Sorry, Roger but this is a terribly naïve view of
the physical universe. For instance, how do you
distinguish between machine and non-machine?
wrb
Hi
The universe cannot be a machine.
For life cannot exist without an intelligent observer
(to find food to eat, to judge friend
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou
Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 8:04 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Losing Control
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 3:51 AM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:
>> If a person
The context takes all action, to include the action
of doing nothing at all.
Once the signal is given by the transmitter, then sure it is up to the
receiver of the signal to interpret it. How the transmitter formats the
signal will influence the receiver's reception and interpretation
poss
: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:21:57 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Craig:
When you say that "interpretation is consciousness" you contradict
your prior statements regarding semiosis, that acceptance and action
are not value.
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 8:33 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 1:39:25 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
I have before claimed that the computer is
a good example of the power of semiosis.
It is s
: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:09:28 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Now we are getting some place.
Exactly. There is simply action.
Contexts react to sign.
They react to their interpretations
, March 07, 2013 8:10 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:55:31 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
The falling tree makes sound, the wind make sound, the . makes sound
regardless of your presence (or the pre
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:24 AM
To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:06:20 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
There is information (I take information to be a
manifestation of entropy) and it is always represented
in the f
I have before claimed that the computer is
a good example of the power of semiosis.
It is simple enough to see that the mere
construction of a Turing machine confers
upon that machine the ability to recognise
all computations; to generate the yield of
such computations.
In this sense, a progr
@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:48:19 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:48:19 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Craig:
The mistake you make is clearly stated in your words:
“…doesn’t mean that
Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 7:34 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:52:32 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
I do not hold that the acceptor must exist, for then I
am making a value jud
ing?
John Mikes
On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 2:06 AM, William R. Buckley
wrote:
There is information (I take information to be a
manifestation of entropy) and it is always represented
in the form of a pattern (a distribution) of the units
of mass/energy of which the Universe is composed. I
think t
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:27 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:07:00 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
The fact that a machine can act
PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:03:31 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Craig,
You build an automaton, place it and turn it on, and from that point in time
forward
the automaton reacts to accep
nothing that I type here. It doesn't know what the
Everything List is - not even Google knows what it is - only that the string
of characters in the name is to be associated with an ip address.
Craig
2013/3/2 William R. Buckley >
>Thinking about how information content of a me
thing-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:14 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:03:28 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wro
-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:06:20 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
There is info
There is information (I take information to be a
manifestation of entropy) and it is always represented
in the form of a pattern (a distribution) of the units
of mass/energy of which the Universe is composed. I
think that semiotic signs are simply specific bits
of information; I will use the
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 4:48 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Saturday, March 2, 2013 6:40:44 PM UTC-5, Will
M UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
>I can use a phonetic transliteration to recite an Arabic
>prayer without even knowing what words are being spoken,
>let alone the meaning of those words.
If your argument is that you have no knowledge of what you
are doing, of the soun
>I can use a phonetic transliteration to recite an Arabic
>prayer without even knowing what words are being spoken,
>let alone the meaning of those words.
If your argument is that you have no knowledge of what you
are doing, of the sounds you make in recitation, then you
have capitulated
wrote:
On 3/1/2013 8:39 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
> And therein do you see the arbitrariness of either choice.
>
> The universe is subjective, not objective.
Is that just your opinion...or is it objectively true.
It's an educated guess, and a provocation. On what basis
rch 01, 2013 7:11 PM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
>
> On 3/1/2013 5:27 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
> >> Thinking about how information content of a message
> > Big mistake. Information is never containe
>Thinking about how information content of a message
Big mistake. Information is never contained with but
exactly one exception, an envelope.
I made this point with Jesper Hoffmeyer regarding a
statement in his book Biosemiotics, that information
is represented but not contained in that repr
Also, we do not experience a reality. We experience something
(consciousness, mainly) and we extrapolate reality from that, and from
theories already extrapolated.
Bruno has it down!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" g
Nice to know something of the man on the other end of these emails!
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:25 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Biography, roger clough, Soles, 1963
> Solipsism makes everyone zombie except you.
>
> But in some context some people might conceive that zombie exists,
> without making everyone zombie. Craig believes that computers, if they
> might behave like conscious individuals would be a zombie, but he is
> no solipsist.
>
> There is no test
> Hi William R. Buckley
>
> You can speak to a potential test subject,
> but it can only reply if it indeed has a mind.
This is an assumption you make.
> This is the Turing test, the results of which are not
> certain. But it is the only test I can think of unless
> you
Just because the individual holds the position that he/she is the
only living entity in all the universe does not imply that such a
person (the solipsist) is incapable of carrying on a conversation,
even if that conversation is with an illusion.
For instance, I have no logical reason to believe
>
> $$$ 1) Well it's an indeterminantcy, but which path is chosen is
> done by the geometry of the location
> or test probe, not the same I would think as logical choice (?)
> So I would say "no."
> ...
> Note that intelligence requires the ability to select.
>
>
> BRUNO: OK. But th
Roger:
Please then describe for us in detail however painstaking
that model of consciousness which you hold, and your means
of determining intelligence. That is, present for us in
clear text your measures; the waving of hands is specifically
disallowed as an offering of answer to this challen
esday, September 04, 2012 9:10 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
2012/9/4 William R. Buckley
Seems funny that Turing ".assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers." given that the tape i
Seems funny that Turing ".assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers." given that the tape is assumed to be infinite.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:59 AM
To:
wrong.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:40 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Non-causal evolution and the innate intelligence of life.
Hi William R. Buckley
IMHO, stemming
ct: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
William,
On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled by
the genome. As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there
are a
no Marchal
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 2:28 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
William,
On 30 Aug 2012, at 22:27, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
I rather take issue with the notion that the liv
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form -
i.e. DNA).
It
computers IMHO cannot
exhibitintelligence
Hi William R. Buckley
A set of instructions (DNA) can not create a living chimpanzee all by itself.
Roger Clough, <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net> rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd
This statement is blatant vitalism, and in the traditional (ancient) sense:
So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.
DNA has nothing inside of it that is critical to the message it represents.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:every
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012
Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by
biological organisms and others that are not. There would be no bump from
cell to animal to human being, or even from molecule to cell - vitalism
would be that living cells are composed of life-giving molecules which are
fundamenta
Consider that we begin with a living, biological cell.
Next, we begin to remove systems and elements from the cell,
and replace them with non-biological alternatives. For example,
we replace the genome and nucleic acid production system with
a nanotechnology systems that yields the same
Roger:
It is my contention, quite to the dislike of biologists generally methinks,
that DNA is a physical representation of program.
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e.
DNA).
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything
er database with a dynamic search engine to animate it and you have a
simulation that will pass the test of the Imitation game, but it has no
Elvis in it whatsoever. It is a cartoon.
Craig
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 6:58:41 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:03 AM, William R. B
hat's it. That's all you are going
to ever get out of the damn abacus. It isn't going to jump up and make you
pancakes. It isn't a 'claim' to say that, it is an understanding of what is
actually possible, what isn't and why.
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 5:17:36
ns of that description. If
you are claiming that GoL can produce something other than meaningless
iterations of quantitative pixels, then the burden of proof is on you. Where
is the Elvis?
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:13:22 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:
Proof of non-sequitur. You assert
ist@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:45 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:55:54 PM UTC-4, William R. Bu
groups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:55:54 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:
No, it is not ad hominem. It is a serious issue.
Are they mutually exclusive? Telling someone they have a bad haircut could
be a serious
supports lower levels of what we are
for the quasi-independence of the spectrum of identity which we embody.
Craig
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:13:23 AM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:
Roger:
I suggest that at root, you have vitalist sympathies.
wrb
From: everyth...@googlegr
Bruno:
Will you please cite the theorem of Kleene.
All:
Living systems are not the material from which they are constructed (upon which
they exist).
Living systems are rather the systems of processes and higher, which rest upon
the material
from which they are constructed.
Roger:
I suggest that at root, you have vitalist sympathies.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 4:07 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit in
In all your statements, you are expressing subjectivity.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:55 PM
To: everything-list
Subject: Mornings and afternoons
Hi William R. Buckley
To an
Sorry, Roger:
The universe is purely subjective.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 11:11 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: 0s and 1s
Hi John Clark
You're wrong.
1) Very fe
c.be>
Receiver: everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Time: 2012-08-15, 03:38:37
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
William,
On 14 Aug 2012, at 17:02, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
You抳e turned things around. The implication is context to information, not
Bruno:
Are you reading Stanley Salthy? Know of his work in hierarchy theory?
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Is t
25 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
2012/8/15 John Clark
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:16 PM, William R. Buckley
wrote:
> Regardless of your dislike for the term omniscience
I don't dislike the term, in fact I think I'd rather enjoy be
, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM, William R. Buckley
wrote:
No, Langton's loops do not count. Nor do any published
cellular automaton.
William,
Do these count:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor ?
Read these papers:
Computational Ontogeny, already publish
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 07:22:21PM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote:
> > Dear Russell:
> >
> > When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not
> > its replicant but itself, then I will heed better your advice.
> >
> > wrb
>
>
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
On 8/14/2012 8:35 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
I have done exactly as I challenged Russell.
That you built a machine that built itself would imply that you built
yourself. Which implies you arose from nothing, otherwise there would have
been a prior
Katharine Russell might not agree.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 8/14/2012 7:22 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
Dear Russell:
When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not
its replicant but itself, then I will heed better your advice.
Every machine that
Standish
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:11 PM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
>
> On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:16:47AM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote:
> > John:
> >
> >
> >
> > Regardless of your dislike for the
I think the limitation is better expressed as,
Halting problem - no one arbitrary algorithm can decide whether or not
another arbitrary algorithm will halt.
There are some cases, typically one to one, or one to some small and well
defined set, where decidability is
satisfied. There is no
John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:39 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, William R. Buckley
wrote:
> Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient[...]
Turing's entire reason for i
te:
William,
On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote:
The physical universe is purely subjective.
That follows from comp in a constructive way, that is, by giving the means to
derive physics from a theory of subejectivity. With comp any first order
logical theory of a universal
thing-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
Hi William,
On 14 Aug 2012, at 02:09, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
>From the perspective of semiotic theory, a subjective universe
seems rather obvious.
I don't think anything is obvious here.
What do you mean by a s
Please, a few foundational references on COMP that I
might follow the discussion on Google EverythingList.
wrb
--
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 uns
012 6:09 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
William,
On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote:
Roger:
Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal.
When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the
physi
Roger:
Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal.
When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the
physical universe, he or she necessarily must use some other
part of the physical universe by which to obtain that measure.
QED.
The physical universe is p
I think it is more like, "there's a program in your bug."
wrb
> -Original Message-
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
> l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:41 PM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: scient
I, for one, remain skeptical.
wrb
> -Original Message-
> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
> l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
> Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:17 PM
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: scientists simulate an en
Craig:
Please explain a little further what you mean by *accomplished through
presentation* and in
particular, what you mean by presentation.
Your point number 5 fits clearly within the purview of semiotics.
wrb
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> 1. We cannot doubt that
72 matches
Mail list logo
