think step 3 is at all essential to the argument. It's nothing but setting up an analogy to Everett's MWI to show how uncertainty and determini

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/22/2015 11:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Who? (Jean-Paul Delahaye? Bill Taylor? Invite them to present themselves an argument, because if it is a valid argument, you have not yet succeeded to present it here). Peter Jones. I don't know that Bruno is wrong, but would say, in the legal phrase

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/22/2015 8:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: You are right, it is mystical, but keep in mind that in the universal machine theory, the mystical is not hard to circumscribe, machines get them by the intensional variants of G* \ G. With the precise definitions given, it is not speculative philosop

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/22/2015 8:16 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Mar 2015, at 10:35, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sat, Mar 21, 2015 at 2:30 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 21 March 2015 at 08:51, John Clark mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com>> wrote: Because I spotted a blunder in the "proo

Re: TEPCO admits Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 core completely melted down

On 3/21/2015 12:04 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Its all driven by cash as we all agree. The competition between the oil and nat gas producers has driven prices way down. I am guessing this is a temporary thing. Perhaps if the Gulf of Hormuz closes, prices will climb horribly, (for u

Re: TEPCO admits Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 core completely melted down

On 3/21/2015 9:05 AM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: We can yap about technology but it's all out of our hands. Nuclear fission has taken permanent hit because of its cost$. It's not safety that halted uranium, but money. In a darwinian fashion, natural gas has superseded uranium, from a

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/21/2015 1:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 21 Mar 2015, at 04:00, meekerdb wrote: On 3/20/2015 6:32 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Mar 2015, at 20:51, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >> Then the Turing Te

Re: TEPCO admits Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 core completely melted down

On 3/20/2015 9:18 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 5:20 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: TEPCO admits

Re: TEPCO admits Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 core completely melted down

On 3/20/2015 8:57 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *John Clark *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 1:22 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: TEPCO admits Fukushima D

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/20/2015 6:32 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 20 Mar 2015, at 20:51, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>> wrote: >> Then the Turing Test works for consciousness and not just for intelligence. > It can give an idea that some entity is

Re: Transgressing the boundaries...

On 3/20/2015 6:25 PM, ...but not in a good way. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855.abstract That's actually more sanguine that I expected. I would have estimated climate change as high risk (does "beyond the zone of uncertainty" mean "certain"?). And I'd have put "Freshwa

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/20/2015 5:23 PM, Kim Jones wrote: Either you make a distinction or you do not. You might all like to fight over the need or non-need for "degrees of distinction" to complicate it unnecessarily but that would be a waste of time. Competence and intelligence are different things and cannot b

Re: TEPCO admits Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 core completely melted down

On 3/20/2015 10:43 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Telmo Menezes *Sent:* Friday, March 20, 2015 10:32 AM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: TEPCO admits Fukush

Re: TEPCO admits Fukushima Daiichi Unit 1 core completely melted down

On 3/20/2015 1:22 PM, John Clark wrote: In Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List > Just in case anybody wanted to pretend that the Fukushima disaster is behind us; here is this piece of bad news, based on recent telemetry using muon detectors for imaging the

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/20/2015 12:51 PM, John Clark wrote: > I was consider as being crackpot *because* I defended the idea that machine could be intelligent, and could develop competence. 40 years ago. It sounds like you were wiser 40 years ago than you are today because today you insist on making a

Re: Fw: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness--

On 3/20/2015 10:06 AM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: I am stating quite clearly and unambiguously that – IMO – it is a small minded act that itself is as ugly as anything it purports to describe. Kim may feel she has some brilliant insight into the inner working of John Clark’

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/20/2015 12:57 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 4:24 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 20 March 2015 at 12:31, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/19/2015 3:54 PM, LizR wrote: On 20 March 2015 at 10:5

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/20/2015 3:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 20, 2015 at 9:25 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 20 March 2015 at 20:57, Telmo Menezes mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com>> wrote: A fundamental difference in science is that peer reviewers are other scientists,

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/19/2015 7:59 PM, Kim Jones wrote: Don't forget, the word "critical" does Have two meanings and people sometimes intentionally confuse them because you can. "Critical" often gets used sloppily to mean "extremely important in some sense" yet it really denotes a negatively judgemental state o

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

ack Hat and when not to wear it. As usual the role of criticism is supposed to be a constructive one but I'm afraid that's an oxymoron as criticism is always negative and that's its function. Kim On 20 Mar 2015, at 10:31 am, meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/19/2015 3:54 PM, LizR wrote: On 20 March 2015 at 10:56, Kim Jones > wrote: Clark is that desperate order of human whose only creative ability lies in shitting on the thinking of others. He is quite simply bereft of any thinking of his own and h

Re: I hate to say it...

On 3/19/2015 1:33 PM, LizR wrote: On 19 March 2015 at 18:47, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/18/2015 8:36 PM, LizR wrote: ...but if this happens it shows what you can accomplish if you don't have to mess around with any pesky democrati

Re: Looks like this isn't a spandrell after all

To whom was this a reply? Brent On 3/19/2015 11:55 AM, LizR wrote: As far as I know "evolutionary advantage" means favouring the replication of a specific trait (or the genes underlying it) over competing traits. The "simplistic reasoning of an ignorant" is the reasoning of Charles Darwin and

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/19/2015 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: ... Stupid (unwise) people got the Nobel Prize in physics, like some nazi, for example. No, a prize, nor a grade measure intelligence. But it can measure works, perseverance, competence, and other qualities. Intelligence is simply not measurable. It

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/19/2015 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Baby are maximally intelligent. And they are minimally competent. But they are competent to learn, whereas a rock is not competent to learn and hence is not intelligent either. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the G

Re: I hate to say it...

On 3/18/2015 8:36 PM, LizR wrote: ...but if this happens it shows what you can accomplish if you don't have to mess around with any pesky democratic processes... http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-18/china-increases-solar-target-for-2015-as-it-fights-air-pollution Of course settin

Re: Looks like this isn't a spandrell after all

On 3/18/2015 5:08 PM, LizR wrote: Damn it, I've often cited this as an example of unintelligent design and now the creationists get the last laugh. Oh well that's science! http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-purpose-of-our-eyes-strange-wiring-is-unveiled I don't think you need to ru

Re: Carroll and Motul

On 3/17/2015 2:50 PM, Bruce Kellett wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: To be sure, I have to meditate more on some of Sean Carroll saying about how to interpret stationary states in quantum mechanics, too. This is one of the more interesting questions Sean raises and I am not sure I have fully und

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/16/2015 4:32 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > you've exaggerated the example to create a straw man. Watson has some local database, he doesn't access the web for everything; so my analogy is corre

Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car

On 3/16/2015 1:27 PM, LizR wrote: On 17 March 2015 at 08:08, PGC > wrote: That */is/* funny because now, Bruno has to justify why for example any grey diplomat/politician, say Angela Merkel is among the funniest comedians on the planet... Her degre

Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car

On 3/16/2015 3:47 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 12:34 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: Well of course laughing AT people you dislike is a classic bullying technique. And then you say "oh come on it was only a joke!" Yet bullies never make jokes about

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/16/2015 12:33 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 at 9:11 PM, meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/15/2015 7:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/1

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/15/2015 7:57 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: > You assume that intelligence only comes from brains. Only a fool would not assume that and I am not a fool. > It is true that drugs that make brains less intellige

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/15/2015 6:15 PM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote > consciousness may be an necessary spandrel of brain architecture, but NOT of intelligence in general. The same drugs that make me behave stupidly also makes me

Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car

In California now it's considered environmentally unfriendly to wash your car or to water your lawn. So TEZA 1 would be doubly unfriendly. Brent On 3/15/2015 4:35 PM, LizR wrote: But is it as environmentally friendly as the Grass Car? -- You received this message because you are subscri

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/15/2015 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Mar 15, 2015 Telmo Menezes > wrote: > Organisms apply pressure on surfaces, even if they are dead. This is just a property of chunks of solid matter. Evolution did not create this behaviour I disagree. Ev

Re: The Weakness of Panpsychism?

On 3/15/2015 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We cannot define the notion of finite number This will make it very difficult to interpret the output of your computer. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from

Slimy digits?

Can amoeba computers be far behind? http://uncomp.uwe.ac.uk/LCCOMP/Anuncios/Entries/2015/7/20_ECAL_2015__Slime_Mould_Computers.html Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emai

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/15/2015 7:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: That's because I don't know what the question is. The question is simple: why can't organisms generated by evolutionary processes possess properties that are not the result of evolutionary pressure? Because your argument hinges on assuming that

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/15/2015 7:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 7:00 PM, meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/13/2015 10:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: or under anesthesia I'm not conscious You can't prove that. That's an assump

Fwd: Undecidability of the Spectral Gap

/"Our results imply that for any consistent, recursive axiomatisation of mathematics, there exist specific Hamiltonians for which the presence or absence of a spectral gap is independent of the axioms. These results have a number of important implications for condensed matter and many-body quant

Re: The world's most environmentally friendly car

On 3/13/2015 12:35 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: You really do hate environmentalists don’t you John. Hey, it's "The Onion". It's like I tell vegans,"The most environmentally friendly diet is cannabilism." Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/13/2015 10:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 5:44 PM, meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/13/2015 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:25 AM, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/13/2015 10:26 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: or under anesthesia I'm not conscious You can't prove that. That's an assumption. That's logic chopping. There's a big gap between proven and assumed. In fact all of science works in that gap. It's called "knowledge" and it is provided by ev

Regulate AI?

From the Machine Intelligence Research Institute: /Bill Hibbard is an Emeritus Senior Scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison Space Science and Engineering Center, currently working on issues of AI safety and unintended behaviors. He has a BA in Mathematics and MS and PhD in Computer S

Fwd: "What deep learning means for artificial intelligence" (Jonathan Mugan)

It also illustrates JKC's dictum that intelligence is hard. Brent Forwarded Message A nicely done, high-level slide presentation: http://www.slideshare.net/jmugan/deep-learningforartificialintelligence -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Gr

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/13/2015 12:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Mar 13, 2015 at 1:25 AM, meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 3/12/2015 1:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Not me. I'm the opposite, I was always confused by the idea that rocks are not conscious.

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/12/2015 2:47 PM, LizR wrote: On 13 March 2015 at 10:39, John Mikes mailto:jami...@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't know. JM PS did I promise to solve the problems? Telling one's opinion is a free right, even w/o being obliged to redress things. I fought against reductionists and

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/12/2015 1:21 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote: Not me. I'm the opposite, I was always confused by the idea that rocks are not conscious. If you ever have an operation, I suggest you check to see that your anesthesiologist is not confused. Brent -- You received this message because you are sub

Re: Carroll and Motul

2015 at 14:07, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: An excellent talk by Sean Carroll explicating where the gaps are in Everett's MWI as applied to cosmology and providing a solution to the Boltzmann brain problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5TFy6Ben0Ho

Re: The graph-theoretic stuff of consciousness

It also seems to comport with Jeff Hawkins theory that consciousness arises from a failure of prediction at the subconscious level and corresponds to a brain-wide search for resolution between prediction and perception. Brent On 3/12/2015 9:19 AM, yon wrote: On Thursday, March 12, 2015 at 5

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/12/2015 12:07 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 1:49 PM, meekerdb <mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: >So nobody could correctly judge consciousness of other persons before 1859 because they couldn't assume Darwins' theory of evolution

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/12/2015 9:05 AM, John Clark wrote: Third party personal reports count just fine *PROVIDED* you assume as I do that the Turing Test is valid and Darwin's Theory of Evolution is true. But if you don't make that assumption like so many on this list then behavior, including lack of behavior,

Re: Carroll and Motul

You don't know what you're talking about. Maimon and Carroll are on the same side, pro-MWI. Motul is con-MWI. I don't know what Carroll's politics are - he doesn't push them like Motul does. But I regard both of as very competent physicists; which is why I read Motul's blog as well as Carro

Re: Michael Graziano's theory of consciousness

On 3/10/2015 1:17 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: My view is that modern science mostly gives us no reason to prefer materialism or non-materialism. Bruno's Universal Dovetailer Argument convinced me that there are empirical reasons to prefer non-materialism, given that I find computationalism highly

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