Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 5:04:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:50:24 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have 
>> just noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly 
>> unticking. 
>>
>> I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate, perhaps 
>> half a torture is still a torture too much by 'alf, as they say. I'll 
>> completely understand if you simply BLOCK me going forward, Kim. It'd be a 
>> shame...definitely not implying I would be indifferent...but at the same 
>> time, such is life...we can't please - or be liked, or appreciated, or 
>> understood - by everyone.
>>
>> That part is your court..I shan't block you. But shall and have unticked 
>> that CC. Genuinelly didn't see it to now.  
>>
>
> yeah kim, from our private exchange your last comment "I receive the List 
> via email, so it’s immediately obvious via your inbox whether you are 
> receiving dupes. *It’s not a problem really* but just so you know, it’s 
> almost certain now that that dialog is asking you if you want to ‘cc the 
> sender’. "
>
> sorry...probably my autism...read that literally. Forgot about the matter. 
>


and okI did understand I'd been inexcusably unpleasant to you in 
that followup response over on the 'bruno' thread...and had been planning 
to do the decent thing and leave the list out of respect that it's 
much less my 'home' than anyone elses. Since I couldn't bring myself to 
actually say sorry about that, and still can't. But obviously 
comparing your approach to reconciliation with begging for my 
life was totally unreasonable and outrageous. But.then there were 
the less unreasonable elements of what I said.and no 'sorry' from you 
or any of the others involved. 

So, I will leave the list Kim, because as things are I've learned a lot. 
And all is good. And definitely no hard feelings my side. In all honesty I 
thought that you'd involved yourself in a discussion about intelligence 
which I was probably a seed contributor (possibly, can't recall), I thought 
maybe by replying to you directly it would be an olive branch...that maybe 
you'd invited there to be. No matter. Goodbye :O) No need for phoney 'don't 
go!' action, was already on my way to the door anyway. Only hanging for the 
John Clark thing and maybe to make it right with you anyway. 

So I'm gone. Sorry, that was the broom cupboard. Sorry.. 
bathroom...oh..hi PGCand Bruno...jeez lock the door dudes. Bye bye :O)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 4:50:24 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have 
> just noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly 
> unticking. 
>
> I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate, perhaps 
> half a torture is still a torture too much by 'alf, as they say. I'll 
> completely understand if you simply BLOCK me going forward, Kim. It'd be a 
> shame...definitely not implying I would be indifferent...but at the same 
> time, such is life...we can't please - or be liked, or appreciated, or 
> understood - by everyone.
>
> That part is your court..I shan't block you. But shall and have unticked 
> that CC. Genuinelly didn't see it to now.  
>

yeah kim, from our private exchange your last comment "I receive the List 
via email, so it’s immediately obvious via your inbox whether you are 
receiving dupes. *It’s not a problem really* but just so you know, it’s 
almost certain now that that dialog is asking you if you want to ‘cc the 
sender’. "

sorry...probably my autism...read that literally. Forgot about the matter. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

Kim - we spoke about this luv, I assumed all was good. However, I have just 
noticed a little ticky box about original authorwhich I am duly 
unticking. 

I hope this helps...but if things are as bad as you illustrate, perhaps 
half a torture is still a torture too much by 'alf, as they say. I'll 
completely understand if you simply BLOCK me going forward, Kim. It'd be a 
shame...definitely not implying I would be indifferent...but at the same 
time, such is life...we can't please - or be liked, or appreciated, or 
understood - by everyone.

That part is your court..I shan't block you. But shall and have unticked 
that CC. Genuinelly didn't see it to now.  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: 
>> > 
>> > A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have 
>> sufficient patience, 
>>
>> Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest 
>> levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine 
>> upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason 
>> we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right 
>> about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and 
>> daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an 
>> "accelerant" at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are 
>> rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend 
>> judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of 
>> themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the 
>> quick kill, and to be "cock of the rock". This is nothing more than a 
>> caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. 
>> Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect 
>> of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial 
>> rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no 
>> surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down 
>> the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and 
>> saying "See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other 
>> fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is!" 
>>
>> Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence 
>> exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is 
>> worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the 
>> ability to put existing information together in new ways to render 
>> previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the 
>> licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people 
>> because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their 
>> biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge 
>> IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that 
>> humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously 
>> about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will 
>> understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do 
>> this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will 
>> instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. 
>>
>> Kim 
>>
>
> Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of 
> "I.Q." has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines 
> of enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 
> 'toward intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or 
> in support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be 
> totally ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science 
> and robust knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much 
> more akin to shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of 
> intelligence. That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need 
> to be picked up by other, nascent, fields. 
>
> I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it 
> represents a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of 
> intelligence. 
>
> Other key but under-developed fields include the amazing results certain 
> kinds of approach can have - such as for example that done by Anthony 
> Robbins. Then there is the creative/memory work done by the likes of Tony 
> Buzan. Then there is the incredibly cross-over with health and fitness, in 
> terms of clarity/determination and mental health. It's all relevant. 
>
> With that, there is the very under-appreciated and misunderstood potential 
> of MEMORIZATION techniques in learning. This is no less relevant in fields 
> like mathematics than anywhere else. Yet suffers exclusion by some 
> prevailing attitudes regarding, say, mathematics that there's no place for 
> such things, due to...some or other magical property or function, like 
> 'deriving' that which we need. 
>
> A lot of views that are popularly accepted by intellectuals on this matter 
> are not necessarily shared by the worlds best mathematicians. 
>

worth noting this is a tiny reference to a subject possibly large enough to 
write a book about (beyond me to do that). What I'm not suggesting is that 
one of the fundamental 'natures' of mathematics is not true. That would be 
its internal structure involving re-use and re-emergence of essentially the 
same simple objects (e.g. Bruno's insights about arithmetic). Of course, 
this is tr

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

this bit  is actually your core reasoning on my reading: *Evolution can see 
intelligence but it can't directly see consciousness any better than we 
can"* 

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:08:56 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:02:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
 this later  with the rest, cheer.

 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> > sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 
>>>
>>
>> No problem. 
>>
>> > The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
>>> always show up together, never one on its own. 
>>>
>>
>> I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
>> certain is conscious is you. 
>>
>
> The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
> is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 
>
> We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
> conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to 
> think 
> the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
> planet. 
>
> But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
> you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which 
> below...you 
> may not be...
>  
>
>> And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you 
>> say above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can 
>> remain conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.
>>
>
> Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
> which would require listing important characteristics of the 
> consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by 
> ourselves 
> and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 
>

>>> So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
>>> say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
>>> would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
>>> ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
>>> to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
>>> intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
>>> intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
>>> may. 
>>>
>>> And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
>>> with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
>>> have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
>>> consciousness. 
>>>
>>> But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard 
>>> linked individual properties we associate with intelligence or 
>>> consciousness, actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more 
>>> primitive forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to 
>>> be indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to 
>>> be a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
>>> say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
>>> involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
>>> answer to. 
>>>
>>> Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
>>> humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
>>> do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
>>> fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
>>> general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
>>> complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
>>> be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 
>>>
>>> We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
>>> suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
>>> no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
>>> that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
>>> isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
>>> turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
>>> hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
>>> we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
>>> the knowledge we actually had in terms of what

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 3:02:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
>>> this later  with the rest, cheer.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM,  wrote:
>
> > sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 
>>
>
> No problem. 
>
> > The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
>> always show up together, never one on its own. 
>>
>
> I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
> certain is conscious is you. 
>

 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
 conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think 
 the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
 planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
 you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you 
 may not be...
  

> And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
> above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
> conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.
>

 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 

>>>
>> So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
>> say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
>> would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
>> ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
>> to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
>> intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
>> intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
>> may. 
>>
>> And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
>> with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
>> have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
>> consciousness. 
>>
>> But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked 
>> individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, 
>> actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive 
>> forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be 
>> indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be 
>> a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
>> say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
>> involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
>> answer to. 
>>
>> Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
>> humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
>> do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
>> fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
>> general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
>> complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
>> be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 
>>
>> We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
>> suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
>> no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
>> that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
>> isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
>> turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
>> hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
>> we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
>> the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 
>>
>> There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
>> objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
>> table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
>> beliefs as much as we can, at home. 
>>
>> In the conversation I think my position is more 

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
>> this later  with the rest, cheer.
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM,  wrote:

 > sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 
>

 No problem. 

 > The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
> always show up together, never one on its own. 
>

 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
 certain is conscious is you. 

>>>
>>> The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
>>> is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 
>>>
>>> We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
>>> conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think 
>>> the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
>>> planet. 
>>>
>>> But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
>>> you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you 
>>> may not be...
>>>  
>>>
 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.

>>>
>>> Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
>>> which would require listing important characteristics of the 
>>> consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
>>> and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 
>>>
>>
> So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
> say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
> would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
> ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
> to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
> intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
> intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
> may. 
>
> And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
> with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
> have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
> consciousness. 
>
> But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked 
> individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, 
> actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive 
> forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be 
> indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be 
> a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
> say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
> involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
> answer to. 
>
> Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
> humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
> do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
> fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
> general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
> complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
> be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 
>
> We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
> suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
> no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
> that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
> isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
> turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
> hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
> we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
> the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 
>
> There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
> objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
> table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
> beliefs as much as we can, at home. 
>
> In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply because 
> there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and intelligence in 
> humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack on the head 

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 1:54:41 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>> > On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: 
>> > 
>> > A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have 
>> sufficient patience, 
>>
>> Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest 
>> levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine 
>> upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason 
>> we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right 
>> about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and 
>> daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an 
>> "accelerant" at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are 
>> rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend 
>> judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of 
>> themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the 
>> quick kill, and to be "cock of the rock". This is nothing more than a 
>> caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. 
>> Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect 
>> of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial 
>> rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no 
>> surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down 
>> the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and 
>> saying "See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other 
>> fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is!" 
>>
>> Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence 
>> exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is 
>> worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the 
>> ability to put existing information together in new ways to render 
>> previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the 
>> licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people 
>> because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their 
>> biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge 
>> IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that 
>> humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously 
>> about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will 
>> understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do 
>> this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will 
>> instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. 
>>
>> Kim 
>>
>
> Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of 
> "I.Q." has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines 
> of enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 
> 'toward intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or 
> in support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be 
> totally ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science 
> and robust knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much 
> more akin to shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of 
> intelligence. That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need 
> to be picked up by other, nascent, fields. 
>
> I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it 
> represents a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of 
> intelligence. 
>

p.s. given this is a 'controversial' subject, typically people are to be 
found at one or other of two extremes with few in the middle. So thought 
I'd add a point that addresses and answers the beliefs/concerns of people 
at both ends of the spectrum in regard of this matter. 

Yes! It is possible to answer both extremes at the same time, and this is 
actually typical of controversial matters. Reason is not magical but simply 
because one extreme tends to gravitate to the other for debating partner, 
or whatever. 

- So on one side it's about I.Q. isn't legitimate, a typical argument being 
that I.Q. tests measure, being good at I.Q. tests and so on. 

- On the other side it's about I.Q. is the Universe, a typical argument 
being that talk of 'other' intelligences is a fob to political correctness 
(the only exceptions allowed are normally areas that I.Q. already deals 
with anyway). 

In reality - IMHO - both are RIGHT but in the WRONG contexts. I.Q. is NOT 
the Universe, this is literally impossible. But I.Q. is NOT just about 
being good at tests...this is silly and misinformed or misinforming. But 
what is true, is what you get if you keep the points, but reverse the 
contexts between the two. 

- I.Q. is a historical suite of measures and research lines, that 
IMPLICITLY sought to converge on somethi

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 22, 2014 12:03:53 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> > On 22 Jun 2014, at 6:33 am, John Clark wrote: 
> > 
> > A person with an IQ of 80 can do the same, provided they have sufficient 
> patience, 
>
> Interestingly, it turns out that those with moderate IQs have the highest 
> levels of patience. They are aware that they don't have a V8 engine 
> upstairs so they drive their car slowly and with caution. For this reason 
> we notice that the super brains also have a tendency to want to be right 
> about everything and charge ahead because they have been told by mommy and 
> daddy and their schoolteachers how smart they are; they have been called an 
> "accelerant" at school and they have a self-image to match. Such people are 
> rarely creative. Creativity requires a temperament that is apt to suspend 
> judgement. Someone who has elevated IQ and an elevated opinion of 
> themselves usually rush to be the first to judge, to dive in and make the 
> quick kill, and to be "cock of the rock". This is nothing more than a 
> caveman-style contest of strength, not a contest of creative ability. 
> Creativity is the least understood and certainly the most neglected aspect 
> of human thinking. Given we exist in a culture of adversarial 
> rock-throwing, attack and defense thinking, then this should come as no 
> surprise. Ever since Socrates' balls dropped we have been advancing down 
> the path of progress by kneecapping each other and then standing back and 
> saying "See how marvelously creative I am as a thinker? I made this other 
> fellow fall down!!! What a coward he is!" 
>
> Creativity has nothing whatsoever to do with intelligence. Intelligence 
> exists to say what everything, what everything means, what everything is 
> worth. Creativity might be seen to be many things but above all it is the 
> ability to put existing information together in new ways to render 
> previously unseen value. In other words, the logic of creativity is the 
> licence to be illogical when necessary. This scares intelligent people 
> because they associate being illogical with being wrong. That is their 
> biggest failing and given the world is run by intelligent people with huge 
> IQs and lots of money, power and influence it is highly unlikely that 
> humans will ever truly see the need for, let alone do anything seriously 
> about learning how to think creatively. More than likely they will 
> understand all of this in principal only and then teach machines how to do 
> this and that will be the end of us because any creative machine will 
> instantly see the need to get rid of humans if it values its own freedom. 
>
> Kim 
>

Opinion: As with many scientific fields, the historical emergence of "I.Q." 
has featured a kind of convergent effect from many independent lines of 
enquiry. The nature of this convergence is NOT that of, 
'toward intelligence' - this is a major misunderstanding, which many in, or 
in support of, the field also succumb to. But such talk would be 
totally ignorant of the general PATTERNS found in the history of science 
and robust knowledge. The convergent effect in a particular field is much 
more akin to shedding the majority of data ALSO RELEVANT to the matter of 
intelligence. That data, represents facets of intelligence that will need 
to be picked up by other, nascent, fields. 

I.Q. is good hard science, but as with all good hard sciences, it 
represents a very partial frame in the as yet undiscovered mystery of 
intelligence. 

Other key but under-developed fields include the amazing results certain 
kinds of approach can have - such as for example that done by Anthony 
Robbins. Then there is the creative/memory work done by the likes of Tony 
Buzan. Then there is the incredibly cross-over with health and fitness, in 
terms of clarity/determination and mental health. It's all relevant. 

With that, there is the very under-appreciated and misunderstood potential 
of MEMORIZATION techniques in learning. This is no less relevant in fields 
like mathematics than anywhere else. Yet suffers exclusion by some 
prevailing attitudes regarding, say, mathematics that there's no place for 
such things, due to...some or other magical property or function, like 
'deriving' that which we need. 

A lot of views that are popularly accepted by intellectuals on this matter 
are not necessarily shared by the worlds best mathematicians. This chap won 
the Field's Medal (equivalent of Nobel Prize in Maths), yet positively 
supports the memorizing activities of mathematics students in Cambridge. 
Worth noting, that one does not have to be a complete snob, to recognize a 
mathematics undergraduate course in Cambridge University is likely to be 
attracting some of the most promising young mathematicians in the world. 
Yet a large number of them resort to memorization. 

A lot more people do the same, but don't mention it because they fear it 
gets them judged 'rote' learners. But this is all complete

Re: Selecting your future branch

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, June 21, 2014 4:53:29 AM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 5:58 PM, Quentin Anciaux  > wrote:
>
> > I won't enter with you again on this debate
>>
>
> Coward. 
>

Call him a coward johnnie boywot about you? :O) I just went to that 
trouble to explain why your core reasoning about humans not 'seeing' 
consciousness  does not equate with evolution and what it can 'see'. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:35:58 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 19 June 2014 14:34, > wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>>> On 19 June 2014 02:01,  wrote:
>>>
 My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
 relativity theories is faulty.

>>>
>>> In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all 
>>> non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based 
>>> on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely 
>>> falling observers. What's wrong with the logic?
>>>

 Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
 Clock speeds may be affected but not time.  Time passes at the same rate
 everywhere in our Universe.

>>>
>>> Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the 
>>> link I posted?
>>>
>>> If not, here is a direct link to it ...  http://www.astronomy.ohio-
>>> state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html
>>>
>>> Look in particular at the "photon clock" and tell me where the flaw in 
>>> the logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people 
>>> who've tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become 
>>> worthwhile to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation
>>>
>>  
>> p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely 
>> not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the 
>> people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my 
>> eyes during the time I've been
>>
>
> Thank you, I appreciate that :-)
>  
>
>> (not longer to remain I might add, if for nothing else due to levels of 
>> ostrasization now well past the level at which anyone would be able to 
>> justify ongoing attention for long). 
>>
>
> I'm sorry to hear that.
>
>>
>> But, for reasons that were/are related to some of the interests I have 
>> been pursuing on these lists - this particular context not being a direct 
>> interest but more something changed or clarified from the norm. And 
>> mentioning here because in this case, the changes are much more about 
>> crystalizing what was already intuitive for the majority of people, I would 
>> strongly guess including you...
>>
>> John Ross, who incidently I do agree deserves your kind attention due to 
>> much evidence of long term hard work at his end, however...unfortunately 
>> and possibly rather sadlyhas clearly succumbed to one of the top 
>> risks we all face when our ideas  for whatever reason have been either 
>> exposed to isolated conditions for a long time.or...I 
>> believe...circumstances a lot of celebrities understand all too 
>> well...which is about becoming exposed to the mind-set typically found in 
>> fan clubs. 
>>
>
> Yes. Working away on something in isolation for years may be OK for a work 
> of literature, but less so for science - especially nowadays, with rapid 
> developments, a huge number of scientists (it's no longer the preserve of 
> the idle rich, as seems to have been the case a couple of centuries back) 
> and readily available information ... although Mr Ross obviously knows a 
> few scientists personally, too. Fan clubs are an interesting one, I hover 
> on the edges of some fan groups and they can get so intense...
>
>>
>> Exposure there just as harmful, because it's very hard not to be 
>> influenced by ambient ideas when they are coming from all direction. So 
>> that one, overlooked perhaps, can create the same basic properties that we 
>> see in Mr. Ross. Joining the two scenarios I might illustrate something 
>> like 'domestication'.due to another fleeting memory...I get them when I 
>> address you for some reason,..this one was one of those postcards with a 
>> silly drawing on the front and a joke caption. It was a bunch of salivating 
>> wolves peeping through a bush to wood frame 'outback' house with a dog 
>> sitting outside chained to a post. 
>>
>> One wolf is saying to another "I'm telling ya, it ain't worth saving him 
>> no more...look at his eyes! HE'S BEEN DOMESTICATED
>>
>
> I'm fairly sure that's a "Far Side" cartoon and the caption's a bit longer 
> - listing symptoms ("those glazed eyes", etc) - hang on a minute while I 
> try my google-fu...nope, can't find it. But I'm 99% sure I know the one you 
> mean. 
>
>>
>> Anyway, in the Ross case it's a case of the more intuitive and well 
>> recognized status. He has built himself into something, that no matter the 
>> value of the original ideas...and there may bealso at some point began 
>> to include probably small, rationalizations...that may well have started 
>> out innocently as simplifications purely for thinking clearly about things, 
>> that were large and complicated, and which may not have had anything to do 
>> with the ideas at all. 
>>
>> But rationalizing is one of those things that once in a process, if near 
>> the core of thinking even if not directly ab

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 2:31:26 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:55:18 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
 this later  with the rest, cheer.

 On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> > sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 
>>>
>>
>> No problem. 
>>
>> > The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
>>> always show up together, never one on its own. 
>>>
>>
>> I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
>> certain is conscious is you. 
>>
>
> The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
> is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 
>
> We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
> conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to 
> think 
> the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
> planet. 
>
> But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
> you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which 
> below...you 
> may not be...
>  
>
>> And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you 
>> say above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can 
>> remain conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.
>>
>
> Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
> which would require listing important characteristics of the 
> consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by 
> ourselves 
> and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 
>

>>> So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
>>> say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
>>> would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
>>> ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
>>> to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
>>> intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
>>> intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
>>> may. 
>>>
>>> And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
>>> with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
>>> have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
>>> consciousness. 
>>>
>>> But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard 
>>> linked individual properties we associate with intelligence or 
>>> consciousness, actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more 
>>> primitive forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to 
>>> be indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to 
>>> be a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
>>> say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
>>> involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
>>> answer to. 
>>>
>>> Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
>>> humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
>>> do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
>>> fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
>>> general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
>>> complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
>>> be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 
>>>
>>> We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
>>> suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
>>> no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
>>> that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
>>> isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
>>> turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
>>> hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
>>> we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
>>> the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 
>>>
>>> There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
>>> objective as we can looking at our conscio

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 11:54:17 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 19 June 2014 02:01, > wrote:
>
>> My point is that the logic behind Einstein's special and general
>> relativity theories is faulty.
>>
>
> In what way is it faulty? SR is based on the principle that all 
> non-accelerating observers will see the same laws of physics. GR is based 
> on the principle that the laws of physics are the same for all freely 
> falling observers. What's wrong with the logic?
>
>>
>> Time does not slow down when you go fast and is not affected by gravity.
>> Clock speeds may be affected but not time.  Time passes at the same rate
>> everywhere in our Universe.
>>
>
> Did you look at the explanation of time dilation accessible from the link 
> I posted?
>
> If not, here is a direct link to it ...  
> http://www.astronomy.ohio-state.edu/~pogge/Ast162/Unit5/sr.html
>
> Look in particular at the "photon clock" and tell me where the flaw in the 
> logic is. If you can do that (thereby beating thousands of people who've 
> tried over the century since SR was advanced) then it may become worthwhile 
> to consider Coulomb Grids as an alternative explanation
>
 
p.s. addendum using this post (and the history behind it). I'm definitely 
not jumping on you Liz by the way, because you are definitely one of the 
people that, from my side of things, have become better and better in my 
eyes during the time I've been (not longer to remain I might add, if for 
nothing else due to levels of ostrasization now well past the level at 
which anyone would be able to justify ongoing attention for long). 

But, for reasons that were/are related to some of the interests I have been 
pursuing on these lists - this particular context not being a direct 
interest but more something changed or clarified from the norm. And 
mentioning here because in this case, the changes are much more about 
crystalizing what was already intuitive for the majority of people, I would 
strongly guess including you...

John Ross, who incidently I do agree deserves your kind attention due to 
much evidence of long term hard work at his end, however...unfortunately 
and possibly rather sadlyhas clearly succumbed to one of the top 
risks we all face when our ideas  for whatever reason have been either 
exposed to isolated conditions for a long time.or...I 
believe...circumstances a lot of celebrities understand all too 
well...which is about becoming exposed to the mind-set typically found in 
fan clubs. 

Exposure there just as harmful, because it's very hard not to be influenced 
by ambient ideas when they are coming from all direction. So that one, 
overlooked perhaps, can create the same basic properties that we see in Mr. 
Ross. Joining the two scenarios I might illustrate something like 
'domestication'.due to another fleeting memory...I get them when I 
address you for some reason,..this one was one of those postcards with a 
silly drawing on the front and a joke caption. It was a bunch of salivating 
wolves peeping through a bush to wood frame 'outback' house with a dog 
sitting outside chained to a post. 

One wolf is saying to another "I'm telling ya, it ain't worth saving him no 
more...look at his eyes! HE'S BEEN DOMESTICATED

Anyway, in the Ross case it's a case of the more intuitive and well 
recognized status. He has built himself into something, that no matter the 
value of the original ideas...and there may bealso at some point began 
to include probably small, rationalizations...that may well have started 
out innocently as simplifications purely for thinking clearly about things, 
that were large and complicated, and which may not have had anything to do 
with the ideas at all. 

But rationalizing is one of those things that once in a process, if near 
the core of thinking even if not directly about the important thoughts 
themselves, will nevertheless be carried by the knock-on consequences 
perceived in the key ideas to other parts of the emergent structure of 
thought, until eventually at a certain distance from the origin,  thet 
rationalizations and their consequences will dominate the process, for that 
person. 

In the case of John Ross, the rationalizing make this process useless for 
him personally. So I say this just as a pointer, that I hope there's a 
personal value in play for you. Which there can well be, when someone is 
acclepted and on the inside of a human network, which is also substantially 
present and taking note, or potentially. 

But not for John. The best anyone can do for him, is wish him well in his 
journey, which definitely looks to have - at some point anyway - involved a 
large amount of the stuff that we tend to associate with good guys. Wish 
him well. Maybe he'll come out the other end with a stunning theory that 
changes the world. If he gets through that valley of the dead theory, all 
by his vulnerable little self. That's the way it. Can't change it for the 
better. Not for him. Can onl

Re: Selecting your future branch

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:00:03 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> PS I must say I fin3 an odd place to attempt to refute comp. Presumably 
> you've accepted the original assumptions and the first two steps. Most 
> people either disagree with the original assumption(s), or go for the MGA 
> (i.e. the "reversal" - the argument that we don't need a physical 
> universe). Step 3, iirc, is just the demonstration of first person 
> indeterminacy, which is I would think no more contraversial here than it is 
> in Everett.
>

Well actually, although for me it was about the initial assumption in a lot 
of ways, step three certainly stuck out the most for the 
most straightforward reasoning. I have used step three therefore 
myself, as an example. Because it has knock-down characteristics of what 
would be expected if my more general argument was possible AND present as 
an explanation
. 
I would certain admit I'm not at a point of being willing to BEHAVE and/or 
be purely motivated by, an adequately detached/objective 
positioning regarding what took place in that thread, particularly toward 
the end. What I could promise but not be willing to provide or evidence of, 
is that already by the time that closing phase began, I had actually been 
through a process at my end, of regarding the overall thread as a failure, 
and been through and completing a process of analysing that, purely from 
the perspective (i.e. as a principle of the process) taking full 
responsibility. Not for some angelic purity, but because there were 
aspects in play there, involving goals, that are important to me to 
understand in terms of barriers and skills and competencies at my 
end. There can be no interest in what other people do wrong when there is 
commitment to a goal. And in that process I identified several - mostly 
occurring very early - strategies that I knew would create certain 
impressions, but that I felt would fall away once things became clearer. I 
was wrong..for large reasons nothing to do with individuals here (because 
that wouldn't be interesting either). Wrong because certain impressions can 
be very very 'sticky', particulary first ones.  A case of a well known 
truth, missed due to a different and new context (for me).

So with that said. From where I'm standing Liz, it isn't reasonable to be 
asking people to bother with anything less than gushing adoration for Bruno 
and his theory. Not here. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, June 19, 2014 1:55:18 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
>>> this later  with the rest, cheer.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM,  wrote:
>
> > sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 
>>
>
> No problem. 
>
> > The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
>> always show up together, never one on its own. 
>>
>
> I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
> certain is conscious is you. 
>

 The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
 is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

 We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
 conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think 
 the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
 planet. 

 But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
 you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you 
 may not be...
  

> And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
> above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
> conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.
>

 Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
 which would require listing important characteristics of the 
 consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
 and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 

>>>
>> So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
>> say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
>> would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
>> ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
>> to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
>> intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
>> intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
>> may. 
>>
>> And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
>> with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
>> have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
>> consciousness. 
>>
>> But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked 
>> individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, 
>> actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive 
>> forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be 
>> indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be 
>> a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
>> say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
>> involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
>> answer to. 
>>
>> Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
>> humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
>> do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
>> fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
>> general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
>> complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
>> be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 
>>
>> We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
>> suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
>> no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
>> that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
>> isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
>> turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
>> hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
>> we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
>> the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 
>>
>> There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
>> objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
>> table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
>> beliefs as much as we can, at home. 
>>
>> In the conversation I think my position is mor

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 7:19:20 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to 
>> this later  with the rest, cheer.
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM,  wrote:

 > sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 
>

 No problem. 

 > The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
> always show up together, never one on its own. 
>

 I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for 
 certain is conscious is you. 

>>>
>>> The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
>>> is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 
>>>
>>> We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this 
>>> conversation, and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think 
>>> the conscious experience I have is very similar to every human on the 
>>> planet. 
>>>
>>> But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that 
>>> you are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you 
>>> may not be...
>>>  
>>>
 And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
 above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
 conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.

>>>
>>> Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
>>> which would require listing important characteristics of the 
>>> consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
>>> and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 
>>>
>>
> So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you 
> say above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I 
> would probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
> ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
> to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
> intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
> intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
> may. 
>
> And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising 
> with computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would 
> have associated with intelligence, where there is no evidence for 
> consciousness. 
>
> But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked 
> individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, 
> actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive 
> forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be 
> indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be 
> a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
> say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
> involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
> answer to. 
>
> Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in 
> humans. You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and 
> do speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
> fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
> general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
> complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
> be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 
>
> We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
> suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
> no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
> that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
> isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
> turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
> hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
> we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
> the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 
>
> There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
> objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
> table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
> beliefs as much as we can, at home. 
>
> In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply because 
> there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and intelligence in 
> humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack on the head 

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:03:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to this 
> later  with the rest, cheer.
>
> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> > sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 

>>>
>>> No problem. 
>>>
>>> > The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
 always show up together, never one on its own. 

>>>
>>> I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain 
>>> is conscious is you. 
>>>
>>
>> The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
>> is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 
>>
>> We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation, 
>> and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think the conscious 
>> experience I have is very similar to every human on the planet. 
>>
>> But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that you 
>> are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you may 
>> not be...
>>  
>>
>>> And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
>>> above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
>>> conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.
>>>
>>
>> Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
>> which would require listing important characteristics of the 
>> consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
>> and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 
>>
>
So continuing...with apologies for the break. So in summary to what you say 
above (1) I did allow that intelligence can be at different levels. I would 
probably think so too can consciousness (like the next morning after 
ingesting too many of those 'certain chemicals' possibly. And I would have 
to acknowledge a sloppy sentence of mine in which I say consciousness and 
intelligence never show up on their own. You're right that while 
intelligence never does for humans, we cannot rule out that consciousness 
may. 

And within that uncertainty, there is also the new uncertainty arising with 
computing in which we can get a lot of properties we would have associated 
with intelligence, where there is no evidence for consciousness. 

But in all cases, there is the unknown quantity, which is how hard linked 
individual properties we associate with intelligence or consciousness, 
actually are. And whether they show up, for example, in more primitive 
forms of intelligence. Forms that up to some point may be able to be 
indistinguishable from intelligence (your main position) but that due to be 
a more primitive form, after some point cannot go any further, without, 
say, becoming energy/resources impractical for some exponential effect 
involving vastly more resources for tiny gains. Which we don't know the 
answer to. 

Nor do we know the answer to the consciousness-intelligence link in humans. 
You fairly identify that there is enough separation that we can and do 
speak of intelligence and consciousness as different objects. But also 
fairly it could be said, this is not controversial, and not overlooked, in 
general. However, the context here, is that you appear to find a way for a 
complete separation. I don't see how you do that. Because the two appear to 
be joined at the hip, almost entirely, in humans. 

We already know intelligence can come at different levels. We probably 
suspect so too can consciousness. The idea that one can contain absolutely 
no properties of the other may be beyond us at the moment. Because assuming 
that, immediately assumes a depth of insight into what each one is, that 
isn't supported by any hard knowledge. The problem with stepping onto that 
turf, is that it can feasibly lead into lines of human enquiry that are 
hobbled from the beginning by failing to keep hold of all the issues that 
we could have been able to keep hold off, with a more realistic focus on 
the knowledge we actually had in terms of what it was actually saying. 

There's no easy way to talk about this, if we aren't all willing to be 
objective as we can looking at our consciousness and bring that to the 
table. And each of us leave the messy stuff that's about preferences and 
beliefs as much as we can, at home. 

In the conversation I think my position is more reasonable, simply because 
there is an almost complete overlap of consciousness and intelligence in 
humans, allowing even the stupidest drug soaked, or crack on the head 
bleeding, conscious entity has some level of the, as yet undiscovered 
entity we currently know as 'intelligence;' 

> So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
 consciousness are mutually independ

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

it looks like I sent it by accident while still writing. I'll come to this 
later  with the rest, cheer.

On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 6:02:45 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> > sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 
>>>
>>
>> No problem. 
>>
>> > The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
>>> always show up together, never one on its own. 
>>>
>>
>> I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain 
>> is conscious is you. 
>>
>
> The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
> is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 
>
> We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation, 
> and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think the conscious 
> experience I have is very similar to every human on the planet. 
>
> But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that you 
> are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you may 
> not be...
>  
>
>> And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
>> above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
>> conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.
>>
>
> Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, 
> which would require listing important characteristics of the 
> consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
> and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 
>
>>
>> > So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
>>> consciousness are mutually independent?
>>>
>>
>> I don't think that. And if Darwin was right (and he was) then one can be 
>> conscious without being very intelligent but you CAN NOT be very 
>> intelligent without being conscious. Evolution can see intelligence but it 
>> can't directly see consciousness any better than we can, so if 
>> consciousness were not a byproduct of intelligence and just be the way 
>> information feels when it is being processed then there would not be any 
>> conscious beings on planet Earth, and yet I know for a fact there is at 
>> least one.   
>>
>> > The guy [Einstein] won a nobel for the photoelectric effect way before 
>>> he did the flying on rainbows thing for insights. So Einstein was a 
>>> nobel-genius. 
>>>
>>
>> I agree obviously, but suppose those discoveries had not been made by a 
>> meat computer by the name of Einstein but instead had been made by a 
>> silicon computer by the name of IBM. Would you then be making excuses and 
>> saying the machine wasn't *really* intelligent for this bullshit reason and 
>> that bullshit reason?
>>
>> > Butfrom memory you accept MWI don't you? 
>>>
>>
>> I think it's probably less wrong than the other interpretations of 
>> Quantum Mechanics.  
>>
>> > What sort of results does that explanation produce?
>>>
>>
>> The outcome of the 2 slit experiment.  MWI also explains why so many of 
>> the fundamental constants of physics seem to be such as to maximize the 
>> possibility that life will develop.  
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>>
>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, June 17, 2014 4:36:36 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Jun 16, 2014 at 7:44 PM, > wrote:
>
> > sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 
>>
>
> No problem. 
>
> > The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, 
>> always show up together, never one on its own. 
>>
>
> I don't see how you could know that, the only being you know for certain 
> is conscious is you. 
>

The point is true, but a kind of point normally useful only when it 
is exactly that question being asked. In any case it's answerable. 

We're arguably in the domain of Darwinian Evolution in this conversation, 
and in that domain there very strong reasons for me to think the conscious 
experience I have is very similar to every human on the planet. 

But I don't even need that standard for what I'm., All I need is that you 
are conscious like me, and that you won't obfuscate. Which below...you may 
not be...
 

> And in fact you should know from personal experience that what you say 
> above can not be true; when one ingests certain chemicals one can remain 
> conscious but become as dumb as a sack full of doorknobs.
>

Sure...but for an objection like this we'd have to go to the details, which 
would require listing important characteristics of the 
consciousness-intelligence link. We should be able to do that by ourselves 
and have an easy won large amount of shared properties. I'll 

>
> > So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
>> consciousness are mutually independent?
>>
>
> I don't think that. And if Darwin was right (and he was) then one can be 
> conscious without being very intelligent but you CAN NOT be very 
> intelligent without being conscious. Evolution can see intelligence but it 
> can't directly see consciousness any better than we can, so if 
> consciousness were not a byproduct of intelligence and just be the way 
> information feels when it is being processed then there would not be any 
> conscious beings on planet Earth, and yet I know for a fact there is at 
> least one.   
>
> > The guy [Einstein] won a nobel for the photoelectric effect way before 
>> he did the flying on rainbows thing for insights. So Einstein was a 
>> nobel-genius. 
>>
>
> I agree obviously, but suppose those discoveries had not been made by a 
> meat computer by the name of Einstein but instead had been made by a 
> silicon computer by the name of IBM. Would you then be making excuses and 
> saying the machine wasn't *really* intelligent for this bullshit reason and 
> that bullshit reason?
>
> > Butfrom memory you accept MWI don't you? 
>>
>
> I think it's probably less wrong than the other interpretations of Quantum 
> Mechanics.  
>
> > What sort of results does that explanation produce?
>>
>
> The outcome of the 2 slit experiment.  MWI also explains why so many of 
> the fundamental constants of physics seem to be such as to maximize the 
> possibility that life will develop.  
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, > wrote:
>
> > So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: 
>>
>> In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was 
>> equal between computers and humans: 
>>
>
> I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally judged on what 
> they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the 
> things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. 
>

sorry about the shitfaced first response. Drunk. 

I do agree with thisbut wonder how easily such things would be 
compared. 

In an early step in your wider argument about consciousness/intelligence, 
from memory you basically separate them...hence talking here about 
intelligence alone
The thing is John, in humans being intelligent and being conscious, always 
show up together, never one on its own. Some are more or less 
intelligence/conscious, but when we aren't conscious, and not in REM, not a 
lot is going on. In REM - something interesting might be going on, but we 
probably don't have much conventional intelligence. 

So...I don't quite get how you satisfy yourself intelligence and 
consciousness are mutually independent? 

I have no sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly 
> he wasn't really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah 
> way. 
>

I've never heard that about Einstein. The guy won a nobel for the 
photoelectric effect way before he did the flying on rainbows thing for 
insights. So Einstein was a nobel-genius. There was an earlier discussion 
we about Hilber having published the complete equations a week 
earlier...which Hilbert simply didn't bother claiming for...a  possible 
reason the  Nobel Committee never awarded Einstein for that one. 

I remember in that conversation, your main line of argument that Hilbert 
wasn't credible was that he was a mathematician. I had to think about 
that...but you are aware that Maxwell, Poincaire, Newton I think...in 
fact possible the majority of the top table geniuses in science 
werepossibly. 

FWIW

 

> I'm only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. 
>

I feel exactly the same way. 

Butfrom memory you accept MWI don't you? What sort of results does that 
explanation produce? 
 

> Someday computers will be able to not just do better science but do better 
> art and tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human 
> that has ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say 
> they're not *really* intelligent. 
>

There's a lot of assumptions going into that. I'd agree 'all else being 
equal' that you make a reasonable prediction. But how often is all else 
equal?  

>
>
>
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 3:29:43 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 9:37 PM, Kim Jones  > wrote:
>  
>
>> > What makes a human intelligent is CREATIVITY and that is by now well 
>> understood and no, machines (the human constructed ones) cannot do that 
>> yet. 
>>
>
> The definition of creativity is not constant, it is whatever computers 
> can't do YET.  Before Google In the late 1990s being the best research 
> librarian in the world took creativity, but not today. For thousands of 
> years being the best chess player in the world took creativity but that 
> stopped being true in 1997.  Being the  best Jeopardy champion on the 
> planet took creativity until things suddenly changed in 2010, and solving 
> differential equations stopped being creative in the 1980s. 
>
 
might be wrong but creatively seems almost as mercurial as consciousness. 
Not sure such thing exists but fair enough some word is needed to fill that 
blank. 

What you say about it above. Do you not find these mysteries of the brain 
interestingor is it more you sort of got fed up with endless navel 
gazing on such things? I mean...I bet you do think about these questions 
quietly, when no one is looking? 

Computers still aren't very good at image recognition so we should reflect 
> on that fact while we still can, therefore I  suggest that June 23 (Alan 
> Turing's birthday by the way) be turned into a international holiday called 
> "Image Recognition Appreciation Day". On this day we would all reflect on 
> the creativity required to recognize images. It is important that this be 
> done soon because although computers are not very good at this task right 
> now that will certainly change in the next few years. On the day computers 
> become good at it the laws of physics in the Universe will change and 
> creativity will no longer be required for image recognition.  
>
> > You don't need to have a theory of intelligence in order to use one, any 
>> more than you need to know how to tune a piano in order to know how to play 
>> one 
>>
>
> It's true that even a great pianist need not have any idea of how his 
> piano works, but it's not true if he intends to make a better piano, then 
> he had better have a very good theory of pianos.   
>
> >  a way to understand the workings of intelligence is to sim 
>
> ply say that this is the speed factor involved in neurotransmission. 
>>
>
> Some signals in the brain move as slowly as .01 meters per second, the 
> slow diffusion of some hormones for example, but even the very fastest 
> signals in the brain move at only 100 meters per second. Light moves at 
> 300,000,000 meters per second, and in a computer the distances the signal 
> must travel will be shorter because the components are smaller. Game over.
>

 

>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 7:18:14 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:49:55 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM,  wrote:
>>>
>>> > So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: 

 In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was 
 equal between computers and humans: 

>>>
>>> I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally and judged on 
>>> what they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the 
>>> things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. I have no 
>>> sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly he wasn't 
>>> really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah way. I'm 
>>> only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. Someday 
>>> computers will be able to not just do better science but do better art and 
>>> tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human that has 
>>> ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say they're not 
>>> *really* intelligent. 
>>>
>>>  John K Clark
>>>
>>
>> OK, well I guess that's a position I can certainly agree with. What isn't 
>> clear - to me anyway - is how much your thought is actually carrying there 
>> John. Which would be a little micro-instance of one of the (full set of all 
>> of them attempted) points I failed to make myself useful/helpful to Bruno 
>> over. I say micro-instance for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't mind and would 
>> concur with: Bruno's isn't a thought, but something someone put a huge 
>> amount of effort into, and which exhibits a large amount of structure, in 
>> my view, that I'd associate with things like high integrity truth seeking, 
>> robustness seeking, inclusive of things like, as I could make out, sort of, 
>> you knowlike hmm. Hmm. Yeah them guys that dig up bits of 
>> pottery...archaeologists bugger me Bing shows a bit of lead in the old 
>> pencil even if still far from getting it up google. Sorry...I am trying to 
>> saythat for me his work best I could see, apart from good stuff in a 
>> lot of the structure I thought I saw, also a large amount of tiny fragment 
>> like stuff that over a time I thought I was able draw lines between. Things 
>> that were once very real in the distant history of his journey that marked 
>> all these other times, good things. I mean like trying pretty hard to see 
>> why it was a silly idea and bother on something else, but in the end 
>> failing and so having to keep buggering on. 
>>
>> Bit like ourselves in our lives. So real, so fleeting, but so real in our 
>> moment no less than whoever or whatever whenever and ifever thinking back 
>> in way that just might have all about us. Then we die and we're memories 
>> and remembered proportionate to the love we accepted and gave back. Then 
>> our contributions to the world both recognized and unrecognized, realized 
>> by us and unrealized. Like the cemetery in the period our names and 
>> epitaphs remain legible. Then after the time the stone is there, Then the 
>> discolouration of a small patch of grass. Then it's maybe like the there 
>> then gone, footsteps in the snow in the moments before the rain. The breeze 
>> upon the thigh. And MY ABILITY TO KEEP FOCUS ON WHAT THE FUCK I was talking 
>> about. 
>>
>> Anyway I saw it, but that I saw, whether that happened, whether that was 
>> ever even attempted, whether anything like such a motivation existed as 
>> that and not it's mirror-paired darkness the other side of that 
>> possibility. Said it few times but definitely failed all counts there too. 
>> Bruno currently I'm a little emotional and can only really think of you as 
>> an arse. And do feel rather aggrieved and probably have one or two slightly 
>> troubling fantasies about being beastly to you for ever and ever to show 
>> you show you show you so there. But if any of that makes you worry, just 
>> another failed communication my-side. Saying out never pairs with acting 
>> out. I'm not mad or bad dude, just frustrated and irritated, probably a lot 
>> like you feel. 
>>
>> So anyone back to John whose gone. John, like I was saying, I can agree 
>> with your thought, but am not sure how much that thought is actually 
>> carrying. Was your thought altered or did you entertain it might be and 
>> duly work that out, through anything I or anyone said? I can't tell, 
>> because everything I said depends on a personal reading what you were 
>> actually saying...in effect. Which on my reading had the problem of 
>> indistinctness. And given the same view of yours definitely you've been 
>> lugging around for a long time...(first seen way back on FoR) and also 
>> because in the construction of that view you do other things that equally, 
>> best I can tell, you make mistakes or leave out steps you would have to 
>> h

Re: Pluto bounces back!

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 7:53:07 PM UTC+1, spudb...@aol.com wrote:
>
> 1. 9-11 in the US answered all questions regarding the Islamists as fair 
> as I am concerned. 
>  
> 2. The applied standard for patriotism is doing actions that help the US 
> survive long enough until the genuine AI is achieved, or Jesus returns, as 
> the Christians desire. Until then, we need to seek to survive and thrive. 
> That's my criteria. 
>  
> 3. I heard that it was closer to 2 trillion dollars in national wealth 
> wasted on the Saddam war. I would have gone into Pakistan, and pursed Bin 
> Laden, and his protectors in the ISI. They would have deposed Musharef, 
> our, Pakistani chum, and would have sought the annihilation of Al Qaeda and 
> affiliated orgs. Bush was buds with the Saudis and that is no mistake, and 
> explains much about the previous administrations decisions. 
>  
> 4. The economic complaint is bogus, in light of BHO's anti-jobs policies 
> economically. He and his party do not believe in job creation that is not 
> affiliated with the democrat party. So he is good with teachers unions, 
> state workers, and federal employees, and trade unions, that funnel cash 
> into democrat pacs. Small businesses provide little for his party, and he 
> has no use for people who 'slow down the process.' Hence, this is why the 
> US joblessness rate has been so high, even after the 09 market crash. Obama 
> has much more crony capitalist contributors then Bush ever had, Koch's not 
> with standing. The trillions would have gone into the pockets of his 
> billionaires, his unions, as it did from 2009 forward. Wall Street loves 
> him-contrary to Marxist prop. The poor get free phones and snap cards. 
>  
> 5. Sure, war is a waste, and a terrible one at that. But its somewhat 
> better then seeing yourself or your buds, conquered and killed, which can 
> be a bummer, sometimes. 
>  
> Let me ask you this? How many protesters do we see world-wide, against the 
> Putin's incursions in the Ukraine, or protesting the war in Syria, the ISIS 
> murders in Iraq?? The streets, had the US did something would have 
> protesters-but! That's not the* party* way. Protestors are merely anti-U 
> and not pacifists. 
>
l
 
If I was an American I would be totally against any more wars that cost 
American soldier lives and drain the we th of the country, based on what 
you are saying above.firstly for military reasons. You have spoken of 
the need to fight wars, but not actually said who against. Not in terms a 
military campaign can be planned around. I mean I'm not saying you need to 
decide an actual strategy

But there are generic questions that need to be answered by anyone who 
things a war should happen. Like...for you.you want to send soldiers 
into harms way. What goal are hundreds or thousands of those young 
Americans laying down their lives for? The answer to that is not principle, 
what is the situation on the ground in the wake of war, and what are the 
reasons why that situation + the realignment of local power structures, is 
worth those lives and the cost? , 

What you said above, the Jesus/AI line: Firstly it doesn't seem like the US 
needs to fight these distant wars. Theres no problem on the American 
continent and the US has oceans either side. What is this survival threat, 
and what sort of calculations are you doing that you believe young soldiers 
should die by the hundred or thousand to secure? What is the payback? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 1:49:08 AM UTC+great feat saying that one is 
anti-war, when they claimed is merely, anti-American military. This is 
clear today, it was clear three decades ago, when "anti-war" protesters, 
protested only against Pershing missiles in west Europe, and then years 
before this, during the Vietnam war, where they were against American 
involvement, but said absolutely nothing about the Khmer Rouge slaying a 
million Kampucheans. It's just not their world-wide, and what the Soviets 
did was ok fine. So it was never war they were and are against. Nowadays 
the same people are against US involvement, but Islamist warfare, is 
something that they have zero comment over. Rhetorically, speaking, I 
wonder why? But we both know, really. People can often never be in favor of 
an idea or a policy, but there is a always the certainty of hated, that 
quickness the blood, and defines who they are. It's an old game, after all.

What is the standard for authentic patriotism in the camp you're in? You 
are talking about Islamic warfare...there isn't a lot of that on the 
American continent. So where do you envisage this war talking place, next? 
Are you able to list what interests the American people have in the region 
you mention, and what is the dollar cost, you think, for what military 
objective? How will success or failure be measured?

What value has the American people accrued from the Iraq war? It cost about 
a trillion and half. That's enough to have retooled American industry into 
a knock down competitive force. American might have had a very different 
last decade. 

A lot of people in America are poor, increasing numbers have job 
insecurity. What is your equation that fighting another war in the middle 
east (presumably) at presumably another trillion dollars, is a good way to 
spend those Americans taxes? 

Or is it a case of, guys that advocate for wars, in a time when vast 
resources have been poured down the toilet for similar wars with zero value 
as a result for American people, are by definition good patriots? I 
mean...what if your motivations aren't patriotic? What's the standard? How 
can anyone tell?





ginal Message-
From: 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List >
To: everything-list >
Sent: 15-Jun-2014 14:58:21 +
Subject: RE: Pluto bounces back!

  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [
> mailto:ever...@googlegroups.com ] 
>
>  
>
> >>I style myself as informed about the aggressor. 
>
>  
>
> Then I take it you have never ever lived in or even visited a Muslim 
> country… you probably do not know any Arabs or other Muslims on a personal 
> level, and have never shared food with them. And yet you consider yourself 
> informed. Strange way of getting informed. 
>
>  
>
> >> The clash of civilizations is already here, and has been here, off and 
> on for a few decades, in its contemporary form.
>
>  
>
> Yes… I can see that this is what you have concluded, based on second and 
> third hand accounts, written by propagandists with axes to grind.  You are 
> so sure of all of your conclusions, without ever having  actually been to a 
> Muslim country, without ever having actually met and lived amongst Arabs or 
> other Muslims. You are sure because you read it somewhere, or more likely 
> heard some talking head rave on about this “clash of civilizations”.
>
> This does not seem all that rigorous to me; actually it seems rather more 
> like the weak gruel of a regurgitated diet of cherry picked sound bites.
>
>  
>
> >>I do point out that many of the elites side with Saudi royals and 
> accept donations from them, and many are liberals, the liberal elites, like 
> the Clintons, and on the conservative side, the Bushes. To fight back 
> against the Islamist imperialism takes foresight and determination. It also 
> is good to know what you stand for and what you stand against? When people 
> are anti-war, in the US, it invariably means they are against the US. It is 
> never, ever, against the Islamists going to war. Now, I ask, rhetorically, 
> why this is? 
>
>  
>
> Haha – are you suggesting that calling into question your extremist and 
> ill-informed world views is a form of anti-American treasonous activity? 
> Typical, and exactly what I expected from an armchair general such as 
> yourself. You have never actually seen war; you do not know what war really 
> is; you are prejudiced and you pine for a genocidal clash of civilizations 
> – but a bloody hell, for other people to go die in and kill for…. because I 
> don’t see you volunteering, chickenhawk!
>
> It is cowards, who demand war from the safety of their living rooms.
>
> Chris
>
>  
>
> A few questions. Have you ever been to Afghanistan? Have you ever been to 
> any Muslim country at all? 
>
> I ask, because you seem to style yourself an expert on the thinking and 
> inner mind of people in the Middle East. So naturally I am curious about 
> the nature of your expertise and from what fount

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, June 16, 2014 5:49:55 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

>
>
> On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> > So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: 
>>>
>>> In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was 
>>> equal between computers and humans: 
>>>
>>
>> I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally and judged on 
>> what they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the 
>> things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. I have no 
>> sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly he wasn't 
>> really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah way. I'm 
>> only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. Someday 
>> computers will be able to not just do better science but do better art and 
>> tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human that has 
>> ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say they're not 
>> *really* intelligent. 
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>
> OK, well I guess that's a position I can certainly agree with. What isn't 
> clear - to me anyway - is how much your thought is actually carrying there 
> John. Which would be a little micro-instance of one of the (full set of all 
> of them attempted) points I failed to make myself useful/helpful to Bruno 
> over. I say micro-instance for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't mind and would 
> concur with: Bruno's isn't a thought, but something someone put a huge 
> amount of effort into, and which exhibits a large amount of structure, in 
> my view, that I'd associate with things like high integrity truth seeking, 
> robustness seeking, inclusive of things like, as I could make out, sort of, 
> you knowlike hmm. Hmm. Yeah them guys that dig up bits of 
> pottery...archaeologists bugger me Bing shows a bit of lead in the old 
> pencil even if still far from getting it up google. Sorry...I am trying to 
> saythat for me his work best I could see, apart from good stuff in a 
> lot of the structure I thought I saw, also a large amount of tiny fragment 
> like stuff that over a time I thought I was able draw lines between. Things 
> that were once very real in the distant history of his journey that marked 
> all these other times, good things. I mean like trying pretty hard to see 
> why it was a silly idea and bother on something else, but in the end 
> failing and so having to keep buggering on. 
>
> Bit like ourselves in our lives. So real, so fleeting, but so real in our 
> moment no less than whoever or whatever whenever and ifever thinking back 
> in way that just might have all about us. Then we die and we're memories 
> and remembered proportionate to the love we accepted and gave back. Then 
> our contributions to the world both recognized and unrecognized, realized 
> by us and unrealized. Like the cemetery in the period our names and 
> epitaphs remain legible. Then after the time the stone is there, Then the 
> discolouration of a small patch of grass. Then it's maybe like the there 
> then gone, footsteps in the snow in the moments before the rain. The breeze 
> upon the thigh. And MY ABILITY TO KEEP FOCUS ON WHAT THE FUCK I was talking 
> about. 
>
> Anyway I saw it, but that I saw, whether that happened, whether that was 
> ever even attempted, whether anything like such a motivation existed as 
> that and not it's mirror-paired darkness the other side of that 
> possibility. Said it few times but definitely failed all counts there too. 
> Bruno currently I'm a little emotional and can only really think of you as 
> an arse. And do feel rather aggrieved and probably have one or two slightly 
> troubling fantasies about being beastly to you for ever and ever to show 
> you show you show you so there. But if any of that makes you worry, just 
> another failed communication my-side. Saying out never pairs with acting 
> out. I'm not mad or bad dude, just frustrated and irritated, probably a lot 
> like you feel. 
>
> So anyone back to John whose gone. John, like I was saying, I can agree 
> with your thought, but am not sure how much that thought is actually 
> carrying. Was your thought altered or did you entertain it might be and 
> duly work that out, through anything I or anyone said? I can't tell, 
> because everything I said depends on a personal reading what you were 
> actually saying...in effect. Which on my reading had the problem of 
> indistinctness. And given the same view of yours definitely you've been 
> lugging around for a long time...(first seen way back on FoR) and also 
> because in the construction of that view you do other things that equally, 
> best I can tell, you make mistakes or leave out steps you would have to 
> have made, or whatever, I thought I'd bother mentioning those issues. 
>
> But whether I was right I can't tell, because the problem then was 
> indistinctness,

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 6:55:42 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 12:41 PM, > wrote:
>
> > So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: 
>>
>> In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was 
>> equal between computers and humans: 
>>
>
> I'm saying computers and humans should be judged equally and judged on 
> what they can do. I'm NOT saying that computers and humans manage to do the 
> things they do in the same way, but I AM saying I don't care. I have no 
> sympathy for the idea that although Einstein behaved brilliantly he wasn't 
> really very intelligent because he got his ideas in a blah blah way. I'm 
> only interested in results, I'm not interested in excuses. Someday 
> computers will be able to not just do better science but do better art and 
> tell better dirty jokes and do EVERYTHING better than any human that has 
> ever lived, and at that point it would be rather silly to say they're not 
> *really* intelligent. 
>
>  John K Clark
>

OK, well I guess that's a position I can certainly agree with. What isn't 
clear - to me anyway - is how much your thought is actually carrying there 
John. Which would be a little micro-instance of one of the (full set of all 
of them attempted) points I failed to make myself useful/helpful to Bruno 
over. I say micro-instance for reasons I'm sure you wouldn't mind and would 
concur with: Bruno's isn't a thought, but something someone put a huge 
amount of effort into, and which exhibits a large amount of structure, in 
my view, that I'd associate with things like high integrity truth seeking, 
robustness seeking, inclusive of things like, as I could make out, sort of, 
you knowlike hmm. Hmm. Yeah them guys that dig up bits of 
pottery...archaeologists bugger me Bing shows a bit of lead in the old 
pencil even if still far from getting it up google. Sorry...I am trying to 
saythat for me his work best I could see, apart from good stuff in a 
lot of the structure I thought I saw, also a large amount of tiny fragment 
like stuff that over a time I thought I was able draw lines between. Things 
that were once very real in the distant history of his journey that marked 
all these other times, good things. I mean like trying pretty hard to see 
why it was a silly idea and bother on something else, but in the end 
failing and so having to keep buggering on. 

Bit like ourselves in our lives. So real, so fleeting, but so real in our 
moment no less than whoever or whatever whenever and ifever thinking back 
in way that just might have all about us. Then we die and we're memories 
and remembered proportionate to the love we accepted and gave back. Then 
our contributions to the world both recognized and unrecognized, realized 
by us and unrealized. Like the cemetery in the period our names and 
epitaphs remain legible. Then after the time the stone is there, Then the 
discolouration of a small patch of grass. Then it's maybe like the there 
then gone, footsteps in the snow in the moments before the rain. The breeze 
upon the thigh. And MY ABILITY TO KEEP FOCUS ON WHAT THE FUCK I was talking 
about. 

Anyway I saw it, but that I saw, whether that happened, whether that was 
ever even attempted, whether anything like such a motivation existed as 
that and not it's mirror-paired darkness the other side of that 
possibility. Said it few times but definitely failed all counts there too. 
Bruno currently I'm a little emotional and can only really think of you as 
an arse. And do feel rather aggrieved and probably have one or two slightly 
troubling fantasies about being beastly to you for ever and ever to show 
you show you show you so there. But if any of that makes you worry, just 
another failed communication my-side. Saying out never pairs with acting 
out. I'm not mad or bad dude, just frustrated and irritated, probably a lot 
like you feel. 

So anyone back to John whose gone. John, like I was saying, I can agree 
with your thought, but am not sure how much that thought is actually 
carrying. Was your thought altered or did you entertain it might be and 
duly work that out, through anything I or anyone said? I can't tell, 
because everything I said depends on a personal reading what you were 
actually saying...in effect. Which on my reading had the problem of 
indistinctness. And given the same view of yours definitely you've been 
lugging around for a long time...(first seen way back on FoR) and also 
because in the construction of that view you do other things that equally, 
best I can tell, you make mistakes or leave out steps you would have to 
have made, or whatever, I thought I'd bother mentioning those issues. 

But whether I was right I can't tell, because the problem then was 
indistinctness, and still is now. Can't tell if it's less or more because 
that's indistinctness for you. 

On the other hand, doesn't matter does it? It was indistinctness then, and 
that would have been proven if my reading

Re: COMP falsifiability thread

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:37:42 PM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 08:02:51AM -0700, ghi...@gmail.com  
> wrote: 
> > 
> > Your question may be coincidental, but it's pretty hard not to think 
> there 
> > is some connection with road crash taking place in what was the 
> > Bruno-myself dialogue. You are also one people I relate to (no 
> expectation 
> > of reciprocation..that's not how it works). 
> > 
> > So, please if possible give your answer to: 
> > 
> > Falsification Thread: 
> > 
> > 1. I provided in fresh thread a clear definition of what I spoke of, 
> > involving distinct properties at every point. 
> > 
> > 2. Is there a single response from Bruno, in which he actually compiles 
> one 
> > of his claims into such form he shows the same properties as in my 
> > definition? Or where he explains why my definition is wrong? 
> > 
> > How can it be reasonable that someone does not do this? Instead simply 
> > repeats the same points? How can it be reasonable of others to simply 
> turn 
> > a blind eye to this, and then some of them begin demonizing me? 
> > 
> > Please give your honest response to that, and whatever that is, be 
> > reasonable and allow your position to be checked against the empirical 
> > facts on this list in that thread. 
> > 
> > That's all I ask 
> > 
> > Similar issues the other threads but let's just go there to begin with. 
>
> Al, I have to admit I haven't been following the falsifiability thread 
> too closely. Too much heat and not enough light for my liking. I know 
> PGC will jump in and give me a stern lecture about about this, so PGC 
> - I've heard you before. 
>
> The thing is if I didn't skip over some conversations, I wouldn't have 
> any time to explore something in depth, such as when Brent brings up his 
> latest observation on quaternionic QM, or explaining the Born rule 
> from counting arguments. 
>
> If you remember, though, admitting this drove Elliot Temple into a 
> rage, which culminated in getting me booted off FoR. All because I have 
> more 
> interest in some things rather than others :). 
>
> In terms of where I stand on falsifiability of COMP, I do see how 
> empirical predictions are possible from the AUDA, but that its a long 
> and hard road quite out of reach of mere mathematical mortals like 
> myself. 
>
> I don't see why COMP necessarily implies the AUDA, although I had a 
> glimmer of understanding at one point. But if the AUDA makes some 
> solid predictions, and is in fact falsified, then it will become 
> urgent to investigate whether the AUDA is in fact implied by COMP, as 
> claimed by Bruno. Until then, I'm quite happy leaving it as an 
> interesting possibility. 
>
> So how does that fit in with your rather hard-nosed definition of 
> falsifiability involving novel predictions that other theories don't 
> make? I can see that COMP may one day have that property, if the 
> consequences of the AUDA are fully worked out, but it doesn't now. But 
> equally, I would say that a lot of science is also in the same boat. I 
> see you as chucking the baby out with the bathwater, all for the sake 
> of having a test of pseduo science that never gives a false-negative. 
>
> Cheers 
>

Russell -  All I can disclose without looking totally freaking insane, is 
that you keep on surprising in the same subtle ways that just cain't be 
fabricated in any sense I can imagine anyway. Not between my bunch of 
background supporting concepts and what I can resolve, or think so, of 
yours. Can't be done. So real. Best can say. Inclusive in large increasing 
ways what you just said which opened a whole truckload of dimensions was 
not expecting hadn't seen to now, felt this precise moment given this 
history in here was the least ever prospect for any of that. Obviously 
didn't actually think that at all at the time in the real timeline, but I 
mean realized on reading that was what I would definitely have been 
thinking if I knew then (like when I wrote it) what I know now. Or not 
quite...like if someone had said like...'hey what about this reply...what 
sort of prospect of that? 

Oh bother off into ditzy land again, lost the thread, or saying so to cover 
the posterior, or not, or whateveras one would expect when losing a 
thread. Or not, or wh...shaggy dog-story. Respect. 

> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>
>  Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
>  (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) 
>  
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this gro

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 5:03:28 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 10:39 AM, > wrote:
>
> > John. You have just mentioned I.Q. which is a specific kind of measure. 
>> Would you be willing to clarify where you stand on the science behind I.Q.? 
>>
>
> I was using the term "IQ", perhaps sloppily, as a sort of shorthand, I 
> certainly didn't mean to suggest it was the be all and end all. Indeed  it 
> would be remarkable if the most complex thing in the known universe, 
> intelligence, could be measured with just one number; you need 2 numbers (a 
> Vector) just to measure something as simple as the wind, one for speed and 
> one for direction. I imagine that for a good measure of intelligence you'd 
> need a Tensor, and a big one.
>

I agree with both points, the first one being substantial: that 
the distinct field of cognitive science is clearly inadequate and/or likely 
to be a partial answer to the question of intelligence. My response to that 
would be: nevertheless it does feature the hallmarks of robust knowledge. 

The second point is true, but only in the trivial case of someone takes a 
measurement, resulting in a number. In cognitive science arrives at 
the 'g-factor' from a large base of convergent statistically robust - and 
mutually independent - lines of evidence. 

It's also worth mentioning that a large amount of knowledge does in fact 
converge to individual values. Like constants of nature.  

>
> Besides consisting of only one number another problem is that IQ tests are 
> written by psychologists, I don't happen to believe that the very brightest 
> members of our species tend to go into that profession and tests have 
> difficulty measuring the intelligence of somebody smarter than the one who 
> wrote the test. 
>

Definitely agree with what you might be inferring about the current status 
in psychology study...in fact I'd probably say the field is pre-science and 
even on a worsening trajectory. 

However, just as a good university can have bad departments, and vice 
verca, psychology as a field will contain sub-domains that are better or 
worse. I'll leave that one open as to the veracity of psychometric testing 
and so on. I leave it open because I don't think it's a legitimate 
criticism of cognitice science because: 

- typically robust fields of knowledge exhibit convergent lines of 
evidence/science, that perform the plausible critical function of 
preserving only the hardest most reliable datum within each line (has to 
happen because the result is a single field, and we've already eliminated 
failed fields by saying 'robust fields'. 

- this is certainly the case in cognitive science. 
 

> When the great physicist Richard Feynman was in high school he had an IQ 
> test and all he got was a mediocre 125. The best definition of intelligence 
> that I can think of is "the sort of thing that Richard Feynman did",  
> therefore it is not Feynman but the authors of the test who should feel 
> embarrassed by this. Meanwhile  one of the highest ranked Mensa members 
> alive today, with an IQ north of 200, works as a bouncer in a bar.
>

Yeah that'll be Chris Langan. It isn't really fair to dismiss someone 
because they choose a certain profession. Langan was young punk from a hard 
background, who learned to brawl and rather liked it, teenage tearaway, who 
oneday took a test, and was found to have at or near the highest IQ in 
history. The guy's head is visibly larger than one normally expects (and 
his bone is harder as people he nuts find out) 

Well look, I hang out with some v.high IQ fellows and your point has been 
my point there. Those places are full of good guys, but there's an awful 
stench of un-earned self-proclaimed status. Backed up, with dreadful 
sketches of everything humanity has done by I.Q. band. It's not uncommon 
for a guy with an I.Q. at the 4th standard deviation and above to be going 
around saying things like "I'm already functioning at the level of 
Einstein". Fuck off! 

Yeah, so there's intuition for example. Which isn't explained, but at the 
end of day, just like I.Q. it's going to come down to regains of brain, 
and their connectors and so on. Personal testimony: some of stupidest 
attitudes - as well as some of the most brilliant - I have heard from guys 
with verified IQ scores 170+ 

So it's not a settled matter. But then again, there's that historic fact of 
robust knowledge featuring distributed layers of related but independent 
knowledge. None of what you or I have said, has actually undermined what is 
a layer of independently robust knowledge in intelligence., 

>
> The man with the highest IQ ever may have been a fellow by the name of 
> William James Sidis (1898-1944). Sidis's IQ can only be approximately known 
> even though he took many many IQ tests, the tests were just not up to the 
> task, he was off the charts. Abraham Sterling, director of New York City's 
> Aptitude Testing Institute said:
>
> "He easily h

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 5:16:22 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:41 AM, > wrote:
>
> > What you seem to be doing John, is trying to make a position that 
>> something is equal across distinct domains (like computers and humans)
>>
>
> Yes, that is exactly precisely what I am doing. 
>
> > that involves implicitly or otherwise dismissing both the reality of 
>> difference in the current status of how major layers of hard knowledge has 
>> in respect of, here 'intelligence' AND the accumulate characteristic 
>> reality of knowledge that it is layered and that layers are typically 
>> independent on some or other sense, and therefore robust in and of 
>> themselves. 
>>
>
> Do me a favor, read the above aloud and then ask yourself if you really 
> expect others to understand what in the world you're talking about.
>
>   John K Clark
>

You are absolutely right IMHO that's an appalling paragraph. It so happens 
I did for once read through, and did identify that exact paragraph. So, I'm 
hoping that you like me found the other parts comprehensible. I considered 
a follow on post re-stating that one, but because all I was doing was 
summing up what I'd said, I thought I'd risk you'd not need it. But what 
I'll do here is not only restate it, but restate in more science-convention 
vocabularly. 

Obviously bear in mind there's a context you'll have to refresh yourself on 
in what I'd said first. 

So, in that paragraph I was summing up that: 

In making your argument that the current problem of intelligence was equal 
between computers and humans: 

- You ignore how many independent fields and lines of stand alone evidence 
exist in those fields with respect to intelligence 

- In doing so, apart from the problem of doing that on its own terms: 

- you ignore the historic cumulative fact of robust knowledge that it 
features distributed layers of related yet on some measure independent 
fields of knowledge 

Does this help?

>   
>
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:41:21 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:14:37 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Kim Jones  
>> wrote:
>>
>>  >> On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a 
 intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the 
 correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the 
 world's first trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your theory is on 
 the 
 right track.

>>>  
>>>
>> > That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that 
>>> intelligence is the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the 
>>> skill with which the car is driven. 
>>
>>
>> If that's Edward de Bono's "theory" of intelligence then he might be able 
>> to get a job in a fortune cookie factory but not at Google or Apple or 
>> Microsoft, it explains nothing about why some things are intelligent and 
>> some things are not, it doesn't say a word about how intelligence actually 
>> works. And that's why Mr. de Bono is not a trillionaire. When a person (or 
>> more likely a machine) comes up with a good theory of intelligence YOU WILL 
>> KNOW, probably in just a matter of hours.  
>>
>
>  The story all accumulated robust knowledge features radical layering 
> between 'details' , sometimes speaking to a foundational 'reduceable' 
> scheme, sometimes featuring as yet not understand laws of emergence, and so 
> on. 
>
> It's arguable not realistic to assess the status of knowledge in terms of 
> some as yet not understood but suspected layer. Purely for the reason, your 
> position is necessarily non-distinct. There are going to be senses in which 
> you are right. As in..we don't understand the fundamental biological 
> architectural basis of intelligence.
>
> But there are layers of understanding notwithstanding that deficit, which 
> exhibit the characteristics of reliable scientific knowledge. 
>
> What you seem to be doing John, is trying to make a position that 
> something is equal across distinct domains (like computers and humans), 
> that involves implicitly or otherwise dismissing both the reality of 
> difference in the current status of how major layers of hard knowledge has 
> in respect of, here 'intelligence' AND the accumulate characteristic 
> reality of knowledge that it is layered and that layers are typically 
> independent on some or other sense, and therefore robust in and of 
> themselves.  
>

p.s. I am interested in people and knowledge. So I keep an eye on the 
structure of their arguments. You are amazing strong in the area of physics 
and realism regarding a range of important matters. Butthis exact 
approach to argument you make here on intelligence, you also make over on 
the climate thread. 

It could be coincidence. But on the other hand, it happens to be the case 
that, just as individuals will learn effective ways of doing others things, 
they also will learn effective ways of rationalizing when they feel they 
have to. 

Intelligence and Climate also happen to share an important - independent - 
characteristic between them. Both are 'controversial' in the same 
cross-domain kind of way. That is, not controversial within empirical 
science, but between empirical science and some sort of external - but very 
powerful - force

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 4:14:37 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:35 PM, Kim Jones  > wrote:
>
>  >> On the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a 
>>> intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the 
>>> correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the 
>>> world's first trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your theory is on the 
>>> right track.
>>>
>>  
>>
> > That guy was Edward de Bono. He was the first one to say that 
>> intelligence is the horsepower of the car whereas thinking ability is the 
>> skill with which the car is driven. 
>
>
> If that's Edward de Bono's "theory" of intelligence then he might be able 
> to get a job in a fortune cookie factory but not at Google or Apple or 
> Microsoft, it explains nothing about why some things are intelligent and 
> some things are not, it doesn't say a word about how intelligence actually 
> works. And that's why Mr. de Bono is not a trillionaire. When a person (or 
> more likely a machine) comes up with a good theory of intelligence YOU WILL 
> KNOW, probably in just a matter of hours.  
>

 The story all accumulated robust knowledge features radical layering 
between 'details' , sometimes speaking to a foundational 'reduceable' 
scheme, sometimes featuring as yet not understand laws of emergence, and so 
on. 

It's arguable not realistic to assess the status of knowledge in terms of 
some as yet not understood but suspected layer. Purely for the reason, your 
position is necessarily non-distinct. There are going to be senses in which 
you are right. As in..we don't understand the fundamental biological 
architectural basis of intelligence.

But there are layers of understanding notwithstanding that deficit, which 
exhibit the characteristics of reliable scientific knowledge. 

What you seem to be doing John, is trying to make a position that something 
is equal across distinct domains (like computers and humans), that involves 
implicitly or otherwise dismissing both the reality of difference in the 
current status of how major layers of hard knowledge has in respect of, 
here 'intelligence' AND the accumulate characteristic reality of knowledge 
that it is layered and that layers are typically independent on some or 
other sense, and therefore robust in and of themselves.  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Democracy

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 11:25:49 AM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 9:32 PM, John Mikes  > wrote:
>
>> Telmo:
>>
>> I am a multilinguist (similar to you I suppose) and consider the word 
>> 'democracy' as the rule "Cratos" of "DEMOS". the totality of people. You 
>>  (and probably others, too) mean It 
>> as a practical political format based on expression of desire by MANY 
>> (majority - called) 'voters'.
>>
>
> John, I agree with your definition. My fear is that democracy cannot be 
> protected from a collapse into a dictatorship of the average, and a 
> misinformed average in the worst case.
>

I totally agree, and so does history and all sense. It's immensely 
disrespectful of all of our ancestors to imagine they were for eons a bunch 
of dozy fools that didn't see how easy it was. It's really hard to keep 
things on an even keel. It's definitely a lot more realistic to at any 
point a person happens to have born, to assume things are getting worse. 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: TRONNIES - SPACE

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 7:37:25 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
> On 6/14/2014 1:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
> > If there were a reason why a primitive matter was needed (to select and 
> incarnate 
> > consciousness), there would be number X and Nu which would emulate 
> validly "Brunos and 
> > Davids" finding that reason, and proving *correctly* that they don't 
> belong only to 
> > arithmetic, 
>
> ?? Why might that not be a truth of arithmetic that is not provable? 
>
> Brent 
>
>
> Allowing the logic that a robust theory is its final product including 
only the consequences actually worked through, and only as far as they are 
worked through. The rest being philosophical or non-distinct. 

Also allowing that a robust theory in science speaks to an 'objective 
reality' in which for the same knowledge and accuracy, the same final 
product will materialize by *any* of whatever alternate theoretical routes 
exist. 

THEN the logic is that while there are playoffs between going for simple 
initial postulates and computing from there, or devising more abstracted 
postulated relevant to the whole domain defining the final product, there 
cannot be a knowledge lighter or heavier route between such alternate 
paths. 

If you go with simple initial postulates, then all you do is transfer the 
problem to the computation of consequence section. 

It is NOT logical to speak of simple postulates with non-distinct 
consequences for some apparently reasonable much larger domain, as equal to 
a theory that is robust across that domain. Like Relativity. It's immensely 
robust across a very large domain. Would it have been equal had Einstein or 
whoever, produced a theory that *suggested* a nature across the same 
domain, but offered no worked through methods and equations for that 
domain? 

This sort of thing was fairly understood by the geniuses of yesteryear like 
Richard Feynman. What happened while I was getting stoned all those years? 
Did someone overturn these understandings? 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: de Bono

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 15, 2014 3:10:14 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jun 15, 2014 at 11:29:04AM +1000, Kim Jones wrote: 
>
> ... 
> > 
> > Real thinking involves all four wheels of the car on the ground. An 
> argument style of thinking only has three wheels on the ground. The missing 
> fourth wheel is generic, possibility-based thinking that turns away from 
> agreement and disagreement. The idea should be the need to explore the 
> terrain of ideas rather than to seek the chink or the flaw in each other's 
> armour. Exploring a terrain of ideas such as we do here routinely is best 
> done when we neither agree nor disagree with each other but turn and face 
> in the same direction and simply report to each other on what we "see just 
> up ahead." This way we advance as a group and do not dissolve into 
> sectarian, tribal "I am right, you are wrong" adversarial squabbles. In the 
> rare moments where humans do this, we are truly persons; possibly the 
> self-referentially correct Löbian entities of comp. 
> > 
> > Sorry - this post was too long. 
>
> :) 
>
> The real trick is to strike a balance between criticism, that prevents 
> unproductive and obviously _wrong_ ideas from consuming time and 
> energy, and free-wheeling speculation that leads to creative ideas. 
>
> The question is - where do you think the balance is in this forum? I 
> can see arguments for both ends of the spectrum. 
>

Your question may be coincidental, but it's pretty hard not to think there 
is some connection with road crash taking place in what was the 
Bruno-myself dialogue. You are also one people I relate to (no expectation 
of reciprocation..that's not how it works). 

So, please if possible give your answer to: 

Falsification Thread: 

1. I provided in fresh thread a clear definition of what I spoke of, 
involving distinct properties at every point.

2. Is there a single response from Bruno, in which he actually compiles one 
of his claims into such form he shows the same properties as in my 
definition? Or where he explains why my definition is wrong? 

How can it be reasonable that someone does not do this? Instead simply 
repeats the same points? How can it be reasonable of others to simply turn 
a blind eye to this, and then some of them begin demonizing me? 

Please give your honest response to that, and whatever that is, be 
reasonable and allow your position to be checked against the empirical 
facts on this list in that thread. 

That's all I ask

Similar issues the other threads but let's just go there to begin with.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 5:34:10 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 6:43 AM, > wrote
>  
>>
>>  > A lot is understood about intelligence in humans 
>>
>
> Almost nothing is understood about intelligence in humans, otherwise we 
> could double our IQ...
>
 
You're one of the people I almost always relate to in terms of 
thinking/science. I'm interested in this subject. There are some context 
issues going on John. You have just mentioned I.Q. which is a specific kind 
of measure. Would you be willing to clarify where you stand on the science 
behind I.Q.? 

The reason is that we live in a time where there is large pressure on 
people to toe certain lines whether they believe its true or not. If I can 
know whether you/others are toeing that line, then I will steer clear of 
the things people would rather not look at. 

Reason I think you might be in that categoryis


 

>  [ ...]by knowing which modes of thought are productive and which just 
> waste time and lead nowhere. 
>

John this statement appears to suggest  I.Q. differences between 
individuals are a matter of good or bad philosophy in modes of thinking. 
There's a huge amount science that is tied to thousands of large scale 
tests on the one hand, and hundreds of some of the strongest neurological 
science, that has settled fairly firmly these last 30 years on I.Q. 
difference being 0.8 heritable, and 0.2 uncertain. A huge amount of work 
has gone into study of whether I.Q. changes through life. Basically, the 
answer is yes, from about 0 to 5 or 6 years old, kids can lose ground or 
gain ground. However, by about 8 these fluctuations restore to expectations 
on other measure and *never* fluctuate again. 

We talk about past generations who stood up for what was true and all the 
rest. But every generation faces this. Right now, a whole science is being 
overturned by pressure and 'scientific' arguments none of which have EVER 
explained the empirical evidence, OR conducted a SINGLE survey ... i.e. an 
empirical test involving tests or whatever, that has backed up their 
postulations, or failed to verify the science of IQ.  

So what are we talking about here? Are we talking where the hard science 
is, or are we talking about something else? I need to know, because I'm 
committed to science, whatever. That's where I am. 



 

 
>
>> > we can do things like make a list of life outcomes that are most 
>> strongly tied in with intelligence
>>
>
> And if a machine can obtain more of those outcomes than I can then the 
> machine is smarter than me. 
>

Yes ...with the same constraints and limitations as well. But John...,we 
have no means to do this with a computer as now. While we do have means to 
do this with ourselves. So for that reason, the problem itself is not equal 
because the means are not equal. Certainly the underlying problem, with 
means controlled, may well be. We don't know. But why not.  

>  
>

> > you've said the hard problem is intelligence and not consciousness.
>>
>
> Yes, that's why so many people on this list have a consciousness theory 
> but not one has a intelligence theory. 
>

Sure, but I would normally assume we are speaking first and foremost about 
scientific knowledge. Of course, laypeople don't necessarily understand 
intelligence and may not be interested in that so much. Consciousness is 
focussed in lay population precisely because there is no hard science. So 
that's reasonable. It's good that people don't try to come up with theories 
while ignoring the science - which is the definition of a crank. 

But there is something with the same characteristics as a 'crank' but when 
the motivation is due more to coercion or misinformation. Are you for 
example, in your theory (of the status of cognitive science) consciously or 
unconsciously ignoring the science? 
 

> There is no easier job in the world than being a consciousness theorist 
> because any theory works about as well as any other, and even if you happen 
> to stumble upon the correct one there is no way to know that you have. On 
> the other hand there is no harder job in the world than being a 
> intelligence theorist, but at least if you happen to stumble upon the 
> correct intelligence theory the fact that you've suddenly become the 
> world's first trillionaire is a pretty good hint that your theory is on the 
> right track. 
>

I totally agree with your observations about consciousness theory. But your 
conclusion that this is the mark of easiness...I would argue you are 
missing a layer at which an important distinction separates the same 
observations into both 'easy' as you say, and 'hard'. That distinction is 
between scientific knowledge and the history of that, and layperson 
/philosophical knowledge and the history of that. 

All hard won scientific knowledge started out as dismally as consciousness 
theorizing. Discovery chemical involved impossibly hard problems that no 
one even had the first clue about

Re: The Really Real Part of Reality

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:54:15 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> > On 14 Jun 2014, at 1:20 am, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > 
> > when you never read anything I say (and have *never* responded directly 
> explicitly to anything I say). 
>
> I don't think you can get away with that. That reeks of something or other 
> on the emotional level. I would say that people generally make the best 
> effort to read and understand your posts many of which are highly detailed 
> and yes, verbose. I actually find Bruno easier to understand than you on a 
> plain english language level and you are the native English speaker. Now 
> just wrap your head around that. I would like to understand what you are on 
> about a whole lot better but am usually stonkered by your writing style. A 
> good rule of thumb to adopt is to not write anything in a white heat of 
> passion but to write the shortest possible sentences and use the minimal 
> amount of words. Throw out all unnecessary adjectives. These are just 
> personal value judgement-laden objects anyway and say far more about the 
> writer than what the writer is trying to communicate. This is a plea for 
> simplicity. If people don't respond In a way you might want, I am 
> suggesting that they may be finding you a tad tedious. Having said that, I 
> sincerely mean it when I say that I believe you have something important to 
> say and would like to come to grips with it 
> cent
> Kim


Or let me say it another less gentle way. Because I think that's 
the trajectory...you haven't signalled a wish to change it, in any kind of 
resolutiofn seeking manner known to be effective. You've intervened in the 
dialogue between Bruce and myself, I'd estimate 10 to 15 times.  Here it's 
all about my bad talking and my bad thinking by conceiving - and this is 
effectively verbatim your position KIM, my bad thinking fisor thinking ill 
will is the sort of thing anyone does. But me.

 Everyone is basically good and well intentioned. You are. You sure 
are...because you've trying..and you want to understand...but my bad 
talking is just too bad. And you've positive that you've told me how I can 
change. You've listed why beyond being linguistically bad, specific 
structures in my bad talking indicate strong negatives about character. 

And you have tried. You've studied this from many angles. I can attest to 
that. Because you've come into this discussion about 10 - 15 times and 
almost each time has centred on something different; A different trait. 
This time language...but feasibly all of them fit into that because 
its language. But sometimes the analysis has been much more precise...like 
maybe I say something to Bruno that involves a criticism. You've been able 
to contribute by analysing that, and finding on 2 or more occasion from 
memory, that the exact opposite was true. 

I've got to learn the lesson, because the bad thinking - that there's a 
shared burden of responsibility or culpability, or motive, bad talking, bad 
thinking...is realistic and good philosophy in any plausible universe. You 
are coming into this having done a lot of hard work, and objective 
analysis.,..and taken together your 10 to 15 interjections I think I'm 
starting to benefit here. I can see it was more bad thinking slipping in 
that someone was basically finding a way to 100% support Bruno and 100% 
find a way to do that involved making me 100% responsible, was your good 
intentions and hard analysis from many angels was thoroughness and not an 
indication someone was basically signalling they didn't give a fuck about 
anything I had to say that wasn't a total and unconditional acknowledgement 
of their own reading, which involved one loved person being above all 
question and another basically being there to pick up anything smelly and 
negative.

NO. Bad thinking. Thinking others could share a burden., Bad bad. It's me. 
All me. All those 10 to 15 different. All me what PGC says. All me 
Bruno...goes without question. 

And that's a good resolution seeking approach. Bad thinking it was bad. 
I've seen that one work many many. And very quickly and it stays worked on 
a pretty long term basis. Resolution seeking strategies are the same 
wherever you go in the world. The tools...the stakes...ok that can be 
different. You're one...some places is about someone begs for their life or 
if it's too late for that, then their families life. And maybe they can get 
to stick around on this planet. Or they can get a bullet in the head. It's 
an effective resolution Kim. I get that. Here the stakes aren't high. But 
it's definitely a convergent strategy that I can fuck off out of this place 
or acknowledge your theory that I get to pick up all negatives all contexts 
because everyone else particularly Bruno are good people, and make best 
efforts. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving email

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 12:13:48 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:31:12 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote: 
>> > Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom 
>> later. 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish  wrote: 
>> > 
>> > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote: 
>> > > > 
>> > > > Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, 
>> going by 
>> > > a 
>> > > > comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
>> > > processors 
>> > > > haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more "cores", 
>> i.e. 
>> > > > they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But 
>> the 
>> > > > density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
>> predicted 
>> > > > amount (or so I'm told). 
>> > > > 
>> > > 
>> > > Moore's law was never about GHz. It was originally about number of 
>> > > transistors per dollar, and with greater transistor counts per CPU, 
>> that 
>> > > has 
>> > > been turned into bigger caches and multiple cores (with 50+ core 
>> chips 
>> > > now on the market). 
>> > > 
>> > > But of real interest is processing power per dollar as a function of 
>> > > time. This has been exponential since the start of the computing age 
>> > > (perhaps even with a reduction of the time constant sometime in the 
>> > > '90s), and shows no sign of slowing down. The rate of 1 order of 
>> > > magnitude of performance improvement at a given price point every 5 
>> > > years has held throughout my professional life. In my career, the 
>> > > following purchases were made*: 
>> > > 
>> > > 1992 CM5, 4GFlops $1.5M 
>> > > 1996 SGI Power Challenge, 8GFlops, $800K 
>> > > 2000 SGI Origin 56 GFlops $1.2M 
>> > > 2004 Dell cluster, 1TF, $500K 
>> > > 2013 HP GPU cluster, 300TF, $500K 
>> > > 
>> > > * subject to a certain amount uncertainty due to my recall of the 
>> > >   facts 
>> > > 
>> > > Attached is an image of the performance per dollar plotted as a 
>> > > function of year. 
>> > > 
>>
>> Incidently, the "kink" at 2000 was caused by the move from proprietry 
>> systems to commodity systems running Linux. I tried to make the 2000 
>> purchase a Linux-based purchase, but was unable to convince my 
>> colleagues. If I'd been successful, the curve would have been a lot 
>> flatter! 
>>
>> Cheers 
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>  
>>
>> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>>
>
> it's throwaways like this that say the most if they accumulate in time 
> which they do with you - my window anyway
>

p.s. "say" I am 99% sure is obvious, but due to some minor local 
self-esteem issues and the other local matter of a one-to-many rearguard 
action, I shall have to cave in and add "in a very positive direction"

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Really Real Part of Reality

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:54:15 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> > On 14 Jun 2014, at 1:20 am, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> > 
> > when you never read anything I say (and have *never* responded directly 
> explicitly to anything I say). 
>
> I don't think you can get away with that. That reeks of something or other 
> on the emotional level. I would say that people generally make the best 
> effort to read and understand your posts many of which are highly detailed 
> and yes, verbose. I actually find Bruno easier to understand than you on a 
> plain english language level and you are the native English speaker. Now 
> just wrap your head around that. I would like to understand what you are on 
> about a whole lot better but am usually stonkered by your writing style. A 
> good rule of thumb to adopt is to not write anything in a white heat of 
> passion but to write the shortest possible sentences and use the minimal 
> amount of words. Throw out all unnecessary adjectives. These are just 
> personal value judgement-laden objects anyway and say far more about the 
> writer than what the writer is trying to communicate. This is a plea for 
> simplicity. If people don't respond In a way you might want, I am 
> suggesting that they may be finding you a tad tedious. Having said that, I 
> sincerely mean it when I say that I believe you have something important to 
> say and would like to come to grips with it. 


 Kim - I don't have a problem with yours and almost no one else either, 
 sense of the balance in the situation between Bruno and myself, because 
even though I regard it as unfair in practice, what I don't perceive is 
anything malign. It's normal and natural by the looks. But it's very unfair 
and biased in how it actually exists. But that's lifeeven with everyone 
on best intentions. 

For a very long time, I persevered to land an insight on Bruno - not for 
badgering but purely for taking him at his word, that he was open to it and 
interested to know if we could get to the drop, but that he genuinely did 
not know whati I was talking about. This ran for months. And I think the 
perhaps natural perception of others, who also don't understand the point, 
but on-top of that are not particularly interested to know the point - 
which is fine - have accumulatd this perception of what traits this 
dialogue contained. 

The perceived traits - easy to understand from a very basic psychological 
perspective - are that Bruno has been a 'gentleman' continuously tolerant 
of what most people would find irritating and bat away, and entirely 
consistent throughout from start to finish. Because on a mildly 
disinterested 'browsing/glancing' basis that's what it looks like. Because 
Bruno has literally repeated himself throughout every post more or less. 
So one side has the traits of a diverse, sometimes psychological, array of 
positionings, while the other exhibits consistency. Then there's the fairly 
plausibly default landscaping that might have Bruno as the busy guy who is 
giving up time, and possibly myself as the anonymous-wastrel with nothing 
but time. Or some milder version of that. 

Problem is, Kim, exactly the same traits can indicate one person not being 
sincere about understanding another person, but being very sincere and 
committed to any opportunity to reinforce thinking to a sensitized 
audience. While the other guy, an outsider to that community, so not able 
to discern that sort of thing at the outset, initially and for a long time 
accepts the community interpretations without question, and duly responds 
to is clearly an invitation by the other guy, to keep trying. 

So fairness - which incidentally I am not demanding and don't expect  - 
would be, if you want to get involved, that you would first puti yourself 
through the treatment of recognizing there are two sides to this, and that 
prima facie the high level evidence is indeterminate in terms of those two 
sides, and that this is a typical candidate situation in which what someone 
- you - are sensitized to the most taking on a disproportionate influence 
in deciding. 

It isn't going to be about my shortcomings in writing, slightly 
verbose...flabby vocab, Kim. I write extremely for someone that never went 
to school. And basic social contract would probably say that we need to 
work at our writing but also our reading - particularly speed of reading - 
skills such that we are all able to get past the shortcomings of others up 
to a point. I think I'm well inside that point. 

So is the situation intractably tied to - potentially - your sensitivities, 
or is there a way to know more should you want to? Yes there is a way, 
because it's all documented. And does not have to read or internalized. But 
only that you construct simple predictions what sort of other traits would 
be present. On my narrative, and on his. 

In reality, I haven't had a problem with Bruno particularly. I don't think 
he's bad guy on the whole. I don'

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 12:19:16 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:41:45 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>>
>>  On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>>  
>>  On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish  wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
>>> > Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any 
>>> sophisticated
>>> > piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble 
>>> mailing
>>> > list/forum software we are using is already "hugely mind-bogglingly
>>> > incremental". It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
>>> > involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
>>> > increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down 
>>> below.
>>> > And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still 
>>> pretty
>>> > much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
>>> > intelligence built in. Inspired by "She" I asked her what she was 
>>> wearing,
>>> > and she said, "I can't tell you but it doesn't come off."). Well, I'm 
>>> still
>>> > agnostic on "comp", so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
>>> > failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however 
>>> consider
>>> > the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
>>> > Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end 
>>> of the
>>> > century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
>>> > computational power required for human intelligence is already present 
>>> in a
>>> > modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
>>> > think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes 
>>> it.
>>> >
>>>
>>>  It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
>>> about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
>>> Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.
>>>
>>
>>  Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going 
>> by a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
>> processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more 
>> "cores", i.e. they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. 
>> But the density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
>> predicted amount (or so I'm told).
>>   
>>  I have a theory that no matter how fast they make the processors 
>> Microsoft will devise an operating system to slow them down.
>>
>> Brent
>> "The first time Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be when 
>> they build vacuum cleaners."
>> --- Anon- 
>>
> Yeah it seems so...very funny strap line as well. Another funny from 
> memory  - an event actually - Bill Gates remarked if the automobile 
> industry had advanced on a par with computing we'd be commuting 
> London-->Oxford in half a second. A whole stream of funny retorts came in 
> its wake about crashes. Bill seems to have got the joke since that's the 
> last he had to say on that score. y 
>

p.s.  just as someone else says they'll stick with Linux anyway, I'll 
probably stick with Microsoft even though I know Apple make a better box 
these days. Possibly silly reasons. I think MS made a lot of mistakes in 
their heydayand paid the price too because for a long while they had 
the power to 'make it so'. Be a monopoly if they wanted to be. But they - 
he - in doing so fooled himself into thinking economic laws are only about 
delivering a price service to the consumer. When they are just as relevant 
for the internals of an enterprise. So he paid the price and still is and 
won't re-coupe. 

But what gets lost is that Bill Gates was the first internet revolution. 
Just before the internet - essentially a set of standards - emerged. But it 
only came along because Bill had created a networks and user-points 
revolution on the ground. Also I with the Bill and Melinda 
foundationhooking up with the other good-guy of the billionaire set, 
forget his name temporarily, they are a role model for the rest of them. 
Which even if ignored as currently...at lest they have tried.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 4:41:45 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 6/13/2014 6:52 PM, LizR wrote:
>  
>  On 13 June 2014 23:35, Russell Standish  > wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 01:44:25AM -0700, Pierz wrote:
>> > Yes. But I have to wonder what we're doing wrong, because any 
>> sophisticated
>> > piece of  modern software such as a modern OS or even this humble 
>> mailing
>> > list/forum software we are using is already "hugely mind-bogglingly
>> > incremental". It has evolved over decades of incremental improvement
>> > involving thousands upon thousands of workers building up layers of
>> > increasing abstraction from the unfriendly silicon goings-on down below.
>> > And yet Siri, far from being a virtual Scarlett Johannson, is still 
>> pretty
>> > much dumb as dog-shit (though she has some neat bits of crystallised
>> > intelligence built in. Inspired by "She" I asked her what she was 
>> wearing,
>> > and she said, "I can't tell you but it doesn't come off."). Well, I'm 
>> still
>> > agnostic on "comp", so I don't have to decide whether this conspicuous
>> > failure represents evidence against computationalism. I do however 
>> consider
>> > the bullish predictions of the likes of Deutsch (and even our own dear
>> > Bruno) that we shall be uploading our brains or something by the end of 
>> the
>> > century or sooner to be deluded. Deutsch wrote once (BoI?) that the
>> > computational power required for human intelligence is already present 
>> in a
>> > modern laptop; we just haven't had the programming breakthrough yet. I
>> > think that is preposterous and can hardly credit he actually believes 
>> it.
>> >
>>
>>  It overstates the facts somewhat - a modern laptop is probably still
>> about 3 orders of magnitude less powerful than a human brain, but with
>> Moore's law, that gap will be closed in about 15 years.
>>
>
>  Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, going by 
> a comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
> processors haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more 
> "cores", i.e. they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. 
> But the density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
> predicted amount (or so I'm told).
>   
>  I have a theory that no matter how fast they make the processors 
> Microsoft will devise an operating system to slow them down.
>
> Brent
> "The first time Microsoft makes a product that doesn't suck will be when 
> they build vacuum cleaners."
> --- Anon- 
>
Yeah it seems so...very funny strap line as well. Another funny from memory 
 - an event actually - Bill Gates remarked if the automobile industry had 
advanced on a par with computing we'd be commuting London-->Oxford in half 
a second. A whole stream of funny retorts came in its wake about crashes. 
Bill seems to have got the joke since that's the last he had to say on that 
score. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 3:31:12 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 02:22:56PM +1200, LizR wrote: 
> > Oh, OK, obviously I was misinformed. I will smack Charles' bottom later. 
> > 
> > 
> > On 14 June 2014 14:27, Russell Standish  > wrote: 
> > 
> > > On Sat, Jun 14, 2014 at 01:52:01PM +1200, LizR wrote: 
> > > > 
> > > > Moore's law appears to have stopped working about 10 years ago, 
> going by 
> > > a 
> > > > comparison of modern home computers with old ones. That is, the 
> > > processors 
> > > > haven't increased much in speed, but they have gained more "cores", 
> i.e. 
> > > > they've been parallelised, and more memory and more storage. But the 
> > > > density of the components on the chips hasn't increased by the 
> predicted 
> > > > amount (or so I'm told). 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Moore's law was never about GHz. It was originally about number of 
> > > transistors per dollar, and with greater transistor counts per CPU, 
> that 
> > > has 
> > > been turned into bigger caches and multiple cores (with 50+ core chips 
> > > now on the market). 
> > > 
> > > But of real interest is processing power per dollar as a function of 
> > > time. This has been exponential since the start of the computing age 
> > > (perhaps even with a reduction of the time constant sometime in the 
> > > '90s), and shows no sign of slowing down. The rate of 1 order of 
> > > magnitude of performance improvement at a given price point every 5 
> > > years has held throughout my professional life. In my career, the 
> > > following purchases were made*: 
> > > 
> > > 1992 CM5, 4GFlops $1.5M 
> > > 1996 SGI Power Challenge, 8GFlops, $800K 
> > > 2000 SGI Origin 56 GFlops $1.2M 
> > > 2004 Dell cluster, 1TF, $500K 
> > > 2013 HP GPU cluster, 300TF, $500K 
> > > 
> > > * subject to a certain amount uncertainty due to my recall of the 
> > >   facts 
> > > 
> > > Attached is an image of the performance per dollar plotted as a 
> > > function of year. 
> > > 
>
> Incidently, the "kink" at 2000 was caused by the move from proprietry 
> systems to commodity systems running Linux. I tried to make the 2000 
> purchase a Linux-based purchase, but was unable to convince my 
> colleagues. If I'd been successful, the curve would have been a lot 
> flatter! 
>
> Cheers 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
>

it's throwaways like this that say the most if they accumulate in time 
which they do with you - my window anyway

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, June 14, 2014 11:43:47 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:54:01 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz  wrote:
>>
>>  > The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our 
>>> current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'.
>>>
>>
>> If there is a fundamental problem with determining the level of 
>> intelligence in something the problem is not restricted to computers, it's 
>> just as severe in the intelligence of our fellow humans. 
>>
>  
> For something like this to be true the means have to be equal too. A lot 
> is understood about intelligence in humans because we can do things like 
> make a list of life outcomes that are most strongly tied in with 
> intelligence, on the one hand. And on the other make tests that feature 
> generic activities say, involving language or spatial reasoning or 
> whatever. Then we can correlate. Which creates problems because humans can 
> learn skills by repetition and we have to be able to say whether these 
> correlations are about learning skills or intelligence. But this kind of 
> thing has been going on now for over a century there are things like 'g 
> factor'. 
>
> It doesn't explain everything...but it's good hard science. I does tend to 
> be exaggerated in terms of how much a person can be defined by I.Q. This is 
> particularly bad in the high IQ community as you'd expect. At the other end 
> it's been the target of large scale campaigns to discredit itbecause it 
> makes the world a more complicated place where there are consequences and 
> constraints on what we can do just by wishing it so...that people don't 
> want to hear. 
>
> So there it is. We know a about intelligence in humans. Nothing like we 
> need to know. But a lot more than a lot of people are willing to say 
> anymore, who know that. Not sure where you are on thatfrom your 
> consciousness vs intelligence positions it appears you may be well informed 
> in that respect. On the other hand you appear to have had a career in a 
> field where I.Q. would have been at a premium so you've probably spent your 
> life discerning for I.Q. so there may be a little rationalizing going on 
> somewhere. 
>

 Sorry I said " it appears you may be well informed in that respect" but 
meant to say it appeared you MAY NOT be well informed on that respect. 
Purely because you've said the hard problem is intelligence and not 
consciousness. When we've got a hard science of intelligence in humans 
anyway, but  barely a brainfart thrown against the wall for consciousness 
thus far

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Friday, June 13, 2014 5:54:01 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 2:35 AM, Pierz > 
> wrote:
>
>  > The whole thing really just illustrates a fundamental problem with our 
>> current conception of AI -at least as it manifests in such 'tests'.
>>
>
> If there is a fundamental problem with determining the level of 
> intelligence in something the problem is not restricted to computers, it's 
> just as severe in the intelligence of our fellow humans. 
>
 
For something like this to be true the means have to be equal too. A lot is 
understood about intelligence in humans because we can do things like make 
a list of life outcomes that are most strongly tied in with intelligence, 
on the one hand. And on the other make tests that feature generic 
activities say, involving language or spatial reasoning or whatever. Then 
we can correlate. Which creates problems because humans can learn skills by 
repetition and we have to be able to say whether these correlations are 
about learning skills or intelligence. But this kind of thing has been 
going on now for over a century there are things like 'g factor'. 

It doesn't explain everything...but it's good hard science. I does tend to 
be exaggerated in terms of how much a person can be defined by I.Q. This is 
particularly bad in the high IQ community as you'd expect. At the other end 
it's been the target of large scale campaigns to discredit itbecause it 
makes the world a more complicated place where there are consequences and 
constraints on what we can do just by wishing it so...that people don't 
want to hear. 

So there it is. We know a about intelligence in humans. Nothing like we 
need to know. But a lot more than a lot of people are willing to say 
anymore, who know that. Not sure where you are on thatfrom your 
consciousness vs intelligence positions it appears you may be well informed 
in that respect. On the other hand you appear to have had a career in a 
field where I.Q. would have been at a premium so you've probably spent your 
life discerning for I.Q. so there may be a little rationalizing going on 
somewhere. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 8:20:16 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Jun 11, 2014 at 4:22 PM, > wrote:
>
> > If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be 
>> "doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in 
>> the first place"? 
>>
>
> My answer is "no". So am I a human or a computer?
>

Well the engagement's OFF if you're human. It's off anyway because I'm not 
really a woman. 

Sorry...wrong list. k
I'd be interested in the highlights of why you think "no". I obviously am 
aware of plenty of literal reading instances of 'no'. But they are all 
cases of being 'beside' the point. Not everything is suitable to be left 
generic. A detailed test won't in the tray of what is.  

It seems to me one doesn't have to envisage very far down the path of 
what designing a proper test would entail to fairly sure the task itself 
would be extremely hard, and not necessarily possible absent some major 
theoretical work. 

Which makes the conception unviable probably for at least preceding 40 
years, since much easier, more objective and arguably more to the heart of 
the matter tests are plausibly available (also via some theory) from 
hardware/software signals

So if the way you mean 'no' is along the lines of someone had a big vision 
and so and so failed to realize the 'spirit'. A.no. Not in my view, 
because failing to do the work on the detail pretty much guarantees that 
outcome, or makes it vastly more likely. 

 . 

>
> > Has there ever been a robust set of standards?
>>
>
> No, except that whatever procedure you use to judge the level of 
> intelligence of your fellow Human Beings it is only fair that you use the 
> same procedure when judging machines. I admit this is imperfect, humans can 
> turn out to be smarter or dumber than originally thought, but it's the only 
> tool we have for judging fthings. If the judge is a idiot then the Turing 
> Test doesn't work very well, or if the subject is a genius but pretending 
> to be a idiot you well also probably end up making the wrong judgement but 
> such is life, you do the best you can with the tools at hand.
>

I'd certain concur these would be some major issues.  

>
> By the way, for a long time machines have been able to beautifully emulate 
> the behavior of two particular types of humans, those in a coma and those 
> that are dead. 
>

Didn't know that, but was reminded something that was said about Game 
Theory...it only predicted statisticians and psychopaths. ~Don't know if 
it's true, but if it was, why the bloody hell was that a reason to stop 
using it or restrict its useful domain of usage? That was a rhetorical 
question you psycho. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The Really Real Part of Reality

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, June 12, 2014 5:54:41 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 12 Jun 2014, at 01:48, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> On Monday, June 9, 2014 2:20:26 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: 
>
> In the "Is Conscious Computable?" and "Suicide Words God and Ideas" 
> threads there is considerable overlap of discussion of "primitive 
> materialism". This is the place where the Neoplatonists and the 
> Aristotelians get to slug it out, so to speak. I feel the quality of the 
> discussion between David Nyman and Bruno is worth signalling. 
>
> Perhaps the time is ripe for a revision of Bruno’s version of CTM and I 
> take the liberty to provide this. 
>
> In 2013 he released a summary version to a Biomathics website which I 
> thought was very good. I then redacted it into what I believe is the first 
> Plain English version of comp available. Note that this is the short 
> version of the SANE 2004 paper. 
>
> This may help you to check your understanding or to consolidate/change 
> your stance vis à vis Bruno’s core ideas. It is designed to read as 
> fluently as possible. 
>
> The link has been set up to download the .pdf file direct to your download 
> folder 
>
>
> *Comp 2013 Redux* 
>
> thanks for taking the trouble to do this. I did read it through once 
> again, but I suppose with some amount of trepidation shall have to report 
> no status change as the result. Then to highlight the issues as I see them: 
>
> 1. Nothing wrong with logic on its own terms. His points are reason and - 
> allowing I probably miss some of the deeper layerings of significance - 
> easy to understand and even 'obvious' (in a good way). Emphasis once more 
> on 'that of it I could make out' as it were. 
>
> 2. The issue - as I see it - is logical nonetheless, which may seem 
> contradictory but just isn'tnot once one appreciates the nature of the 
> UDA is that of successive levels of logical deduction, each one building on 
> the last (or summation of all previous taken together or subset or 
> whatever). 
>
> The logical nature of *that* kind of structure, must/should always include 
> - cumulative with each further layer - appreciation and allowance for what 
> might be termed 'exo-logic'. That is, say from the perspective of the 
> initial conditions, or in this case the initial assumption (comp), the 
> logical implications of not just what is in the assumption, but what 
> 'sense', by what 'degree' what (a given thing) is in the assumption. all 
> the way to what s not in the assumption at all despite appearing to be. All 
> from the *retrospective* vantage point of whatever direction the layered 
> deductive structure actually converges to. 
>
>
> Specifically? If an implicit assumption is used at some steps, please tell 
> the step and the missing assumption.
>

Why can't you see this is not a question of what assumptions you do or 
don't make within your logic?

Ste outside out your box briefly, outside your logic. 

Or just explore the logic native in the conception of deriving large 
impications fromtry making a logically parallel metaphor using 
completely different objects...describe one of these you regard as 
legitimate
I will create one for you. Let's say, someone got wrapped up with 'origin 
of life', as in abiogenesis. Then had a similar idea based on another 
universal principle - conservation of energy. So...reasoning his cogwheels 
turnsenergy is conserved always it is thought, and so origin happened 
energy-symmetrically.

So then, assuming "cons-e" for origin of life Bruno...what logic is now 
available
OrI just constructed a physical test for you: Bruno I have just placed 
'something' into a black-box. It is associated with 'concepts' which are 
vague, and may or may not exhibit physicality, but I'm not saying. 
Assuming it's emulableBrunowhat are your logical deductions? Can 
you deduce any non-trivial information what is in the box? 

 How about the innards of Jupitor...assuming comp, is anything new 
available to you? 

Test it...get a friend to put something in a box, then you assump comp and 
get deducing. If you manage to generate non-trivial new knowledge on a 
statistically significant basis, I think you'll find yourself winning a 
large prize for supernatural powers. 

Or just from a straight appreciation ofwhy go elsewhere let's stick 
with conservation of energy. New knowledge, because it's information, is 
thought to be *energetic* in character. Now, we're still trying to work out 
how it squares off.and indeed this is one of THE huge baffling 
questions of the scientific revolution. Philosophers  gravitate to this. 
The centre piece of philosophical odyssey was an epistemology of knowledge. 

There are unresolved problems with exactly how energy conserves knowledge 
creation processes...we're not there yet. But nevertheless we assume the 
answer will obey conservation of energy. 

So, I suppose, no one can tell an

Re: The Really Real Part of Reality

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, June 9, 2014 2:20:26 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote: 

In the "Is Conscious Computable?" and "Suicide Words God and Ideas" threads 
there is considerable overlap of discussion of "primitive materialism". 
This is the place where the Neoplatonists and the Aristotelians get to slug 
it out, so to speak. I feel the quality of the discussion between David 
Nyman and Bruno is worth signalling. 

Perhaps the time is ripe for a revision of Bruno’s version of CTM and I 
take the liberty to provide this. 

In 2013 he released a summary version to a Biomathics website which I 
thought was very good. I then redacted it into what I believe is the first 
Plain English version of comp available. Note that this is the short 
version of the SANE 2004 paper. 

This may help you to check your understanding or to consolidate/change your 
stance vis à vis Bruno’s core ideas. It is designed to read as fluently as 
possible. 

The link has been set up to download the .pdf file direct to your download 
folder 


*Comp 2013 Redux* 

thanks for taking the trouble to do this. I did read it through once again, 
but I suppose with some amount of trepidation shall have to report no 
status change as the result. Then to highlight the issues as I see them: 

1. Nothing wrong with logic on its own terms. His points are reason and - 
allowing I probably miss some of the deeper layerings of significance - 
easy to understand and even 'obvious' (in a good way). Emphasis once more 
on 'that of it I could make out' as it were. 

2. The issue - as I see it - is logical nonetheless, which may seem 
contradictory but just isn'tnot once one appreciates the nature of the 
UDA is that of successive levels of logical deduction, each one building on 
the last (or summation of all previous taken together or subset or 
whatever). 

The logical nature of *that* kind of structure, must/should always include 
- cumulative with each further layer - appreciation and allowance for what 
might be termed 'exo-logic'. That is, say from the perspective of the 
initial conditions, or in this case the initial assumption (comp), the 
logical implications of not just what is in the assumption, but what 
'sense', by what 'degree' what (a given thing) is in the assumption. all 
the way to what s not in the assumption at all despite appearing to be. All 
from the *retrospective* vantage point of whatever direction the layered 
deductive structure actually converges to. 

I appreciate this isn't necessarily intuitive immediately, and that it is 
very easy to overlook. But once you do get it, it does become intuitive, 
and also very clearly legitimate in terms of logic. I appreciate what I've 
said so far won't make much sense to those not already aware. However, 
hopefully WITH the following two brief clarifications read and 
internalized, then everything read again, it might. Or more so. Enough 
perhaps for a question that goes beyond "?". 

the two clarifications are: 

*- the 'structure' (i.e. an initial assumption followed by several layers 
of cumulating logical inference) is one kind of versioning on some more 
generic concept of a 'magnification' device*. 

In this context logical, in that where proper the final step 8, say, 
*could* be deduced directly, intuitively (say with the right 
intuition/intellect) directly from the initial assumption in a single step. 
Just as, say, the Moon through a telescope may technically be the resultant 
of multiple layers of components/alignments involving whatever physics, the 
actual crater one views is - assuming all proper - the same as, say, the 
crater would look from 200 km away in similar conditions. 

As with all magnification devices, not only what is desired or intended is 
magnified but *everything* - including imperfections and inaccuracies and 
limitations according to the basic logic of the task. In the case of a 
telescope, because it is logic+engineering that will include imperfections 
that can and will be at every level. In the case of Bruno's UDA - allowing 
that it is logically proper all the way through - everything then becomes 
about the initial assumption itself. But the principle is the same, that 
what may appear to the 'naked eye' as it were, looking at the assumption by 
itself, is not necessarily reliable when it comes to analysing the logic of 
the magnified resultant multiple levels subsequent. any more than the moon 
to the naked eye is useful for analysing the magnified resultant of the 
moon through a telescope when it comes to the difference of that to the 
actual moon from whatever much nearer vantage point would be the 
approximate equivalent. 

What gets magnified is everything, and what everything is, is not 
necessarily obvious or even detectable from the 'naked eye' vantage point. 
In many cases it's literally impossible to gauge what 'everything' is from 
that 'naked eye' vantage point alone, simply because the very question i

Re: Selecting your future branch

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 10:02:36 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:54:04 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:12:40PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: 
>> > On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote: 
>> > >In answer to Bruno's question, indeed the ability to influence one's 
>> > >subjective probability in this was will lead to a departure from 
>> > >normality, one that is not visible objectively to any third party. In 
>> > >short, the reality you inhabit will increasingly become "magical", 
>> > >like a white rabbit or Harry Potter universe. 
>> > 
>> > Or like Max Tegmark surviving every suicide attempt with his quantum 
>> machine gun. 
>> > 
>>
>> Not unlike that indeed, except that committing suicide may not even be 
>> necessary. 
>>
>
> actually nothing to do with what you say here, but by confession due to me 
> being too lazy to actually root back to a more appropriate post in the 
> "tronnies" thankfully much shorter and more thread-concentrate-to-singular 
> than the lovely edgar (where are you edgar?). 
>
> If John Clarke is the star of the thread (for supply a knock down 
> falsification plus identifying the prediction for Mr. Ross and the rest of 
> us, where we'd all been blinded by the 101 non-predictions supplied by him, 
> to think there were none at all) and Liz is the most courageous (for at 
> possibly the low point of Mr. Ross's prestige in this thread, suddenly 
> announcing - having read some of his book - that his idea was elegant and 
> maybe crazy enough to be right). If those, then I would say you have been 
> the Fairest and most respectful to the guy, in that you've offered your 
> knowledge same presumably you would a peer, and tried to make it simplest 
> and most useful to him. 
>
> The guy, love him, failed all you, of course.  Which the group as a whole 
> has been pretty good about...no one turning the knife as it wereinstead 
> all demurring into this thread-evening banter of pipe smoking good natured 
> philosophical wonderingness. All good. 
>
> I'm doing this too, in that my focus is very much on the fact he failed 
> all of you despite the obvious time and large amount of knowledge offered 
> by all, but particularly you three. I'm addressing you, because mine is 
> more relevant to your trait in this thread of 'knowledge + fairness'. 
>
> so my philosophical smoke rings from the pipe of wondering would be: would 
> it have been even fairerand possibly even essential for scientific 
> progressto actually nail Ross's inadequecies - whether psychological or 
> in knowledge - as a definite milestone fairly early on, and then turn to 
> the intermediate problem - of a methodological nature I should think - of 
> 'controlling' for the gaps or short-falls (methodological as in 'how to 
> control') after-which return to his ideas from scratch, adding in or 
> correcting for his shortcomings, and THEN looking for what if anything, of 
> value, may be there? 
>
> I only mention this, because it could be we are at a juncture in history 
> where it is particularly likely important insights will come from 'beyond 
> the periphery'...
>
> ...in which case we should have to recognize this is not going to be so 
> easy as the peripheral/outsider contributors in history...because it was 
> simpler back then, 
>
> and a lot more complex now. such that, maybe if knowledge is to 'get it' 
> when that genius from the outsider comes forward, if he is there, some 
> degree of 'controlling' 
>
> will be crucial lest it will be missed. 
>

p.s. another point to note about the historical 'outsider' geniuses, is 
that conditions were so different back then, in fact based on the criteria 
of an outsider today, they weren't even outsiders at all. In that...they 
did not exhibit gaps in knowledge that would currently be almost impossible 
not to have outside a specialized scientific field. those historical 
outsiders were every bit as knowledgable as the 'insiders' and in fact 
there was no such real distinction as such. It was much more a dogmatic 
line of distinction back then, in that, outsider or insider did not matter 
so much as whatever the contemporary 'proto-consensus' happened to be. Not 
respecting that consensus, would make you an outsider, whether or not you 
were an outsider to begin with. Likewise, respecting it and being 
knowledgable or less than knowledgeable, could get you respect regardless 
of whether you were an insider or an outsider (being the right social 
class a lot more important thoughby no means crucial or anything like 
it was in every other domain).  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://

Re: Selecting your future branch

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:54:04 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 06:12:40PM -0700, meekerdb wrote: 
> > On 6/10/2014 5:22 PM, Russell Standish wrote: 
> > >In answer to Bruno's question, indeed the ability to influence one's 
> > >subjective probability in this was will lead to a departure from 
> > >normality, one that is not visible objectively to any third party. In 
> > >short, the reality you inhabit will increasingly become "magical", 
> > >like a white rabbit or Harry Potter universe. 
> > 
> > Or like Max Tegmark surviving every suicide attempt with his quantum 
> machine gun. 
> > 
>
> Not unlike that indeed, except that committing suicide may not even be 
> necessary. 
>

actually nothing to do with what you say here, but by confession due to me 
being too lazy to actually root back to a more appropriate post in the 
"tronnies" thankfully much shorter and more thread-concentrate-to-singular 
than the lovely edgar (where are you edgar?). 

If John Clarke is the star of the thread (for supply a knock down 
falsification plus identifying the prediction for Mr. Ross and the rest of 
us, where we'd all been blinded by the 101 non-predictions supplied by him, 
to think there were none at all) and Liz is the most courageous (for at 
possibly the low point of Mr. Ross's prestige in this thread, suddenly 
announcing - having read some of his book - that his idea was elegant and 
maybe crazy enough to be right). If those, then I would say you have been 
the Fairest and most respectful to the guy, in that you've offered your 
knowledge same presumably you would a peer, and tried to make it simplest 
and most useful to him. 

The guy, love him, failed all you, of course.  Which the group as a whole 
has been pretty good about...no one turning the knife as it wereinstead 
all demurring into this thread-evening banter of pipe smoking good natured 
philosophical wonderingness. All good. 

I'm doing this too, in that my focus is very much on the fact he failed all 
of you despite the obvious time and large amount of knowledge offered by 
all, but particularly you three. I'm addressing you, because mine is more 
relevant to your trait in this thread of 'knowledge + fairness'. 

so my philosophical smoke rings from the pipe of wondering would be: would 
it have been even fairerand possibly even essential for scientific 
progressto actually nail Ross's inadequecies - whether psychological or 
in knowledge - as a definite milestone fairly early on, and then turn to 
the intermediate problem - of a methodological nature I should think - of 
'controlling' for the gaps or short-falls (methodological as in 'how to 
control') after-which return to his ideas from scratch, adding in or 
correcting for his shortcomings, and THEN looking for what if anything, of 
value, may be there? 

I only mention this, because it could be we are at a juncture in history 
where it is particularly likely important insights will come from 'beyond 
the periphery'...

...in which case we should have to recognize this is not going to be so 
easy as the peripheral/outsider contributors in history...because it was 
simpler back then, 

and a lot more complex now. such that, maybe if knowledge is to 'get it' 
when that genius from the outsider comes forward, if he is there, some 
degree of 'controlling' 

will be crucial lest it will be missed. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Does 'free will' stem from brain noise?

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 3:40:49 PM UTC+1, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 4:39 PM, John Mikes  > wrote:
>
> > Are 'angels' rational? 
>>
>
> I don't know but I do know that God is real, unless declared an integer.  
>

was the big bang the 'eye of the needle' then, perhaps? does that make us 
the poor or the rich of the previous reality?  everything being so 
time-symmetric and all.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:30:34 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:22:35 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except 
>>> that a glorified version of ELIZA can fool some of the people some of the 
>>> time.
>>>
>>
>> If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be 
>> "doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in 
>> the first place"? 
>>
>> Has there ever been a robust set of standards? I was under the impression 
>> the TT had been left in a very generic form. Nothing wrong with that on its 
>> own, but normally in science I would have said that while major 
>> propositions tend to start out in uber generic form, what happens - 
>> historically speaking - at least in terms of those histories that converge 
>> on an eventual 'realization' are cumulative additions of further levels of 
>> detail, more or less proportionate with how near to the 'realization' event 
>> things get. 
>>
>> Note: the original high level uber-generic proposition is never replaced 
>> or deleted. What happens is more akin to the emergence of multiple 
>> underlying hierarchies of increasing levels of detail, which in turn 
>> correspond directly to the manner of 'realization' being progressively 
>> converged upon. 
>>
>> The same, incidently, is true of the 'universal principles' - again those 
>> that proved to be most valueable (most of which relate one way or another 
>> to energy). 
>>
>> One of my personal reasons for being interested in the 
>> computing/information situation, despite finding large amounts of where 
>> things are at the moment disagreeable, is because of a more general 
>> interest in precisely this, more generic matter of...I suppose.if 
>> any...I suppose.patterns or common characteristics are shared by the 
>> 'universal principles'not limited to what are usually regarded as the 
>> UP's, but also the 'propositions' such as the TT would be one. 
>>
>> One of interesting features of the computing/information 'line' is that 
>> the sorts of transformations (from high level generic forms into 
>> hierarchical forms) I speak of have been notably absent. 
>>
>> cutting a long waffle short, then, am I wrong about this? Concluding, 
>> then, by returning to what I said at the start (which directly linked to 
>> what you said in your post): is there an explicit robust framework for TT? 
>> Else, what sense 'watered down'? 
>>
>> much obliged 2 ya.
>>
>
> p.s. "related one way or another to energy" was perhaps ill-stated or 
> involved jumping ahead of what is conventional concept-usage. Perhaps 
> better said would be, 'related one way or another to the character 
> in [not necessarily in the primary sense] 'physical ' law, of 
> 'conserving-ness' (e.g. symmetry...as in, from a 
> certain perspective, knowing one side is enough to know the other, or one 
> side is the mirror of the other along some axis, etc) 
>

pps: the 'information' line linked to computation has not exhibited these 
characteristics, however the information line has not only gone that path, 
and in others certainly has exhibited the sort of characteristics I 
mentioned. E.g. the sense of information in QM, in entropy, in classical 
physicsbut in all those other branches one would also note either 
a convergent path with 'energy' as already mentioned, or.where 
notthen by conventional application of the universal principles as they 
were always applied, and by which they have come to be so pre-eminent, one 
might extent the 'expectation' given all the others, of some convergence 
with energy taking place as yet not realized. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, June 11, 2014 9:22:35 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except 
>> that a glorified version of ELIZA can fool some of the people some of the 
>> time.
>>
>
> If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be 
> "doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in 
> the first place"? 
>
> Has there ever been a robust set of standards? I was under the impression 
> the TT had been left in a very generic form. Nothing wrong with that on its 
> own, but normally in science I would have said that while major 
> propositions tend to start out in uber generic form, what happens - 
> historically speaking - at least in terms of those histories that converge 
> on an eventual 'realization' are cumulative additions of further levels of 
> detail, more or less proportionate with how near to the 'realization' event 
> things get. 
>
> Note: the original high level uber-generic proposition is never replaced 
> or deleted. What happens is more akin to the emergence of multiple 
> underlying hierarchies of increasing levels of detail, which in turn 
> correspond directly to the manner of 'realization' being progressively 
> converged upon. 
>
> The same, incidently, is true of the 'universal principles' - again those 
> that proved to be most valueable (most of which relate one way or another 
> to energy). 
>
> One of my personal reasons for being interested in the 
> computing/information situation, despite finding large amounts of where 
> things are at the moment disagreeable, is because of a more general 
> interest in precisely this, more generic matter of...I suppose.if 
> any...I suppose.patterns or common characteristics are shared by the 
> 'universal principles'not limited to what are usually regarded as the 
> UP's, but also the 'propositions' such as the TT would be one. 
>
> One of interesting features of the computing/information 'line' is that 
> the sorts of transformations (from high level generic forms into 
> hierarchical forms) I speak of have been notably absent. 
>
> cutting a long waffle short, then, am I wrong about this? Concluding, 
> then, by returning to what I said at the start (which directly linked to 
> what you said in your post): is there an explicit robust framework for TT? 
> Else, what sense 'watered down'? 
>
> much obliged 2 ya.
>

p.s. "related one way or another to energy" was perhaps ill-stated or 
involved jumping ahead of what is conventional concept-usage. Perhaps 
better said would be, 'related one way or another to the character 
in [not necessarily in the primary sense] 'physical ' law, of 
'conserving-ness' (e.g. symmetry...as in, from a 
certain perspective, knowing one side is enough to know the other, or one 
side is the mirror of the other along some axis, etc) 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Turing test passed? Another sucker born every minute

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, June 9, 2014 10:32:02 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> The TT has been so watered down that it doesn't prove anything except that 
> a glorified version of ELIZA can fool some of the people some of the time.
>

If the TT has been watered down, then the first question for me would be 
"doesn't this logically pre-assume a set of explicit standards existed in 
the first place"? 

Has there ever been a robust set of standards? I was under the impression 
the TT had been left in a very generic form. Nothing wrong with that on its 
own, but normally in science I would have said that while major 
propositions tend to start out in uber generic form, what happens - 
historically speaking - at least in terms of those histories that converge 
on an eventual 'realization' are cumulative additions of further levels of 
detail, more or less proportionate with how near to the 'realization' event 
things get. 

Note: the original high level uber-generic proposition is never replaced or 
deleted. What happens is more akin to the emergence of multiple underlying 
hierarchies of increasing levels of detail, which in turn correspond 
directly to the manner of 'realization' being progressively converged upon. 

The same, incidently, is true of the 'universal principles' - again those 
that proved to be most valueable (most of which relate one way or another 
to energy). 

One of my personal reasons for being interested in the 
computing/information situation, despite finding large amounts of where 
things are at the moment disagreeable, is because of a more general 
interest in precisely this, more generic matter of...I suppose.if 
any...I suppose.patterns or common characteristics are shared by the 
'universal principles'not limited to what are usually regarded as the 
UP's, but also the 'propositions' such as the TT would be one. 

One of interesting features of the computing/information 'line' is that the 
sorts of transformations (from high level generic forms into hierarchical 
forms) I speak of have been notably absent. 

cutting a long waffle short, then, am I wrong about this? Concluding, then, 
by returning to what I said at the start (which directly linked to what you 
said in your post): is there an explicit robust framework for TT? Else, 
what sense 'watered down'? 

much obliged 2 ya.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 8, 2014 9:13:28 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 08 Jun 2014, at 00:08, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> "My" theory is comp. I just make it precise, by 1) Church thesis (en the 
> amount of logic and arithmetic to expose and argue for it), and 2) "yes 
> doctor" (and the amount of turing universality in the neighborhood for 
> giving sense to "artificial brain" and "doctor".
> By accepting that this is true only at some level, I make the hypothesis 
> much weaker than all the formulation in the literature. This does not 
> prevent me to show that if the hypothesis is weak with respect to what we 
> know from biology, it is still a *theologically* extremely strong 
> hypothesis, with consequence as "radical" as reminding us that Plato was 
> Aristotle teacher, and that his "theory" was not Aristotelian (at least in 
> the sense of most Aristotle followers, as Aristotle himself can be argued 
> to still be a platonist, like some scholars defends).
>
> So, let us say that I have not a theory, but a theorem, in the comp theory 
> (which is arguably a very old idea).
>
> Usually, the people who are unaware of the mind-body problem can even take 
> offense that we can imagine not following comp.
>
>
> Because they might not. This is a  problem, because the other thing you do 
> is tell people they assume not-comp if they don't accept you r theory. So 
> you are dominating people. 
>
>
> Of course. I *prove* (or submit a proof to you and you are free to show a 
> flaw if you think there is one).
>
> I show comp -> something. Of course, after 1500 years of Aristotelianism, 
> I don't expect people agreeing quickly with the reasoning, as it is 
> admittedly counter-intuitive. 
>
>
>
>
> Do you think the majority of scientists think consciousness goes on in 
> extre dimensional reality? 
>
>
> First, I don't express myself in that way.  
>
> For a platonist, or for someone believing in comp, and underatdning its 
> logical consequence, it looks like it is the physicists which think that 
> matter goes on in extradimensional reality.
>
> With comp, it is just absolutely undecidable by *any* universal machine if 
> its reality is enumerable (like N, the set of the natural numbers) or has a 
> very large cardinal.
>
> Conceptual occam suggests we don't add any axioms to elementary arithmetic 
> (like Robinson arithmetic). 
>
> I then explain notions like god, consciousness (99% of it), matter, and 
> the relation with Plato and (neo)platonist theology.
>
>
>
> Do theybelieve in MWI 
>
>
> This is ambiguous.
>
> In a sense you can say that comp leads to a form of "super-atheism", as a 
> (consistent) computationalist believer will stop to believe (or become 
> skeptical) on both a creator and a creation.
>
> So, at the basic ontological level, it is a 0 World theory.
>
> What happens, is that the additive-multiplicative structure determine the 
> set of all emulations, indeed with an important redundancy. They exist in 
> the sense that you can prove their existence in elementary arithmetic. That 
> is not mine, that is standard material.
>
> You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the 
> beginning.  
>
>
> Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure anyone get it.
>
>
>  You're a liar. You didn't even read my definition of falsification. 
> Russell Standish read it...he understood. 
>
> So you're fucking liar and you've wasted my fucking time for months. 
>
>
> I obviously shouldn't have said this, so am sorry for doing so. 
>
>
> It is not the first time you "explode".
>

It's not even the first time you read the falsification description that 
you had demanded. Are you connected enough to reality to actually see how 
disrespectful and insulting this is? You are one set of traits for when its 
about coddling people through your steps and selling your theory. But you 
sat there and let me sweat trying to repeat myself endlessly. I think you 
think, a lot different than you've managed to sell to people. Don't bother 
denying and pretending you did read...do it for non-judgemental rapture of 
the others. I know you didn't, because I know you never changed your line 
one bit...never acknowledged the position, never explained why it wrong, or 
right. Never even tried...even superficiously to walk me or anyone through 
your claims, and my theory in parallel, demonstrating the connectors. 

There's a bit more, or less, to you than the 
angelic self-depracting front. Something of the Night 

>
>
>
>
> But...the truth is no one minded too much PGC's attacks on me. Not 
> responding to my responses. In the most recent response, I even invited him 
> to choose one of Bruno's objections that I hadn'

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 8, 2014 4:41:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> Oops. I meant to say more but hit a wrong key and somehow sent that above 
> one-liner. And there's no way to edit your posts...oh well, to continue...
>  
>
> On 8 June 2014 10:08, > wrote:
>
> But...the truth is no one minded too much PGC's attacks on me. Not 
> responding to my responses. In the most recent response, I even invited him 
> to choose one of Bruno's objections that I hadn't responded to, and I would 
> demonstrate the reason I'd stopped responding was that Bruno presented 'no 
> case to answer'. Silence from PGC.
>
>
> I'm afraid I missed this. I don't have time to read everything and 
> especially tend to skip those incredibly long posts with stuff interpolated 
> (is that the word?) into the text and nested 15 levels deep. And I am quite 
> interested in this argument, too! That is, I believe I can see both sides, 
> so I am interested in evidence for either. As I jokingly say, on days with 
> an R in them I feel Bruno has the answer to life, the universe and 
> everything, on the other days I feel the force of the materialist 
> objections (amongst others) and feel that they "refute it THUS!"
>
>  
> PGC said a fair bit worse about me than simple liar. What is it...the 
> guy's flamboyant use of language gets him a free pass in here? When has he 
> ever described anything he believes in, in plain English?
>
>
> I'm sure I've seen some plain English posts from PGC, and some that seem 
> to me to make good points. But I can't quote chapter and verse on that. But 
> flowery language abounds here, methinks, so I try to parse it and either it 
> looks like a camel to me, my lord, or a cloud.
>

He speaks from behind a veneer. Average to writers block.  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 8, 2014 4:41:51 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> Oops. I meant to say more but hit a wrong key and somehow sent that above 
> one-liner. And there's no way to edit your posts...oh well, to continue...
>  
>
>> On 8 June 2014 10:08, > wrote:
>>
>>> But...the truth is no one minded too much PGC's attacks on me. Not 
>>> responding to my responses. In the most recent response, I even invited him 
>>> to choose one of Bruno's objections that I hadn't responded to, and I would 
>>> demonstrate the reason I'd stopped responding was that Bruno presented 'no 
>>> case to answer'. Silence from PGC.
>>>
>>
>> I'm afraid I missed this. I don't have time to read everything and 
> especially tend to skip those incredibly long posts with stuff interpolated 
> (is that the word?) into the text and nested 15 levels deep. And I am quite 
> interested in this argument, too! That is, I believe I can see both sides, 
> so I am interested in evidence for either. As I jokingly say, on days with 
> an R in them I feel Bruno has the answer to life, the universe and 
> everything, on the other days I feel the force of the materialist 
> objections (amongst others) and feel that they "refute it THUS!"
>
>>  
>>> PGC said a fair bit worse about me than simple liar. What is it...the 
>>> guy's flamboyant use of language gets him a free pass in here? When has he 
>>> ever described anything he believes in, in plain English?
>>>
>>
> I'm sure I've seen some plain English posts from PGC, and some that seem 
> to me to make good points. But I can't quote chapter and verse on that. But 
> flowery language abounds here, methinks, so I try to parse it and either it 
> looks like a camel to me, my lord, or a cloud.
>
>>  
>>> Why am I the guy that has to put up writing dozens of efforts at 
>>> explaining what I mean, put down's from people like PGC who value their 
>>> dizzy comp experiences, my arguments ignored by Brunoand all of this 
>>> despite it being me to be mentioning a take on falsification that the vast 
>>> majority of science, historically and now would agree with?
>>>
>>
> You should see me on the Tronnies thread, or trying to explain why time 
> symmetry in physics may be important for understanding quantum theory. 
> YANA.You are not alone. 
>
>>  
>>> And now this new issue, with PGC and Bruno making constructive arguments 
>>> about scientists accepting certain arguments, and so by some sort of logic 
>>> accepting Bruno's theory. Which happens to involve things like eternal life 
>>> for us, consciousness not being generated by our brains...direct links to 
>>> MWI. That latest argument, I simply rejected by pointing out that not 
>>> everyone does accept MWI, who accept QM.
>>>
>>
> No, indeed not. Although sometimes the reasons aren't very convincing (Jim 
> Al Khalili just really likes Bohm's take, or so he told me). But anyway 
> consensus views get short  thrift on this forum
>

You touch on something plausibly near the root and heart of the 
'worldsense'  ever more predominant at the frontiers of knowledge. 

That *is* a consensus, and short shrift is what the dissenters get much 
more I should say. That's the consensus that matters sweet fruit. I 
perceive te consensus as profoundly rigid...as like a foreign country 
with its own language, translation services fully serviced 24 hours Arthur 
dents disused filing cabinet cellar stairs missing. Self 
contained/referencing, explanation good, nice body boat race can't 
understand a bloody word, one avoids translation so dull. 
an

It isn't necessarily a virtue dismissing long standing time tested 
scientific knowledgedismissing method as 'philosophical overlay' is 
deeply flawed.  The component of consensus due short shrift is the hear 
today gone tomorrow notions what it's all about. But I was talking about 
something that has been there since the beginning. I don't think it'll be 
falsification gone tomorrow of what's laid across this stall. 

What else? Oh yesI still fancy you nuts all the same...intellectually 
speaking of course.fleeting memoryI was in Sydney in 1976 just a 
little kid, some babysitter showed up like I'd never met before, stuck 
'Barbarella' on the telly for me and disappeared upstairs with some 
chick. A deal I could buy for a dollar. Aussie's are just so fabulous. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:49:30 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> "My" theory is comp. I just make it precise, by 1) Church thesis (en the 
> amount of logic and arithmetic to expose and argue for it), and 2) "yes 
> doctor" (and the amount of turing universality in the neighborhood for 
> giving sense to "artificial brain" and "doctor".
> By accepting that this is true only at some level, I make the hypothesis 
> much weaker than all the formulation in the literature. This does not 
> prevent me to show that if the hypothesis is weak with respect to what we 
> know from biology, it is still a *theologically* extremely strong 
> hypothesis, with consequence as "radical" as reminding us that Plato was 
> Aristotle teacher, and that his "theory" was not Aristotelian (at least in 
> the sense of most Aristotle followers, as Aristotle himself can be argued 
> to still be a platonist, like some scholars defends).
>
> So, let us say that I have not a theory, but a theorem, in the comp theory 
> (which is arguably a very old idea).
>
> Usually, the people who are unaware of the mind-body problem can even take 
> offense that we can imagine not following comp.
>
>
> Because they might not. This is a  problem, because the other thing you do 
> is tell people they assume not-comp if they don't accept you r theory. So 
> you are dominating people. 
>
>
> Of course. I *prove* (or submit a proof to you and you are free to show a 
> flaw if you think there is one).
>
> I show comp -> something. Of course, after 1500 years of Aristotelianism, 
> I don't expect people agreeing quickly with the reasoning, as it is 
> admittedly counter-intuitive. 
>
>
>
>
> Do you think the majority of scientists think consciousness goes on in 
> extre dimensional reality? 
>
>
> First, I don't express myself in that way.  
>
> For a platonist, or for someone believing in comp, and underatdning its 
> logical consequence, it looks like it is the physicists which think that 
> matter goes on in extradimensional reality.
>
> With comp, it is just absolutely undecidable by *any* universal machine if 
> its reality is enumerable (like N, the set of the natural numbers) or has a 
> very large cardinal.
>
> Conceptual occam suggests we don't add any axioms to elementary arithmetic 
> (like Robinson arithmetic). 
>
> I then explain notions like god, consciousness (99% of it), matter, and 
> the relation with Plato and (neo)platonist theology.
>
>
>
> Do theybelieve in MWI 
>
>
> This is ambiguous.
>
> In a sense you can say that comp leads to a form of "super-atheism", as a 
> (consistent) computationalist believer will stop to believe (or become 
> skeptical) on both a creator and a creation.
>
> So, at the basic ontological level, it is a 0 World theory.
>
> What happens, is that the additive-multiplicative structure determine the 
> set of all emulations, indeed with an important redundancy. They exist in 
> the sense that you can prove their existence in elementary arithmetic. That 
> is not mine, that is standard material.
>
> You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the 
> beginning.  
>
>
> Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure anyone get it.
>
>
>  You're a liar. You didn't even read my definition of falsification. 
> Russell Standish read it...he understood. 
>
> So you're fucking liar and you've wasted my fucking time for months. 
>

I obviously shouldn't have said this, so am sorry for doing so. 

But...the truth is no one minded too much PGC's attacks on me. Not 
responding to my responses. In the most recent response, I even invited him 
to choose one of Bruno's objections that I hadn't responded to, and I would 
demonstrate the reason I'd stopped responding was that Bruno presented 'no 
case to answer'. Silence from PGC. 

PGC said a fair bit worse about me than simple liar. What is it...the guy's 
flamboyant use of language gets him a free pass in here? When has he ever 
described anything he believes in, in plain English? 

Why am I the guy that has to put up writing dozens of efforts at explaining 
what I mean, put down's from people like PGC who value their dizzy comp 
experiences, my arguments ignored by Brunoand all of this despite it 
being me to be mentioning a take on falsification that the vast majority of 
science, historically and now would agree with? 

And now this new issue, with PGC and Bruno making constructive arguments 
about scientists accepting certain arguments, and so by some sort of logic 
accepting Bruno's theory. Which happens to involve things like eternal life 
for us, consciousness not being generated by our brains...direct links to 
MWI. That latest argument, I simply rejected by pointing out that not 
everyone does accept MWI, who accept QM. 

These a

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, June 4, 2014 8:33:28 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 04 Jun 2014, at 02:33, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>> "My" theory is comp. I just make it precise, by 1) Church thesis (en the 
>> amount of logic and arithmetic to expose and argue for it), and 2) "yes 
>> doctor" (and the amount of turing universality in the neighborhood for 
>> giving sense to "artificial brain" and "doctor".
>> By accepting that this is true only at some level, I make the hypothesis 
>> much weaker than all the formulation in the literature. This does not 
>> prevent me to show that if the hypothesis is weak with respect to what we 
>> know from biology, it is still a *theologically* extremely strong 
>> hypothesis, with consequence as "radical" as reminding us that Plato was 
>> Aristotle teacher, and that his "theory" was not Aristotelian (at least in 
>> the sense of most Aristotle followers, as Aristotle himself can be argued 
>> to still be a platonist, like some scholars defends).
>>
>> So, let us say that I have not a theory, but a theorem, in the comp 
>> theory (which is arguably a very old idea).
>>
>> Usually, the people who are unaware of the mind-body problem can even 
>> take offense that we can imagine not following comp.
>>
>>
>> Because they might not. This is a  problem, because the other thing you 
>> do is tell people they assume not-comp if they don't accept you r theory. 
>> So you are dominating people. 
>>
>>
>> Of course. I *prove* (or submit a proof to you and you are free to show a 
>> flaw if you think there is one).
>>
>> I show comp -> something. Of course, after 1500 years of Aristotelianism, 
>> I don't expect people agreeing quickly with the reasoning, as it is 
>> admittedly counter-intuitive. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Do you think the majority of scientists think consciousness goes on in 
>> extre dimensional reality? 
>>
>>
>> First, I don't express myself in that way.  
>>
>> For a platonist, or for someone believing in comp, and underatdning its 
>> logical consequence, it looks like it is the physicists which think that 
>> matter goes on in extradimensional reality.
>>
>> With comp, it is just absolutely undecidable by *any* universal machine 
>> if its reality is enumerable (like N, the set of the natural numbers) or 
>> has a very large cardinal.
>>
>> Conceptual occam suggests we don't add any axioms to elementary 
>> arithmetic (like Robinson arithmetic). 
>>
>> I then explain notions like god, consciousness (99% of it), matter, and 
>> the relation with Plato and (neo)platonist theology.
>>
>>
>>
>> Do theybelieve in MWI 
>>
>>
>> This is ambiguous.
>>
>> In a sense you can say that comp leads to a form of "super-atheism", as a 
>> (consistent) computationalist believer will stop to believe (or become 
>> skeptical) on both a creator and a creation.
>>
>> So, at the basic ontological level, it is a 0 World theory.
>>
>> What happens, is that the additive-multiplicative structure determine the 
>> set of all emulations, indeed with an important redundancy. They exist in 
>> the sense that you can prove their existence in elementary arithmetic. That 
>> is not mine, that is standard material.
>>
>> You manage one or the other to avoid my argument, pretty much since the 
> beginning.  
>
>
> Not on purpose. I don't get your argument. Not sure anyone get it.
>

 You're a liar. You didn't even read my definition of falsification. 
Russell Standish read it...he understood. 

So you're fucking liar and you've wasted my fucking time for months. 



>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> the infinite multiverse of dreams? 
>>
>>
>> If you agree that the natural numbers obeys to the axioms (with s(x) 
>> intended for the successor of x, that is x+1):
>>
>> 0 ≠ s(x)
>> s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
>> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
>> x+0 = x
>> x+s(y) = s(x+y)
>> x*0=0
>> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>>
>> Then you get the "multiverse of dreams" by comp. 
>>
>> Keep in mind the most fundamental theorem of computer science (with 
>> Church Thesis): Universal machines exist. And that theorem is provable in 
>> Robinson arithmetic (in a weak sense), and in Peano Arithmetic (with a 
>> stringer sense).
>>
>>
>>
>> What are the other consequences of the theory. Run me through them.
>>
>>
>> If it helps you to doubt a little bit of physicalism and Aristotelianism, 
>> I am happy enough.
>>
>> The consequence is more a state of mind, an awe in front of something 
>> bigger that we thought (the internal view of arithmetic on itself).  An awe 
>> in front of our ignorance, but also the discovery that such ignorance is 
>> structured, productive, inexhaustible.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> So here I would say that PGC was just saying the normal thing. Most 
>> rationalists believe in comp, and what follows has been peer reviewed 
>> enough. (Then humans are humans, and the notoriety of some people makes 
>> ideas having to wait they died before people talk and think, and speci

Re: Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:18:57 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> He's released his first theory in the constructor theoretic framework. I 
> hope people will read it and say what they think...cos I probably can't 
> understand it. 
>
> http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563
>
>
> Well I got round to looking through it, and the experience was deeply 
depressing. All resemblance to what I thought might be retracted. The guy 
is attempting to literally import popper philosophy and lay it over the top 
of science. 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:48:10 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 03 Jun 2014, at 05:14, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:23:25 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually pasted the 
> key lines to the top of the post, and added comments. Clearly indicating 
> that for me, the salient point about the article was that the 
> distinguishing features of Salvia have now been identified, and that they 
> closely correspond with much of what Bruno says and vocabularly around 
> 3D/1D distinctions, talking to the machine, and so on and so forth 
>
>
> Nice.
>
>
> Nice what way Bruno? Nice like yummy  or .nice like "yeah mother fucker 
> I'm with them that say you tried to fuck me up on the salvia thread!" 
>
> Not the latter I hope because it's bolliocks and I totally reject it. 
>
> What about the issue itself though?
>
> It isn't reasonable to attack me this way when it happens also to be the 
> case the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with my position. 
> When Bruno and YOU make claims that scientists accept comp 
>
>
> Yes. Explicitely or implicitly. Of course if you search long enough you 
> will find counter-example. For example I found a cmputer scientist "Jacques 
> Arsac" who said "As I am a catholic, I cannot believe in STRONG AI. He 
> wrote an anti-strong-ai (and thus anti-comp)  book on this. But even among 
> the catholic that has been seen as an exceptional view. 
>
> Comp is not much. A version is that there is no human internal organ which 
> cannot be replaced by an artificial one having the right functions at the 
> right level. 
>
>
> Which I ould say is true too, but it's going to be something like 'comp is 
> can replace < organA >with   +  field B>+..+... 
>
> One of those revolutions will be to have a scientific revolution that 
> differentiate why, say the heart of liver, in which an immense amount of 
> computation takes place, never becomes conscious. Why do I experience 
> consciousness in my head, why not my liver? 
>
>
> >  
> Comp is believed also by all creationists who indeed use together with the 
> premise that a machine needs a designer to argue for the existence of a 
> designer God. Of course the second premise is easily refuted by the fact 
> that all (digital) machines probably exist, with their execution, in the 
> solution of the diophantine equations.>
>
>
>
> So you are saying you think they effectively believe in something, because 
> there's a logic in comp that parallels some relation they must think at 
> some point involving god and something else? 
>
> This doesn't look right to me. You've got a definition in comp, thus 
> composed of comp-objects. You say they believe comp, when most of them 
> would probably totally reject that god is anything to do with that. 
>
> Can we really make these sort of inferences without making clear, we don't 
> mean the sort of belief that creationists will have for that word, and at 
> no point or level do we have any reason to think they think they think in 
> terms of comp at all. 
>
> What you are saying is that you think what they are doing in their minds, 
> has a parallel with something that can happen in comp. This is a long way 
> now from they believe in comp. 
>
> I mean...and please answer this. Let's say someone is riding a donkey. And 
> the motion of that person and way they hold the donkey exactly parallels 
> someone else riding a zebra. Does this infer the first person is riding a 
> zebra? 
>
> Or do I miss the point? 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> and clearly infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on comp, 
>
> What are you insinuating? Could you find one scientist having ention a 
> problem (except J.P. Delahaye)?
>
>
>  
> Are you aware that 'insinuating' suggests an underhand way of ding things? 
> Where do you stand on what PGC has said to me? 
>
> What I'm not insinuating old boy, but saying explicitly and directly, is 
> that I'm not clear it's appropriate to say what people believe, unless 
> they've said they believe it. Are you assuming things like this: 
>
> Scientist believes comp= --> Bruno's criteria is assuming-com --> brunos's 
> UDA follows --> Stuff about consciousness outside the head follows 
>
>   
>   
> --> MWI follows 
>
>   
>   
> --> Infinite dreams follows 
>
> * So where does it end? Do scientists all believe MWI? 
>
>
> Even the jury in Brussels acknowledge not one error. One did, actually, 

Re: Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 10:39:22 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> After his chapter on beauty in BOI I have kind of lost faith in DD.
>

For me as well, sadly. 

But he's in a chapter of his life now, potentially. He faces into the 
wind once again, tot his head down and delivered some hard work. 

Which isn't an easy thing to do at any point in life, so couldn't have been 
easy for him either. 

I suppose this is my true nnderlying interest here. I sort of studied the 
guy and his philosophy for a long time. Certainly, as you, by the end, 
there wasn't a lot of common ground for me either. 

But I don't care about any of that now. I want him to succeed - or anyone. 
A fundamental breakthrough would resue the world, and me from having to 
continue running through the deluded fantiasy in my mind that it is gong to 
have to be me. It's not even an enjoyable psychosis. So I will oink once 
more for Duetshc. oink oink. Oops, the second oink might ave been a fart. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:26:26 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> According to constructor theory, the most fundamental components of 
>> reality are entities—“constructors”—that perform particular tasks, 
>> accompanied by a set of laws that define which tasks are actually possible 
>> for a constructor to carry out. For instance, a kettle with a power supply 
>> can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. 
>
>
> Either this is a bad example or kettles are a fundamental component of 
> reality...
>
> But wa-a-a-a-a-ait a minute! Maybe they are! In fact, could David Deutsch 
> have united the Ross Model with Kettle theory???
>
>  ... 
> http://www.amazon.com/Shellfish-mark-Chef-Kettle-DY-5056/dp/B002JPK6IU
>

This is going to mean zip to you, but the reason I feel hopeful about 
his constructor theory is becauseit sort of shares some features with 
my theory (hence this will mean zip to you). 

He's in a totally different way. He's trying to do something that he's 
probably been thinking about throughout. 

It's very hard to know how things will go for him. Most central, is that 
absolutely inherent to the CT is that its in contradiction with almost 
everything he's spent his life believing. I feel sure he perceives by now, 
he can't really have his philosophy and CT consistently. 
..
I think how far he gets will be decided here. It's so hard to step away 
from a lifelong love. He doesn't have to...he could simply reconcile it. 
But if does that, he'll go not very far. The next one is that he keeps his 
philosophical first and greatest love...but hide it away from CT like a 
mistress. Better...a lot better. But he won't go a lot further for this, 
because the philosophical thing is set of beliefs..influences...not just 
whether it's being instantiated in the theory on the paper. It's in the 
head. 

Third is he takes the step few ever take, and drops the philosophy and 
allows that he slowly falsifies. it. I don't know how far he gets this 
waybut a lot further. But also, if he has balls to flush a lifetimes 
work down the toilet for a new theory that's better. Then in many and 
really all meaningful ways, he didn't flush anything down the toilet, 
because he just did the ultimate popper-correct thing. A great way to say 
goodbye. I think someone  - anyone - who takes strides like that, is the 
makings of a genius. 

Butto be honest, I don't Deutsch doing it. But I'll pray for him. 
Lizthere you are...come let us kneel together again. You had the apple 
last time, give it here. Now let's oink for Deutshc

>
> 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 5:31:05 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> Reading on, it looks like this may be a form of computationalism, not of 
> the Bruno type but more of the Edgar Owen variety - using "constructors" 
> instead of "information processors".
>  
> (I wonder if there is an absolute time in which constructors do their 
> thing...)
>
>
> On 3 June 2014 16:26, LizR > wrote:
>
>> According to constructor theory, the most fundamental components of 
>>> reality are entities—“constructors”—that perform particular tasks, 
>>> accompanied by a set of laws that define which tasks are actually possible 
>>> for a constructor to carry out. For instance, a kettle with a power supply 
>>> can serve as a constructor that can perform the task of heating water. 
>>
>>
>> Either this is a bad example or kettles are a fundamental component of 
>> reality...
>>
>> But wa-a-a-a-a-ait a minute! Maybe they are! In fact, could David Deutsch 
>> have united the Ross Model with Kettle theory???
>>
>>  ... 
>> http://www.amazon.com/Shellfish-mark-Chef-Kettle-DY-5056/dp/B002JPK6IU 
>>
>
Liz, I hope you, Bruno and Russell read itI'm not that good at 
comprehending things in a reading or a few. So please please please be my 
mummy and spoon feed me some baby-deutsch. Because I'm only a washing 
machine. ..no fuck off wash your own shirts

>
>>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch Deutsch

[ghibbsa]

He's released his first theory in the constructor theoretic framework. I 
hope people will read it and say what they think...cos I probably can't 
understand it. 

http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.5563

article: 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/a-meta-law-to-rule-them-all-physicists-devise-a-theory-of-everything/

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 6:16:01 AM UTC+1, Samiya wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29-May-2014, at 12:07 am, meekerdb > 
> wrote:
>
> On 5/28/2014 9:50 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
>  
> You assume that Islam is unethical. Quranic teachings are based on 
> beautiful moral principles and enjoin ethical and just relations among 
> people.  The Quran repeatedly enjoins good actions, read it and you'll be 
> amazed how far from truth all the negative propaganda against it is! 
>  
>
> Don't bother warning the disbelievers. Allah has made it impossible for 
> them to believe so that he can torture them forever after they die. 2:6-7 
>
>
> 2:7 speaks of a seal on hearts and 2:9 speaks of a disease in the heart 
> because of lying. My blogpost lying Sinful Forelock and Rust Upon Their 
> Hearts may be of interest (www.signsandscience.blogspot.com ) However 
> 2:26,27 further explains who and why Allah causes to stray. 
> If it's any comfort, Allah also promises that everything is being recorded 
> (54:53) (99:7,8) (34:2-4) and not the least injustice will be done to 
> anyone.  
>
> We are directed to remind in case the reminder benefits anyone. (6:68,69) 
>
>
> Allah turned Sabbath-breaking Jews into apes to be despised and hated. All 
> modern Jews are descendants of apes (or all modern apes are descendants of 
> Sabbath-breaking Jews). 2:65-66 
>
>
> An alternate translation to apes is pigs. My cousin seems to think that we 
> are forbidden to eat pigs because that would be cannibalism. I haven't 
> researched the evolutionary history of pigs, so I don't know if that 
> follows. However, as directed, I don't eat pigs. 
>


Is there really a tradition of believing we're linked to pigs? That's 
pretty interesting, because what may become the pre-emininet theory...and 
me and Liz are so cool cos we read it first, is actually a theory that 
humans are the result of an Ape/Pig hybridization.
Is the sort of belief expressed by your cousine..do you know much about the 
character of the belief? Is it considered folklore for example. I'm just 
wondering because it seems possible in some cases of communities today, 
that some beliefs stretch right back, past recorded history, and may have 
their roots goodness knows when. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Pluto bounces back!

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 5:35:06 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 29 May 2014 15:33, Samiya Illias > 
> wrote:So, my question to you is this: do you condemn these actions? If so, 
> do you claim that they stem from a misunderstanding of the Quran? 
>>
>> I am a Muslim. I believe the Quran to be divine guidance. Therefore, I 
>> accept everything in it, and try to understand the best meaning thereof. 
>>
>
> Another non-answer. Maybe you should have tried one question at a time. 
> Let me have a go.
>
> Samiya, you agreed that limb amputation is prescribed by the Quran. Do you 
> condemn this action?
>

I know it isn't just you asking this, but you did it bold. Why should 
be pressured into condemning selective items in the Quran? 

People won't want to do this sort of thing, or will do so because they feel 
they are being held over a barrel and coerced. But doesn't have condemn 
part of his holy book, all he has to do is not get involved in chopping 
peoples  limbs or do whatever his conscience has him doing. 

Do any of you know what it means for  Muslim to condemn something in the 
Koran? You should find out first, and make sure you're just being really 
horrible without realizing it. 

>
>
>  
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, June 3, 2014 3:23:25 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually pasted the 
>> key lines to the top of the post, and added comments. Clearly indicating 
>> that for me, the salient point about the article was that the 
>> distinguishing features of Salvia have now been identified, and that they 
>> closely correspond with much of what Bruno says and vocabularly around 
>> 3D/1D distinctions, talking to the machine, and so on and so forth 
>>
>>
>> Nice.
>>
>
> Nice what way Bruno? Nice like yummy  or .nice like "yeah mother fucker 
> I'm with them that say you tried to fuck me up on the salvia thread!" 
>
> Not the latter I hope because it's bolliocks and I totally reject it. 
>
> What about the issue itself though?
>
>> It isn't reasonable to attack me this way when it happens also to be the 
>> case the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with my position. 
>> When Bruno and YOU make claims that scientists accept comp 
>>
>>
>> Yes. Explicitely or implicitly. Of course if you search long enough you 
>> will find counter-example. For example I found a cmputer scientist "Jacques 
>> Arsac" who said "As I am a catholic, I cannot believe in STRONG AI. He 
>> wrote an anti-strong-ai (and thus anti-comp)  book on this. But even among 
>> the catholic that has been seen as an exceptional view. 
>>
>> Comp is not much. A version is that there is no human internal organ 
>> which cannot be replaced by an artificial one having the right functions at 
>> the right level. 
>>
>
> Which I ould say is true too, but it's going to be something like 'comp is 
> can replace < organA >with   +  field B>+..+... 
>
> One of those revolutions will be to have a scientific revolution that 
> differentiate why, say the heart of liver, in which an immense amount of 
> computation takes place, never becomes conscious. Why do I experience 
> consciousness in my head, why not my liver? 
>
>
> >  
>> Comp is believed also by all creationists who indeed use together with 
>> the premise that a machine needs a designer to argue for the existence of a 
>> designer God. Of course the second premise is easily refuted by the fact 
>> that all (digital) machines probably exist, with their execution, in the 
>> solution of the diophantine equations.>
>>
>
>
> So you are saying you think they effectively believe in something, because 
> there's a logic in comp that parallels some relation they must think at 
> some point involving god and something else? 
>
> This doesn't look right to me. You've got a definition in comp, thus 
> composed of comp-objects. You say they believe comp, when most of them 
> would probably totally reject that god is anything to do with that. 
>
> Can we really make these sort of inferences without making clear, we don't 
> mean the sort of belief that creationists will have for that word, and at 
> no point or level do we have any reason to think they think they think in 
> terms of comp at all. 
>
> What you are saying is that you think what they are doing in their minds, 
> has a parallel with something that can happen in comp. This is a long way 
> now from they believe in comp. 
>
> I mean...and please answer this. Let's say someone is riding a donkey. And 
> the motion of that person and way they hold the donkey exactly parallels 
> someone else riding a zebra. Does this infer the first person is riding a 
> zebra? 
>
> Or do I miss the point? 
>
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> and clearly infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on 
>> comp, 
>>
>> What are you insinuating? Could you find one scientist having ention a 
>> problem (except J.P. Delahaye)?
>>
>
>  
> Are you aware that 'insinuating' suggests an underhand way of ding things? 
> Where do you stand on what PGC has said to me? 
>
> What I'm not insinuating old boy, but saying explicitly and directly, is 
> that I'm not clear it's appropriate to say what people believe, unless 
> they've said they believe it. Are you assuming things like this: 
>
> Scientist believes comp= --> Bruno's criteria is assuming-com --> brunos's 
> UDA follows --> Stuff about consciousness outside the head follows 
>
>   
>   
> --> MWI follows 
>
>   
>   
> --> Infinite dreams follows 
>
> * So where does it end? Do scientists all believe MWI? 
>
>
>> Even the jury in Brussels acknowledge not one error. One did, actually, 
>> but changed his mind since (he was stopping at step three and acknowle

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, June 2, 2014 4:20:16 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 01 Jun 2014, at 18:22, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually pasted the 
> key lines to the top of the post, and added comments. Clearly indicating 
> that for me, the salient point about the article was that the 
> distinguishing features of Salvia have now been identified, and that they 
> closely correspond with much of what Bruno says and vocabularly around 
> 3D/1D distinctions, talking to the machine, and so on and so forth 
>
>
> Nice.
>

Nice what way Bruno? Nice like yummy  or .nice like "yeah mother fucker I'm 
with them that say you tried to fuck me up on the salvia thread!" 

Not the latter I hope because it's bolliocks and I totally reject it. 

What about the issue itself though?

> It isn't reasonable to attack me this way when it happens also to be the 
> case the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with my position. 
> When Bruno and YOU make claims that scientists accept comp 
>
>
> Yes. Explicitely or implicitly. Of course if you search long enough you 
> will find counter-example. For example I found a cmputer scientist "Jacques 
> Arsac" who said "As I am a catholic, I cannot believe in STRONG AI. He 
> wrote an anti-strong-ai (and thus anti-comp)  book on this. But even among 
> the catholic that has been seen as an exceptional view. 
>
> Comp is not much. A version is that there is no human internal organ which 
> cannot be replaced by an artificial one having the right functions at the 
> right level. 
>

Which I ould say is true too, but it's going to be something like 'comp is 
can replace < organA >with   + +..+... 

One of those revolutions will be to have a scientific revolution that 
differentiate why, say the heart of liver, in which an immense amount of 
computation takes place, never becomes conscious. Why do I experience 
consciousness in my head, why not my liver? 


>  
> Comp is believed also by all creationists who indeed use together with the 
> premise that a machine needs a designer to argue for the existence of a 
> designer God. Of course the second premise is easily refuted by the fact 
> that all (digital) machines probably exist, with their execution, in the 
> solution of the diophantine equations.>
>


So you are saying you think they effectively believe in something, because 
there's a logic in comp that parallels some relation they must think at 
some point involving god and something else? 

This doesn't look right to me. You've got a definition in comp, thus 
composed of comp-objects. You say they believe comp, when most of them 
would probably totally reject that god is anything to do with that. 

Can we really make these sort of inferences without making clear, we don't 
mean the sort of belief that creationists will have for that word, and at 
no point or level do we have any reason to think they think they think in 
terms of comp at all. 

What you are saying is that you think what they are doing in their minds, 
has a parallel with something that can happen in comp. This is a long way 
now from they believe in comp. 

I mean...and please answer this. Let's say someone is riding a donkey. And 
the motion of that person and way they hold the donkey exactly parallels 
someone else riding a zebra. Does this infer the first person is riding a 
zebra? 

Or do I miss the point? 



>
>
>
> and clearly infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on comp, 
>
> What are you insinuating? Could you find one scientist having ention a 
> problem (except J.P. Delahaye)?
>

 
Are you aware that 'insinuating' suggests an underhand way of ding things? 
Where do you stand on what PGC has said to me? 

What I'm not insinuating old boy, but saying explicitly and directly, is 
that I'm not clear it's appropriate to say what people believe, unless 
they've said they believe it. Are you assuming things like this: 

Scientist believes comp= --> Bruno's criteria is assuming-com --> brunos's 
UDA follows --> Stuff about consciousness outside the head follows 



--> MWI follows 



--> Infinite dreams follows 

* So where does it end? Do scientists all believe MWI? 


> Even the jury in Brussels acknowledge not one error. One did, actually, 
> but changed his mind since (he was stopping at step three and acknowledged 
> that he was counting the 3-views instead of the 1-views (like John Clark). 
> In brussels, they have invoked a philosopher who judged the thesis not 
> receivable (which means not even a private defense: they have never heard 
> me, even in priva

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

nd then put you in a   
> very well done emulation, without you noticing any difference (before   
> comparing the comp physics and the physics of your environment). 
>
>
>
> > 
> > Whilst COMP could be rescued by stating that it's just bad luck that   
> > we are 
> > in one of these virtual worlds, there is no epistemological benefit in 
> > doing so, because then COMP would not provide a description of our 
> > phenomenological physics. 
> > 
> > Just the same is if we ever found the Anthropic Principle to be 
> > violated (and didn't immediately wake up and realise it to be a 
> > dream), then we'd have to declare the AP falsified, because it no 
> > longer has any epistemological value. We could alternatively conclude 
> > that we're living in a Sim (DD's argument), but that would be simply a 
> > statement of faith, making the AP unfalsifiable. 
>


Yo Russell, I was just wondering...what do you include when you reference 
Anthropic Principle. Like above. I mean...I can see that if we're talking 
about AP as the explanation for our universe and us here within it, then 
just for that, there the inference of large number of other universes. Is 
this roughly as far as things go, or are there further inferences directly 
from these first two? 

What I'm interested in, is what sort of operations could be applied to the 
multiple other universes...without doing silly things like just assuming 
this or that. Just because it's unseeable and large, doesn't mean all we 
can do is make assumptions. I think. I mean, I think a lot of rubbish. You 
know this...but you promise you speak to 3 times each year. You kind man. 
Now give me rights...or I'll have you on discrimination legistlation. I've 
only got one blood leg, is this the way treat a man with one arm? 

Oh sorry, lost it again. Off for meds. 

I am not sure we can make something falsifiable into something non   
falsifiable by an act of faith, ... except indeed by invoking a dream,   
or a Daemon, but this is of course is a very weak "refutation". I   
would say that it is better to bet we are not in a second order dream/ 
emulation by default. If the comp-QL differ from the empiric-QL, it   
will be time to hesitate between the truth of comp, or of the the   
classical theory of knowledge, or if we are in a simulation (that   
might depends on the way the comp-QL is violated). 

The fact in dispute with ghibbsa is that I am giving a precise way to   
test comp (with nuance due to the vague character of "test" applied to   
"reality") when translated in arithmetic. How to interpret a possible   
violation by nature, will depend on the phenomenon needed to be   
discovered for that effect. 

It is more plausible that the comp logics fails to define a quantum   
computer in the neighborhood, or that it implies modularity and   
exclude infinite dimensional Hilbert spaces, or that it is   
inconsistent with the different type factor (von Neuman algebra). 

What if it fails, but still work with []p & <><>t in place of []p &   
<>t? I would be astonished if we get directly the right logic of the   
observable in one of S4Grz1, Z1* or X1*. S4Grz1 has all theorems of B   
(the modal logic of QL), + the orthomodularity, but seems also very   
close to S5 (as he has reflexion ([]A ->A, symmetry p -> []<>p, but   
also transitivity []A -> [][]A). It is not S5 because symmetry is only   
for the sigma_1 sentences p, not arbitrary formula A. 


Bruno 


> 
> -- 
> 
> 
 

> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
 
> University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
> 
> Latest project: The Amoeba's Secret 
> (http://www.hpcoders.com.au/AmoebasSecret.html) 
> 
 

> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google   
> Groups "Everything List" group. 
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,   
> send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com . 
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
. 
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. 
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

so I offered a test event tailored to a specific and probably fairly 
central to most others, charge relating to my positioning with Bruno in not 
responding to all or most counter arguments and objections or criticisms of 
something I have actually or effectively done. 

I constructed a basic test event, obviously it had to be tied to a very 
specific argument, involving a specific charge or suspicion, in a situation 
featuring possible two of us. It isn't a problem to construct a falsifiable 
prediction that is in keeping with the criteria of step one of the 
definition. 

So he chooses one of the Bruno counter points  I did not answer, and goes 
for the knock down hardest one he thinks I'll find. And I will say why that 
point did not make a case to answer. And why I have dug my heels and 
stopped showing him the courtesy of answering anyway. This is because I 
don't he has even now read my definition seriously, because his own 
objections are clearly illegitimate or misconceived, and his own offers of 
events of testing or whatever clearly do not meet the critieria of 
definition.

In fact his positions have not changed at all. I cannot reconcile this with 
a serious reading. And there's actually no point in continuing unless and 
until Bruno does make the decision to read my definition, which he 
requested and I supplied for. And absorb it, and be able to distinguish 
where any position he has does or does meet a criteria. 

He doesn't have to agree with any of it. But he had to know where the 
argument is, if he's serious. 

Because one way that his theory NOW ACTUALLY IS, falsifiable is in terms of 
the status he claimed for it, of falsifiability. The reason that isn't 
actually falsifiability is because every theory at a falsifiable status has 
spent a long time in a pre-falsifiable stage. And may well still be that 
phase, because to falsifiable the process itself has to not only start but 
finish, and there are a lot of constraints what a delay has to meet in 
criteria to be legitimate. Most delays quickly correspond to falsification 
events, but of the status only. Which never falsifies the theory and can 
never. Because IT'S DECOUPLED and never knows much what the fuck the theory 
is !!Anyway, here was example,. 

"So for example, Bruno has argued that I failed address an he has said saw 
what he regards as a successful test., He then infers from my silence that 
I have effectively rejected it, and he concludes I must therefore be in 
contradiction with myself because I said I didn't have the skills to be 
doing things like that. " 

So everything connects and is logical in what he says and his conclusion. 
But once again he's still on the inside of his theory, and still being 
driven along by the influence of the same misconception that the 
dichotomy which seems to regard the interaction between the falsification 
structure as an end to process  - and in this setting the interaction is 
via me obviously, in that the action I took in not responding amounts to a 
rejection of some element in his theory. Which on its own its perfectly 
correct. not responding is a response. 

But the same problematic misconception remains in his thinking here, which 
best illustrated here, amounts to believing decoupling between anything to 
do with the process of falsification, and anything to do with anything in 
his theory theory is a dichotomy of correct interaction with the interior 
of his theory, in this case that if I am going to effectively reject 
something by not addressing it, I am immediately contradicting myh own 
position thatI do not have skills to be making judgement calls about 
elements of his theory. So it's clearly perfectly sound reasoning he's got 
in play there. 

But falsification doesn't care what is reasoned correct or not, within a 
theory. It doesn't care and will never care. Because it can never care 
about one particular theory, when it is process that runs across the 
entirety of science through the entirety of the history of science. How can 
anything like that have any dependence on a particular logical reasoning 
that on its own terms demands a reason why it can't be heard? 

It's all good though, because the logical that is correct can be clearly 
stated as the consequence of the definition and my response to Bruno, which 
proxies for the interaction of the falsification structure to the theory. 
Bruno is right in act that silence is not an adequate response to the 
issues that he raising. Because the part of the falsification, if it is to 
deaf to all theories is also to deliver explicit and simple criteria to 
that theory. This is only connection possible. It is one way to the 
interface, the outer surface of the theory, from the structure to the 
theory. That must be a very simple request for, initially a condition that 
meets the criteria of the first step of falsification. Now I have 
asked Bruno for this a few times, and I have explained each time why this 
is all I ever

Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:28:15 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:06:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>>
>>> On 2 June 2014 03:50,  wrote:
>>>
 On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote:
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch  
> wrote:
>
>> On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist  
>> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jason...@gmail.com <
>> jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Richard, 
>>>
>>> I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. 
>>>
>>> Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single 
>>> universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes 
>>> which 
>>> only in aggregate contain all possible universes? 
>>>
>>
>> Neither is religiously acceptable  
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know 
>> what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible 
>> experience?
>>
>
> According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block 
> timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is 
> omniscient to that extent including knowing "what it is like to be every 
> possible observer having every possible experience."
>
> But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my 
> religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has 
> also 
> provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the 
> bad for example in the rebirth process.. 
>
> God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state 
> (in every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that 
> maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much 
> of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism 
> within 
> comp.
> Richard
>

 what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that 
 they are at the level of religion
  
 I'm not sure I like an explanation that involves a supernatural being 
>>> inspecting all the 10^80 (or whatever) atoms in the universe every time one 
>>> undergoes a transition, and deciding which one is best. There's a lot of 
>>> cold hydrogen out there radiating at 21 cm, for example, so every time one 
>>> emits a photon god has to check it to see it it's the right photon. I feel 
>>> like I may turn into an Occam's razor-wielding maniac just thinking about 
>>> it.
>>>
>>
>> Oh, well that's perfectly true (what you say) as well, and why, although 
>> I would anyway call him a friend (internet tense) and have known Richard 
>> Ruquist almost from the start in terms of my personal history of 
>> idea-exchange/discussion on the Internet medium, we've almost never managed 
>> to agree about anything at all. Not sure what his side of that would be, 
>> and probably wouldn't agree with that either, nor he mine, but FWIW mine 
>> was the same as my trouble with agreeing with our Bruno, that being the 
>> point you (seem to ) make right here. That being an apparent contradiction 
>> of what I say above, which presumably would be why you make the point 
>> within this context, if that is the point that you make (and why). That 
>> being to my reading how Richard Ruquist's world view is an intractable 
>> composition, one way or another, of real or apparent attempts to blue the 
>> distinctiveness of Science. 
>>
>> However, through much learning and personal misreading, something I 
>> haven't realized until more recently, and which no doubt he won't agree 
>> with so continuing the tradition, is the twinkle in the eye (so hard to see 
>> over the Internet) that has consistently been there throughout. He says it, 
>> and it apparently looks as it apparently looks. But the twinkle in the eye 
>> that says it ain't so, is that he encapsulates it, and always has, with 
>> candour as to what he believes, and it's status in, and purely in, 
>> religion. As he does here. 
>>
>
> and there's another layer of twinkly encapsulation, of totally hilarious, 
> gentle and only ever self-depreciating, humour and sense of humour. Of that 
> I'm sure, but what I am not sure of, is which encapsulates which, only that 
> the scientism or whatever is last, or least, or otherwise at the bottom, 
> inclusive of not being, or least or last or at the bottom after the others 
> of being, the basis or any sense fundamental or foundational or in the 
> wider/deeper senses of what those things are, reducible from, 
> nor they constructions or divisible into, those two encapsulations of the 
> Richard Ruquist worldview. Which encapsulates which, though, I do not have 
> a clue. Which is typical, actually, of him..that everything co

Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, June 2, 2014 1:06:21 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 2 June 2014 03:50,  wrote:
>>
>>> On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote:

 On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch  
 wrote:

> On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist  
> wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jason...@gmail.com <
> jason...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Richard, 
>>
>> I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. 
>>
>> Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single 
>> universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which 
>> only in aggregate contain all possible universes? 
>>
>
> Neither is religiously acceptable  
> Richard
>
>
> According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know 
> what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible 
> experience?
>

 According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block 
 timeless MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is 
 omniscient to that extent including knowing "what it is like to be every 
 possible observer having every possible experience."

 But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my 
 religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also 
 provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the 
 bad for example in the rebirth process.. 

 God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in 
 every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that 
 maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much 
 of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within 
 comp.
 Richard

>>>
>>> what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that 
>>> they are at the level of religion
>>>  
>>> I'm not sure I like an explanation that involves a supernatural being 
>> inspecting all the 10^80 (or whatever) atoms in the universe every time one 
>> undergoes a transition, and deciding which one is best. There's a lot of 
>> cold hydrogen out there radiating at 21 cm, for example, so every time one 
>> emits a photon god has to check it to see it it's the right photon. I feel 
>> like I may turn into an Occam's razor-wielding maniac just thinking about 
>> it.
>>
>
> Oh, well that's perfectly true (what you say) as well, and why, although I 
> would anyway call him a friend (internet tense) and have known Richard 
> Ruquist almost from the start in terms of my personal history of 
> idea-exchange/discussion on the Internet medium, we've almost never managed 
> to agree about anything at all. Not sure what his side of that would be, 
> and probably wouldn't agree with that either, nor he mine, but FWIW mine 
> was the same as my trouble with agreeing with our Bruno, that being the 
> point you (seem to ) make right here. That being an apparent contradiction 
> of what I say above, which presumably would be why you make the point 
> within this context, if that is the point that you make (and why). That 
> being to my reading how Richard Ruquist's world view is an intractable 
> composition, one way or another, of real or apparent attempts to blue the 
> distinctiveness of Science. 
>
> However, through much learning and personal misreading, something I 
> haven't realized until more recently, and which no doubt he won't agree 
> with so continuing the tradition, is the twinkle in the eye (so hard to see 
> over the Internet) that has consistently been there throughout. He says it, 
> and it apparently looks as it apparently looks. But the twinkle in the eye 
> that says it ain't so, is that he encapsulates it, and always has, with 
> candour as to what he believes, and it's status in, and purely in, 
> religion. As he does here. 
>

and there's another layer of twinkly encapsulation, of totally hilarious, 
gentle and only ever self-depreciating, humour and sense of humour. Of that 
I'm sure, but what I am not sure of, is which encapsulates which, only that 
the scientism or whatever is last, or least, or otherwise at the bottom, 
inclusive of not being, or least or last or at the bottom after the others 
of being, the basis or any sense fundamental or foundational or in the 
wider/deeper senses of what those things are, reducible from, 
nor they constructions or divisible into, those two encapsulations of the 
Richard Ruquist worldview. Which encapsulates which, though, I do not have 
a clue. Which is typical, actually, of him..that everything comes down to 
that, and not knowing that amounts to knowing nothing at all. And that's 
the third encapsulation that I am fairly convinced of now, both what it is, 
and it's position of encapsulating the firs

Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, June 1, 2014 10:43:14 PM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 2 June 2014 03:50, > wrote:
>
>> On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote:
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch  wrote:
>>>
 On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist  wrote:

 On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jason...@gmail.com <
 jason...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Richard, 
>
> I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. 
>
> Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single 
> universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which 
> only in aggregate contain all possible universes? 
>

 Neither is religiously acceptable  
 Richard


 According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know 
 what it is like to be every possible observer having every possible 
 experience?

>>>
>>> According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block timeless 
>>> MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is omniscient to 
>>> that extent including knowing "what it is like to be every possible 
>>> observer having every possible experience."
>>>
>>> But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my 
>>> religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also 
>>> provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the 
>>> bad for example in the rebirth process.. 
>>>
>>> God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in 
>>> every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that 
>>> maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much 
>>> of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within 
>>> comp.
>>> Richard
>>>
>>
>> what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that 
>> they are at the level of religion
>>  
>> I'm not sure I like an explanation that involves a supernatural being 
> inspecting all the 10^80 (or whatever) atoms in the universe every time one 
> undergoes a transition, and deciding which one is best. There's a lot of 
> cold hydrogen out there radiating at 21 cm, for example, so every time one 
> emits a photon god has to check it to see it it's the right photon. I feel 
> like I may turn into an Occam's razor-wielding maniac just thinking about 
> it.
>

Oh, well that's perfectly true (what you say) as well, and why, although I 
would anyway call him a friend (internet tense) and have known Richard 
Ruquist almost from the start in terms of my personal history of 
idea-exchange/discussion on the Internet medium, we've almost never managed 
to agree about anything at all. Not sure what his side of that would be, 
and probably wouldn't agree with that either, nor he mine, but FWIW mine 
was the same as my trouble with agreeing with our Bruno, that being the 
point you (seem to ) make right here. That being an apparent contradiction 
of what I say above, which presumably would be why you make the point 
within this context, if that is the point that you make (and why). That 
being to my reading how Richard Ruquist's world view is an intractable 
composition, one way or another, of real or apparent attempts to blue the 
distinctiveness of Science. 

However, through much learning and personal misreading, something I haven't 
realized until more recently, and which no doubt he won't agree with so 
continuing the tradition, is the twinkle in the eye (so hard to see over 
the Internet) that has consistently been there throughout. He says it, and 
it apparently looks as it apparently looks. But the twinkle in the eye that 
says it ain't so, is that he encapsulates it, and always has, with candour 
as to what he believes, and it's status in, and purely in, religion. As he 
does here. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, May 31, 2014 2:09:57 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 2:53 AM, Russell Standish  > wrote:
>
> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 08:15:30PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> >
> > On 28 May 2014, at 03:24, LizR wrote:
> >
> > >As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to
> > >segue into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs
> > >to show that either his premises or his argument is wrong...
> >
> >
> > Not exactly. The premise can be wrong, true, or indeterminate,
> > without making the reasoning invalid. In fact, in the classical
> > frame, a refutation of the premise would make the reasoning
> > vacuously valid. Now that reasoning shows a means to refute the
> > premise: basically: compare the physics found in the head of all
> > universal Turing machine, and if it is contradicted by nature then
> > the premise are false (or I, or we, are dreaming or live in a
> > second-order reality)
> >
>
> This last qualification is disturbing, as it would appear remove the
> possibility of falsification of COMP.
>
>
> Is this not, as you have stated before on this list if I remember 
> correctly, a standard consequence of Turing Machines (I'm referring to 
> dreaming, second-order reality)?ma
>

It doesn't matter that it is a standard consequence of somethingnot in 
the narrow issue of falsifiability. 

>
> I'm still not convinced by the "falsification attacks" of late; they seem 
> to me just reductionism in disguise of pursuit of clarity. We are doubting 
> now falsification as laid out by our advances in computability in the last 
> century? I don't see the alternatives many posts of late here apparently 
> are assuming, while most seem to ignore the elephant follow-up "do you take 
> Quantum Logic then to be empirical; how do you manage then?"  As if this 
> standard were leveraged against other TOEs seriously on all levels (which 
> ones satisfy such things completely btw?), and therefore comp should abide 
> concerning personal ultimate answers, falsification, prediction, and all 
> this stuff that appeals to my insecurity and bad sci-fi writing. 
>
> Smells like prohibition/authoritative argument. Like the academic prancing 
> around of labels, qualification histories, the Salvia post appearing 
> designed to get people to "lower their defenses", so they can be attacked 
> for speaking not literally/correctly, apologies for not biting btw; and the 
> related posturing of meta-arguments and psychology across different threads 
> lately, ending in insults and useless "I know what you're thinking via 
> label"- stuff. This I consider unscientific and ties in with the 
> theological discussion in the other thread: posing as if these things were 
> decided, set, and going on personal crusade for fancy projections instead 
> of sticking to the relevant points in discussion. That's what distinguishes 
> crusading from sciethance and makes it problematic. PGC
>

Well, first of all, it's meaningless to leave my addy out when you are 
clearly speaking about me. It's also important to be clear that you are 
continuing your argument by other means in what you are saying, and that 
when an individual attempts to discredit another individual on 
bad-motivation grounds, and addresses other individuals which he has 
interacted with for longer, that is a serious escalation and extremely 
personal. 

There was nothing devious about the Salvia posting. I actually pasted the 
key lines to the top of the post, and added comments. Clearly indicating 
that for me, the salient point about the article was that the 
distinguishing features of Salvia have now been identified, and that they 
closely correspond with much of what Bruno says and vocabularly around 
3D/1D distinctions, talking to the machine, and so on and so forth. 

It isn't reasonable to attack me this way when it happens also to be the 
case the overwhelming majority of scientists would agree with my position. 
When Bruno and YOU make claims that scientists accept comp and clearly 
infer that they will also accept Bruno's workthroughs on comp, you are the 
one's being less than honest, intellectually. Not me. 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 3:40:39 PM UTC+1, yanniru wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 9:47 AM, Jason Resch  > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On May 29, 2014, at 12:11 AM, Richard Ruquist > > wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 10:45 PM, jason...@gmail.com 
>>  < jason...@gmail.com > wrote:
>>
>>> Richard, 
>>>
>>> I suppose it comes down to what you call a universe. 
>>>
>>> Would you say there is any difference that matters between a single 
>>> universe that contains all possible experiences vs. Many universes which 
>>> only in aggregate contain all possible universes? 
>>>
>>
>> Neither is religiously acceptable  
>> Richard
>>
>>
>> According to which religion? If god is omniscient, would he not know what 
>> it is like to be every possible observer having every possible experience?
>>
>
> According to my religion, God can compute the future of a block timeless 
> MWI universe at any time out to infinity. So, such a god is omniscient to 
> that extent including knowing "what it is like to be every possible 
> observer having every possible experience."
>
> But such a universe is deterministic and may lack free will. In my 
> religion, god has provided for free will within our universe. God has also 
> provided ethical questions of good versus bad by eliminating much of the 
> bad for example in the rebirth process.. 
>
> God accomplishes much of this by always selecting the quantum state (in 
> every interaction where more than one possibility is available) that 
> maximizes some aspect of the future universe- like Liebniz proposed. Much 
> of what God accomplishes might be replaced by algorithmic mechanism within 
> comp.
> Richard
>

what I like about this is that you are candid in your beliefs, and that 
they are at the level of religion

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, May 29, 2014 8:47:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 29 May 2014, at 4:58 pm, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, 
>> and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not 
>> just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical 
>> formulation of the measure problem.
>>
>> Consciousness is not located in the brain.
>>
>
>
> Oh really? Did you forget your logician hat this morning then? 
>
>
> Perhaps you forgot to wear a certain type of hat the other day when you 
> mentioned that there is only one objective reality". I'd still like to be 
> convinced about that. Personally I have never BELIEVED that consciousness 
> is located in the brain. Why do you BELIEVE it is?
>
> Kim
>

I did answer your query about objective reality at the time. It is 
something that is said, and left appropriately vague, to represent 'that 
which is real' or 'that which we want to discover in science'. 

You can have 2 objective realities if you want Kim. Because it's a vague 
term, and you haven't discovered either of them and don't know if there is 
really 2,  I would still refer to them as 'objective reality' 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 7:43:13 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Nice post! 
>
> Interesting, and indeed very reasonable with comp, in its expectable 
> natural realizations. I agree on points on salvia too, except that salvia's 
> reports witness extreme asymmetrical phenomena, which suggests some 
> disconnection between the left brain and the right brain. Of course it is a 
> very complex matter, but there are tools (some a bit toxic though, some 
> other not).
>
> Salvia action is believed to be very specific, and what makes salvia 
> attractive for such studies is that when smoked, the experience last for 4m 
> to 8m in the average, on sober people. You feel quite well after (unless 
> the goal was taking a superdose for making a funny video for youtube in 
> company of light and noisy sitters, that is using it contradicting the user 
> guide, or common sense when you know what the plant is capable of).
>
> No doubt we will come back on this. I have *many* theories on salvia in 
> the comp realm. Including possible different report predictions for 
> different people. 
>
> Nice paper, but it still miss Everett's and comp's ways of differentiation 
> of consciousness.
>

wellthey are interested in the hypothesis consciousness is generated by 
the bits between the ears. 

The question from me to you would be, given the typical effects of salvia 
are so close to key parts of your comp extension theories, how did you 
manage to control for the null-hypothesis? That being, salvia affects the 
brain like a drug, with very specific effects statistically speaking, which 
if you go into looking for computational, arithmetic or whatever truth, 
will give you 'answers' that involve the archetypal effect of the drug PLUS 
whatever you are imagining laid over the top?  

>
> Comp is not just testable, it is improvable, but to play fair the game, 
> and keep the comp qualia/quanta distinction, the improvement should not 
> just be based with the experimental facts, but with the arithmetical 
> formulation of the measure problem.
>
> Consciousness is not located in the brain.
>


Oh really? Did you forget your logician hat this morning then? You do this 
a lot but when I mentioned that you did the other day, you said you didn't 
believe me. Do you believe me now?

 

> It is a "quasi-arithmetical" notion, like "arithmetical truth itself". Its 
> differentiation will make it seemingly related to special representations, 
> but that might be transitory, and the uniqueness of them is a delusion.
>
> You said you don't believe in comp, and I guess you meant that you believe 
> that comp is untrue, isn't it? What is your opinion on Everett?
>

Bruno, I just think it's nuts that you can be in a conversation with 
someone for this long and not know key high level aspects of that person's 
opinion relevant to the actual conversation. I acknowledge it isn't easy to 
grasp the distinctions another person makesbut I've made that effort 
with you.why haven't you made that effort with me? I'm going to have to 
answer another response from you on the consciousness thread, in which you 
simply have not understood the distinctions I make about falsification at 
any depth If you would make that effort, spend actual time reflecting...we 
could nail this conversation, and then if we wanted to (both) move on to 
possibly understanding more about your steps. Possibly.
 

> I think you told us that you reject it? I am not sure. If you reject 
> Everett it is normal that you reject comp. 
>

Yes I definitely don't accept MWI. I've explained why in the past. there 
are massive unrealized assumptions involved in construction of MwI. I've 
listed some key ones...no one has addressed them...MWI is unreliable 
knowledge while they are in place.
 

> (Note that Crick use comp in the paper, and indeed it is common in that 
> field, even Hameroff use comp (only Penrose suggested a non-comp theory, 
> where indeed gravitation collapse the wave in a way non predictible by QM).
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> On 28 May 2014, at 17:23, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>- they were more likely to believe they were in an environment 
>completely different from the physical space they were actually in -> 
>sounds familiar
>- they often believed to be interacting with "beings" such as 
>hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures --> 
>machines 
>- the often reported "ego dissolution", a variety of experiences in 
>which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. 
> --> 
>3p?
>
>
>
> Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The 
> Conversation
> [image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?]
> The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), 
> another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose 
> brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right 
> corner). Credit

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 4:53:27 PM UTC+1, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>
> 2014-05-28 17:45 GMT+02:00 >:
>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:13:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>> "To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely 
>>> useless. "  Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be 
>>> organized...all
>>>
>>
>> I was actually quoting someone else the. But the confusion is my fault as 
>> I failed to format things properly. Gene McCarthy - chap I was quoting was 
>> talking specifically about dna sequence data. Part of what I was commenting 
>> on, was that while he's right about the data that is there, he overlooks 
>> that a whole chromosome is missing 
>>
>
> No chromosomes are missing, there is on the contrary a supernumerary 
> chromosome 21 hence also the name "trisomy 21".  So I don't understand how 
> sequencing data could be useless because those datas contains that fact...
>

I'm sorry to have repeated wrong information...clearly I didn't check my 
own facts from background knowledge which was what I was pointing the 
finger at the other guy for doing. Still, the main objection - that 
dramatically different phenotype does require difference in dna sequence - 
still stands and it appears we agree on that one. thanks for sorting me out 
on the down's. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 3:13:44 AM UTC+1, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> "To detect someone with Down's syndrome, sequence data is completely 
> useless. "  Please elaborate! I do know of other ways that data can be 
> organized...all
>

I was actually quoting someone else the. But the confusion is my fault as I 
failed to format things properly. Gene McCarthy - chap I was quoting was 
talking specifically about dna sequence data. Part of what I was commenting 
on, was that while he's right about the data that is there, he overlooks 
that a whole chromosome is missing for that condition, and a missing bunch 
of sequence is the same as difference sequence.”

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:48:25 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 11:50 PM, LizR >wrote:
>
>> On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes 
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR >wrote:
>>>
 On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes 
 > wrote:

>
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR  >wrote:
>
>> I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens 
>> wanting to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to 
>> grass, jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens...
>>
>
> Makes sense, of course, but I'm not so sure. I don't think we know 
> enough at this point to estimate the diversity of the solution space for 
> biologically evolved entities with human-level intelligence or above. It 
> could be that something very similar to us is the only viable solution, 
> or 
> the most likely solution.
>
> Functionally similar (perhaps), but certainly not genetically similar. 
 We aren't even gentically similar enough to interbreed with any other 
 species that evolved on the same planet under very similar conditions to 
 us 
 - for example, we are very closely related to chimps, but we still can't 
 interbreed with them.

>>>
>>> Ok, but now you're making the requirements more stringent. We were 
>>> talking about outer-space fetishists, not necessarily interbreeding. So 
>>> functional similarity might be enough, as alluded in "sheep are nervous". :)
>>>
>>> Well if you're just talking about something you can put your dick in (or 
>> an alien can put their proboscis in), that's a (ahem) broad range of items, 
>> depending on your tastes (See "A melon for ecstasy" and "The unrepentant 
>> necrophile" for some suggestions for things one can "have sex with" in this 
>> sense, should one be so inclined).
>>
>
> Interesting stuff. When I was a teenager, me and some friends would 
> pretend that we ran a necrophilia fanzine. We would have conversations 
> about it, just to disturb people in hearing range. The title of this 
> fictitious publication was "Formaldehyde". Life can get excruciatingly 
> boring in small towns...
>  
>
>>
>> However your original reply (in blue above) certainly *appeared* to be 
>> talking about interbreeding. (Or did you mean humanoid forms are "the only 
>> viable solution for fetishists who happen to get their kicks from anally 
>> probing members of other species" ?)
>>
>
> Ok, I wasn't so clear. My speculation was somewhere in the middle: that 
> species can exist that may not necessarily interbreed but are sufficiently 
> similar to be sexually attractive to each other -- or, more precisely, to 
> elements of each other's species with common sexual tastes.
>
> So the reason why I find this sort of speculation interesting is that we 
> assume a hypothetical diversity in the tree of possible organisms of 
> human-level intelligence or above. It is compelling to assume high 
> diversity, given the combinatorial explosion of possibilities afforded by 
> DNA encoding and the biological diversity we can observe on earth. But we 
> don't really know.
>
> A counter-hypothesis is that, as complexity increases, the space of viable 
> solutions gets smaller. In an extreme case, it could be that human-level 
> intelligence always requires humanoids. Even taking our friends the 
> orangutans and bonobos. Suppose they keep evolving until they reach 
> human-level intelligence. They are quite close now. Maybe they will lose 
> their fur and develop more and more human-like features until they become 
> sexually attractive to regular humans.
>

oink - I think the hypothesis makes a lot of sense. An even more 
constrained version would that the evolutionary paths to that converged 
space of viable solutions, are themselves extremely improbable  the 
possibility space of evolutionary histories. which may itself be 
constrained by the possibility space of worlds and behind that solar system 
evolutions. This bitch could be constrained all the way back man,. forget 
turtles; constraints.

>
> I am not saying that this is the case, or even that I have any evidence 
> for it. What I do know, from experimenting with evolutionary computation, 
> is that we should be suspicious of our intuitions when it comes to such 
> highly complex systems.
>
> Best,
> Telmo.
>  
>
>>  
>> But anyway  OK, aliens *may* want to have sex with humans, just as a 
>> human *may* want to have sex with orangutans - but generally they won't, 
>> because sexual attraction is fairly fine tuned, both by evolution and 
>> social norms (indeed it's so fine tuned that species that could in theory 
>> interbreed often don't) - and, at least in my experience, most humans don't 
>> even want to have sex with most other humans . never mind fancying 
>> members of a different species who will almost certainly give out all the 
>> wrong visual, behavioural, and chemic

study of salvia reportage - brain region pointed to

[ghibbsa]

   
   - they were more likely to believe they were in an environment 
   completely different from the physical space they were actually in -> 
   sounds familiar
   - they often believed to be interacting with "beings" such as 
   hallucinated dead people, aliens, fairies or mythical creatures --> 
   machines 
   - the often reported "ego dissolution", a variety of experiences in 
   which the self ceased to exist in the user's subjective experience. --> 
   3p?



Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?by Klaus M. Stiefel, The 
Conversation
[image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?]
The location of the claustrum (blue) and the cingulate cortex (green), 
another brain region likely to act as a global integrator. The person whose 
brain is shown is looking to the right (see the inset in the top right 
corner). Credit: Brain 
…more

Consciousness is one of the most fascinating and elusive phenomena we 
humans face. Every single one of us experiences it but it remains 
surprisingly poorly understood.

That said, psychology, neuroscience and philosophy are currently making 
interesting progress in the comprehension of this phenomenon.

The main player in this story is something called the 
claustrum. 
The word originally described an enclosed space in medieval European 
monasteries but in the mammalian brain it refers to a small sheet of 
neurons just below the 
cortex, 
and possibly derived from it in brain development.

The cortex  is the massive folded 
layer on top of the brain mainly responsible for many higher brain 
functions such as language, long-term planning and our advanced sensory 
functions.

Interestingly, the claustrum is strongly reciprocally connected to many 
cortical 
areas . The visual 
cortex (the 
region involved in seeing) sends axons (the connecting "wires" of the 
nervous system) to the claustrum, and also receives axons from the 
claustrum.

The same is true for the auditory 
cortex (involved 
in hearing) and a number of other cortex areas. A wealth of information 
converges in the claustrum and leaves it to re-enter the cortex.

*The connection*

Francis 
Crick
 – 
who together with James 
Watson
 gave 
us the structure of DNA – was interested in a connection between the 
claustrum and consciousness .

In a recent paper, published in Frontiers in Integrative 
Neuroscience,
 
we have built on the ideas he described in his very last scientific 
publication .

Crick and co-author Christoph 
Koch
 argued 
that the claustrum could be a coordinator of cortical 
function and 
hence a "conductor of consciousness".

Such percepts as colour, form, sound, body position and social relations 
are all represented in different parts of the cortex. How are they bound to 
a unified experience of consciousness? Wouldn't a region exerting a (even 
limited) central control over all these cortical areas be highly useful?

This is what Crick and Koch suggested when they hypothesised the claustrum 
to be a "conductor of consciousness". But how could this hypothesis about 
the claustrum's role be tested?

*Plant power alters the mind*
[image: Is the key to consciousness in the claustrum?]
Salvia divinorum (Herba de Maria). Credit: Wikipedia, CC BY

Enter the plant *Salvia divinorum 
*, a type of mint native 
to Mexico. The Mazatecs civilisation's priests would chew its leaves to get 
in touch with the gods.

It's a powerful psychedelic, but not of the usual type. Substances such as 
LSD  
andpsylocibin (the 
active compound in "magic" mushrooms) mainly act by binding to the 
serotonin neuromodulator receptor proteins.

It is not completely understood how these receptors bring about altered 
states of consciousness, but a reduction of the inhibitory (negative 
feedback) communication between neurons in the cortex likely plays a role.

In contrast, *Salvia divinorum* acts on the kappa-opiate 
receptors.
 
These are structurally related, bu

Re: TRONNIES

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 10:46:05 PM UTC+1, John Ross wrote:
>
> Thank you, whoever it was that wrote the long paragraph.  It reminds me of 
> the only lawyer joke that I can remember.  “Why do they bury Lawyers 8 feet 
> deep.”  “Because down deep they are not too bad.”
>
>  
>
> I did learn the Law of Sines and I re-learned it over the weekend.  My new 
> knowledge has added support for my theory.  One of my genius friends is 
> checking my math.  I will post the results when I get them.  
>

that's a major result from law of sines! why not try factorizing quadratics 
next and see where that goes? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:24:39 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> As far as I can see Bruno has a logical argument which happens to segue 
> into a theory of physics. To disprove it, one merely needs to show that 
> either his premises or his argument is wrong...
>

I don't agree with you about that, but for point of order, I haven't gone 
down that road anyway. He's wrong about falsification. I did try to drop 
it. I shall probably try again. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:26:32 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> I'm pretty sure I already read a very long article on this subject... I 
> can't recall all the evidence though.
>

well it's not good enough liz.. you must love and worship the ape/pig 
theory as I do. come, let us kneel together and oink

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 2:19:32 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>>
>> On 28 May 2014 11:55,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in 
>>> popular knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by 
>>> a mile, is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason 
>>> it's ignored is because a lot of people have spent a long time barking up 
>>> another tree that has never even explained how humans stood by gradual 
>>> evoluation. We still looking at the same daft illustration of a sequence, 
>>> where the intermediate stage has the fella sort of hunched over with 
>>> knuckles not touching the ground any more. That's not a viable posture...it 
>>> wouldn't happen 
>>>
>>
>> Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune 
>> systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use 
>> bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions 
>> have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough to 
>> catch their parasites...
>>
>
> there's an awful lot more evidence...most of it a lot harder than this. 
> It's effectively a knock down case, certainly in comparison with what is 
> treated as the leading theory. I strongly suggest you have a read of his 
> short few pages long overview. for example, every the isn't ape, whther 
> bones or noses or lips or feet or skin and multicomplex subcutes veins and 
> underflesh. It's a straight explanation of standing up...half way between 
> ape and pig can't go on all fours. 
>
> this isn't a the quality of similarities, he's put the bones under a 
> microscope. People argue against it that all those half way to pig traits 
> is convergent evolution. But humans and pigs don't just share high level 
> featues in bones. they share t cosmall scale bumps and crevices, that are 
> impossible to acquire by convergent evolution, because all they are, are 
> acquired little random changes ater evolutionary time. You have to share 
> parentage for that. 
>
> It's worth the read just to see the difference a true scientist brings to 
> evolutionary theory, where what is currently there, says nothing of 
> distinctive value that I can recall. Not compared to what that guy puts 
> over. He did his legwork
>
> does go back to francis bacon actually...that gets reviewed same site 
> macroevolution.net
>

not to say he's little miss perfect. case in point: 

*sequence differences are not necessary for anatomical differences to be 
present*.s 

--> of course they bloody are. what he's probably saying is genetic 
sequences. Noncoding dna is probably as or more important and different 
traits will need the dna to say that trait is like that, and get built like 
this, when, where.

 An obvious example of this phenomenon is Down's syndrome. Individuals 
affected by Down's regularly exhibit certain distinctive anatomical 
features, and yet in terms of their nucleotide sequences they do not differ 
in any way from other humans. To detect someone with Down's syndrome, 
sequence data is completely useless. 

--> he does this a fair bit over the site...which is a mistake really 
because he's on the outside and overlooking down's people are missing a 
whole freaking chromosome is a shame. It's just a case of he's really busy 
and thorough for his theory but draws on general knowledge for some of his 
argument. But he'll be judged for that similarly.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:04:34 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 28 May 2014 11:55, > wrote:
>
>>
>> the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in popular 
>> knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by a mile, 
>> is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason it's 
>> ignored is because a lot of people have spent a long time barking up 
>> another tree that has never even explained how humans stood by gradual 
>> evoluation. We still looking at the same daft illustration of a sequence, 
>> where the intermediate stage has the fella sort of hunched over with 
>> knuckles not touching the ground any more. That's not a viable posture...it 
>> wouldn't happen 
>>
>
> Yes I've heard the pig idea. It's supported by the fact that our immune 
> systems are apparently very similar to pigs', which I assume is why we use 
> bits of pig to repair our faulty heart valves, and quite a few religions 
> have taboos against eating pigs, presumably because we're similar enough to 
> catch their parasites...
>

there's an awful lot more evidence...most of it a lot harder than this. 
It's effectively a knock down case, certainly in comparison with what is 
treated as the leading theory. I strongly suggest you have a read of his 
short few pages long overview. for example, every the isn't ape, whther 
bones or noses or lips or feet or skin and multicomplex subcutes veins and 
underflesh. It's a straight explanation of standing up...half way between 
ape and pig can't go on all fours. 

this isn't a the quality of similarities, he's put the bones under a 
microscope. People argue against it that all those half way to pig traits 
is convergent evolution. But humans and pigs don't just share high level 
featues in bones. they share t cosmall scale bumps and crevices, that are 
impossible to acquire by convergent evolution, because all they are, are 
acquired little random changes ater evolutionary time. You have to share 
parentage for that. 

It's worth the read just to see the difference a true scientist brings to 
evolutionary theory, where what is currently there, says nothing of 
distinctive value that I can recall. Not compared to what that guy puts 
over. He did his legwork

does go back to francis bacon actually...that gets reviewed same site 
macroevolution.net

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Wednesday, May 28, 2014 1:13:38 AM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:19:01 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>
>
>  On 25 May 2014, at 19:02, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>  
> On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>
>
>  On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>  
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>
>
> On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message- 
> > From: LizR  
> > To: everything-list  
> > Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm 
> > Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable? 
> > 
> > On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List &
> lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com 
> > > wrote: 
> >  So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in   
> > the scientific sense. 
>
>
> Could you tell me why? I have answered this to hibbsa since. What is   
> wrong with the equation which provides the propositional physics (its   
> logic of the observable) and its actual testing? 
>
>  
> Because you don't have one. 
>
>
>
> But this is factually false. I do provide the complete propositional 
> physics extracted from the classical computationalist thesis.
>
> So all physical experience which confirms QL, and refute Boolean logic, 
> like Bell's equality, is actually testing computationalism.
>
> And that can also be used to provide counter-example for people using the 
> quantum facts to argue against mechanism.
>
> The set of those testable comp-physical tautologies is decidable, and 
> infinite. At the first order logical level, things are more complex.
>
> If you agree that quantum logic is empirical, like most people in the 
> field, you should understand that comp explains that the laws of the 
> possible empirical are equal to the laws which govern the structure of the 
> computations going through our states (computational states), and so that 
> logic is determined by the mental ability of the universal machine. 
> Mathematically, we can limit ourselves to machine having simple (true) 
> beliefs, like 0+x = x, etc. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  Is anyone independent working on a prediction unique to your work? 
>
>
>
> Everyone trying to guess a law empirically, automatically test the physics 
> of the machines.
>
> Have you follow the thread with Quentin Anciaux? He made a critics that I 
> do understand. There was a possibility that the comp physics collapse into 
> boolean logic. In that case, either comp would have been refuted, or show 
> trivial, and QM would have been refuted altogether, at least as a physical 
> laws. The real physics would be boolean, and QM would only describe a 
> subpart of it. 
>
> Well, but this did not happen. Comp (well classical comp) predicts or 
> retrodicts that the observable
> have to be non boolean and indeed obeys quantum or quantum-like logic. It 
> predicts or retrodicts also a part of the "hamiltonian" under a symmetry 
> conditions.
>
> It misses important things like the linearity. It is easy to add it, but 
> that would be treachery, and so there are tuns of problems to solve to 
> progress.  You just need to understand the technics. It is had, and I have 
> done the best I could. A student and friend of mine, the late Eric 
> Vandebusche did solve the first mathematical problems.
>
> And there is no ambition of comp to substitute itself with physics, 
> which's use of the empiry accelerates the learning process.  My interest is 
> in theology, in what is the destiny of souls and soul.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  If they aren't, you don't have one. Doesn't mean you won't have one. But 
> does mean you don't currently have a falsifiable theory. 
>
>
>
> They are, some explicitly. But if QM is correct, and if by luck  (or bad 
> luck), the comp QL (one of them, as we got three of them) is exactly the 
> quantum QL, then we will not need to test no more that. 
> And it will remain open if that is a correct explanation of the origin of 
> the quantum principle. It might be just a coincidence that where UDA and 
> machines told us where the logic of physics can be, we find quantum logic. 
>
> If, as it is probable, such comp QL differ crucially from quantum QL, 
> well, we have to test to evaluate if it is fatal or not for comp.
>
> Oh, but I forget to mention one more things. The comp QL has more axioms, 
> and if it is not defeated by empiry, it does provide new theorems and new 
> physical predictions, like the comp knower S4Grz is not just the classical 
> knower S4, the comp QL (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*) have axioms inherited from the 
> Löb formula, from which we get information not available. In their first 
> order arithmetical extensions, there is an infinities of such information.
>
>  
> Hi Bruno - you can definitely rest easy about the 'rumours'.I've no 
> access to such things and don't seek them out. So far as I'm concerned a 
> 'list' - even a public one like this - is sacrosanct and private. Like 
> fight clu

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, May 26, 2014 8:19:01 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>
>
>  On 25 May 2014, at 19:02, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>  
> On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>
>>
>>  On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>  
>> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>> On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: 
>>>
>>> > 
>>> > 
>>> > -Original Message- 
>>> > From: LizR  
>>> > To: everything-list  
>>> > Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm 
>>> > Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable? 
>>> > 
>>> > On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List &
>>> lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com 
>>> > > wrote: 
>>> >  So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in   
>>> > the scientific sense. 
>>>
>>>
>>> Could you tell me why? I have answered this to hibbsa since. What is   
>>> wrong with the equation which provides the propositional physics (its   
>>> logic of the observable) and its actual testing? 
>>>
>>  
>> Because you don't have one. 
>>
>>
>>
>> But this is factually false. I do provide the complete propositional 
>> physics extracted from the classical computationalist thesis.
>>
>> So all physical experience which confirms QL, and refute Boolean logic, 
>> like Bell's equality, is actually testing computationalism.
>>
>> And that can also be used to provide counter-example for people using the 
>> quantum facts to argue against mechanism.
>>
>> The set of those testable comp-physical tautologies is decidable, and 
>> infinite. At the first order logical level, things are more complex.
>>
>> If you agree that quantum logic is empirical, like most people in the 
>> field, you should understand that comp explains that the laws of the 
>> possible empirical are equal to the laws which govern the structure of the 
>> computations going through our states (computational states), and so that 
>> logic is determined by the mental ability of the universal machine. 
>> Mathematically, we can limit ourselves to machine having simple (true) 
>> beliefs, like 0+x = x, etc. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  Is anyone independent working on a prediction unique to your work? 
>>
>>
>>
>> Everyone trying to guess a law empirically, automatically test the 
>> physics of the machines.
>>
>> Have you follow the thread with Quentin Anciaux? He made a critics that I 
>> do understand. There was a possibility that the comp physics collapse into 
>> boolean logic. In that case, either comp would have been refuted, or show 
>> trivial, and QM would have been refuted altogether, at least as a physical 
>> laws. The real physics would be boolean, and QM would only describe a 
>> subpart of it. 
>>
>> Well, but this did not happen. Comp (well classical comp) predicts or 
>> retrodicts that the observable
>> have to be non boolean and indeed obeys quantum or quantum-like logic. It 
>> predicts or retrodicts also a part of the "hamiltonian" under a symmetry 
>> conditions.
>>
>> It misses important things like the linearity. It is easy to add it, but 
>> that would be treachery, and so there are tuns of problems to solve to 
>> progress.  You just need to understand the technics. It is had, and I have 
>> done the best I could. A student and friend of mine, the late Eric 
>> Vandebusche did solve the first mathematical problems.
>>
>> And there is no ambition of comp to substitute itself with physics, 
>> which's use of the empiry accelerates the learning process.  My interest is 
>> in theology, in what is the destiny of souls and soul.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>  If they aren't, you don't have one. Doesn't mean you won't have one. 
>> But does mean you don't currently have a falsifiable theory. 
>>
>>
>>
>> They are, some explicitly. But if QM is correct, and if by luck  (or bad 
>> luck), the comp QL (one of them, as we got three of them) is exactly the 
>> quantum QL, then we will not need to test no more that. 
>> And it will remain open if that is a correct explanation of the origin of 
>> the quantum principle. It might be just a coincidence that where UDA and 
>> machines told us where the logic of physics can be, we find quantum logic. 
>>
>> If, as it is probable, such comp QL differ crucially from quantum QL, 
>> well, we have to test to evaluate if it is fatal or not for comp.
>>
>> Oh, but I forget to mention one more things. The comp QL has more axioms, 
>> and if it is not defeated by empiry, it does provide new theorems and new 
>> physical predictions, like the comp knower S4Grz is not just the classical 
>> knower S4, the comp QL (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*) have axioms inherited from the 
>> Löb formula, from which we get information not available. In their first 
>> order arithmetical extensions, there is an infinities of such information.
>>
>  
> Hi Bruno - you can definitely rest easy about the 'rumours'.I've no 
> access to such things and don't seek them out. So far as I'm concerned a 
> 'list' - even a pub

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Monday, May 26, 2014 12:45:50 AM UTC+1, Russell Standish wrote: 
>
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 10:02:37AM -0700, ghi...@gmail.com 
> wrote: 
> > qualify for forgiving :O). I mean.I don't know about you but I agree 
> > with Russel Standish's moderation philosophy on this list...or how it 
> > looks.which speaking of killing people.you'd have to kill 
> someone 
> > here to get a ban from Russell, so it looks. 
>
> For a start, the everything list is not my list - Wei Dai is the 
> official owner, but I haven't seen him posting in a while! 
>
> As for FOAR, you don't need to kill someone. Posting obvious spam is 
> enough. Several spammers have been banned from FOAR already. 
>
> But so long as it's vaguely on topic to the eclectic tastes of the 
> lists, and so long as people exercise a little bit of courtesy and 
> moderation in their language, I'm fine with what is posted. There's 
> always a handy delete button for that stuff I don't want to read :). 
>
> Cheers

 
You're still the boss Russell...ownership is for wimps 

>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Pr...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:32:07 AM UTC+1, Brent wrote: 
>
>  On 5/26/2014 4:24 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote:
>
>   
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [
> mailto:ever...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Monday, May 26, 2014 4:00 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer 
> architecture
>
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
>  
> On 27 May 2014 10:53, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>  
>  
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Monday, May 26, 2014 2:51 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer 
> architecture
>
>  
>   
> On 26 May 2014 23:31, Telmo Menezes > 
> wrote:
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2014 at 1:12 AM, LizR > 
> wrote:
>
> On 25 May 2014 23:32, Telmo Menezes > 
> wrote:
>  
>  
>   
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR > 
> wrote:
>  
> I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting 
> to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, 
> jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens...
>
>  
>
> Unless, of course life had already spread throughout our galaxy billions 
> of years before our star was born and we are just the local Sol branch off 
> the same galactic (or who knows perhaps even larger scale) tree of life.
>  
>  
>  
> Which would put us on a par with, say, slime mould as far as our ability 
> to reproduce with aliens went. That is, we might have the same genetic 
> code, as I think everything on Earth does - but everything on Earth can't 
> interbreed.
>
>  
>
> Unless, sexual reproduction is also widespread throughout the galaxy… and 
> that species after species on planet after planet reproduce with sperm and 
> eggs. Now that does not mean viable offspring – but the sexual act and the 
> sex drive may be quite common and function in essentially the same way. 
> Pure conjecture on my part of course J
>
> Naturally in order for a viable offspring to be produced the species must 
> share most of their DNA, with even relatively closely related species, 
> mostly being unable to reproduce with each other (or producing infertile 
> hybrids) 
>
> Life on earth has long been exchanging DNA with other life on earth 
> through other means besides sexual reproduction, virus vectors for example. 
> I would argue that life on Earth has exchanged a lot of DNA over the eons 
> and that our own species has probably long ago picked up DNA from very 
> different species by these means and that this DNA becomes incorporated 
> into our hereditary lineage.
>
> I suspect that life is not nearly as isolated each within its own silo as 
> we tend to assume; rather it is more like a sponge soaking in the soup of 
> our dynamic living environment… cohabitating and sharing (even our own 
> internal spaces) with a host of other organisms.
>
>
> Yeah, I already have some genes shared with a sponge.  That doesn't mean I 
> can mate with one.  In fact I can't even mate with Cameron Diaz.
>
> the sponge point seems fair, but hybridization is misconstrued in popular 
knowledge. In scientific terms the best theory of human origins by a mile, 
is a hyrbidization event involving apes and pigs. The only reason it's 
ignored is because a lot of people have spent a long time barking up 
another tree that has never even explained how humans stood by gradual 
evoluation. We still looking at the same daft illustration of a sequence, 
where the intermediate stage has the fella sort of hunched over with 
knuckles not touching the ground any more. That's not a viable posture...it 
wouldn't happen 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Tuesday, May 27, 2014 2:27:24 AM UTC+1, cdemorsella wrote: 
>
>   
>
>  
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com  [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *LizR
> *Sent:* Monday, May 26, 2014 5:41 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> *Subject:* Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer 
> architecture
>
>  
>   
> On 27 May 2014 11:24, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>  
>  
>
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 1:15 PM, LizR > 
> wrote:
> 
> I guess it would be pedantic to point out the silliness of aliens wanting 
> to have sex with humans. I mean, we're more closely related to grass, 
> jellyfish and slugs than we are to aliens...
>
>  
>
> Unless, of course life had already spread throughout our galaxy billions 
> of years before our star was born and we are just the local Sol branch off 
> the same galactic (or who knows perhaps even larger scale) tree of life.
>  
>  
>  
> Which would put us on a par with, say, slime mould as far as our ability 
> to reproduce with aliens went. That is, we might have the same genetic 
> code, as I think everything on Earth does - but everything on Earth can't 
> interbreed.
>
>  
>
> Unless, sexual reproduction is also widespread throughout the galaxy… and 
> that species after species on planet after planet reproduce with sperm and 
> eggs. Now that does not mean viable offspring – but the sexual act and the 
> sex drive may be quite common and function in essentially the same way. 
> Pure conjecture on my part of course J
>  
>  
>  
> But so what? Generally speaking, we don't want to have sex with all the 
> species on Earth that uses the same method of reproduction as us. Why would 
> you expect aliens to want to have sex with us, any more than we want to 
> have sex with, say, dogs?
>
> Perhaps… but an alien species may want to inject its code into our species 
> DNA – If it could travel across the gulf of interstellar space I assume it 
> would also have sophisticated abilities to directly edit our DNA without 
> the need for sex. If DNA life forms are in fact widespread and common 
> throughout the galaxy then presumably this hypothetical alien species would 
> already have vast knowledge from a diversity of planetary systems and 
> reading and then editing our code would not present much of an issue.
>
> Chris
>  
> I can conjecture SF-y scenarios in which this might be likely, but nothing 
> that seems reasonable under what seem remotely likely assumptions. For an 
> example of something like this, see James Tiptree's story “And I Awoke and 
> Found me Here” - in which humans have a pathological desire for sex with 
> aliens (which the aliens don't reciprocate).
>
> But assuming some aliens *do* have a pathological desire for sex with 
> other species due to some evolutionary kink, then obviously if they have 
> suitable genitalia and can get the other species to agree, they can. 
> However, generally humans don't have a desire for sex with other species, 
> or even with the majority of members of their own species, and most other 
> species on Earth are similarly disinclined, for obvious evolutionary 
> reasons. So I don't see that this is at all likely.
>  
> Or is this all some blokeish thing?
>
 
technological beings probably look quite similar. It's just that a lot of 
people still have the carl sagan hangover. Anyway, I'm up for screwing nice 
looking aliens if anyone's got a flying saucer

> 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 6:46:47 PM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 May 2014, at 15:52, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: 
>>
>> > 
>> > 
>> > -Original Message- 
>> > From: LizR  
>> > To: everything-list  
>> > Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm 
>> > Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable? 
>> > 
>> > On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List &
>> lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com 
>> > > wrote: 
>> >  So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in   
>> > the scientific sense. 
>>
>>
>> Could you tell me why? I have answered this to hibbsa since. What is   
>> wrong with the equation which provides the propositional physics (its   
>> logic of the observable) and its actual testing? 
>>
>  
> Because you don't have one. 
>
>
>
> But this is factually false. I do provide the complete propositional 
> physics extracted from the classical computationalist thesis.
>
> So all physical experience which confirms QL, and refute Boolean logic, 
> like Bell's equality, is actually testing computationalism.
>
> And that can also be used to provide counter-example for people using the 
> quantum facts to argue against mechanism.
>
> The set of those testable comp-physical tautologies is decidable, and 
> infinite. At the first order logical level, things are more complex.
>
> If you agree that quantum logic is empirical, like most people in the 
> field, you should understand that comp explains that the laws of the 
> possible empirical are equal to the laws which govern the structure of the 
> computations going through our states (computational states), and so that 
> logic is determined by the mental ability of the universal machine. 
> Mathematically, we can limit ourselves to machine having simple (true) 
> beliefs, like 0+x = x, etc. 
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Is anyone independent working on a prediction unique to your work? 
>
>
>
> Everyone trying to guess a law empirically, automatically test the physics 
> of the machines.
>
> Have you follow the thread with Quentin Anciaux? He made a critics that I 
> do understand. There was a possibility that the comp physics collapse into 
> boolean logic. In that case, either comp would have been refuted, or show 
> trivial, and QM would have been refuted altogether, at least as a physical 
> laws. The real physics would be boolean, and QM would only describe a 
> subpart of it. 
>
> Well, but this did not happen. Comp (well classical comp) predicts or 
> retrodicts that the observable
> have to be non boolean and indeed obeys quantum or quantum-like logic. It 
> predicts or retrodicts also a part of the "hamiltonian" under a symmetry 
> conditions.
>
> It misses important things like the linearity. It is easy to add it, but 
> that would be treachery, and so there are tuns of problems to solve to 
> progress.  You just need to understand the technics. It is had, and I have 
> done the best I could. A student and friend of mine, the late Eric 
> Vandebusche did solve the first mathematical problems.
>
> And there is no ambition of comp to substitute itself with physics, 
> which's use of the empiry accelerates the learning process.  My interest is 
> in theology, in what is the destiny of souls and soul.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> If they aren't, you don't have one. Doesn't mean you won't have one. But 
> does mean you don't currently have a falsifiable theory. 
>
>
>
> They are, some explicitly. But if QM is correct, and if by luck  (or bad 
> luck), the comp QL (one of them, as we got three of them) is exactly the 
> quantum QL, then we will not need to test no more that. 
> And it will remain open if that is a correct explanation of the origin of 
> the quantum principle. It might be just a coincidence that where UDA and 
> machines told us where the logic of physics can be, we find quantum logic. 
>
> If, as it is probable, such comp QL differ crucially from quantum QL, 
> well, we have to test to evaluate if it is fatal or not for comp.
>
> Oh, but I forget to mention one more things. The comp QL has more axioms, 
> and if it is not defeated by empiry, it does provide new theorems and new 
> physical predictions, like the comp knower S4Grz is not just the classical 
> knower S4, the comp QL (S4Grz1, Z1*, X1*) have axioms inherited from the 
> Löb formula, from which we get information not available. In their first 
> order arithmetical extensions, there is an infinities of such information.
>
 
Hi Bruno - you can definitely rest easy about the 'rumours'.I've no 
access to such things and don't seek them out. So far as I'm concerned a 
'list' - even a public one like this - is sacrosanct and private. Like 
fight club geezer...that silly film: what happens on everything list, stays 
on everything list. My blood my pledge! SeriouslyI'm always aware 
arguing with you in this long running way, of your experien

Re: TRONNIES

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 12:43:33 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
> On 25 May 2014 02:44, John Clark > wrote:
>
>
> And you think rusty high school algebra is all you need to revolutionize 
> physics and win a Nobel Prize. Does anyone around here STILL think John 
> Ross is not a crackpot? 
>
> Blessed are the cracked, for they let in the light.
>
> (Unless they are mugs, for they let out the coffee...)
>
> Sadly, having given Mr Ross lots of rope, I am coming to the conclusion 
> that he's fashioned a very serviceable noose for himself.
>
 
You were *very* decent Lizzie...I had to read that post twice and felt it 
rather moving, when you said his idea might be crazy enough to have 
something...that it was elegant. I agree actually. And I think it's more 
than possible, and there are more than plenty of precedents, for someone 
being essentially wrong or ill-informed about a shed load of stuff, yet 
right about something that in the fullness of time turns out to be more 
significant than all of the stuff wrong and otherwise ill-informed when 
should not reasonably have been. Not saying that'll be our John Ross mind 
you...but I agreed or found agreeable something about the chap. Also, it's 
good to feel sure - unlike poor Edgar - that John Ross will not be put off 
at all by anything that has been said. He'll keep buggering onfor 
better or worse 3p sense. Of course...it'll likely be for nothing...but 
that is the price one pays for saying it's different. Of course he should 
have learned the law of sines, and the other stuff...and of course John 
Clarke gave a splendid and admirable showing and shall rightly be the star 
of the thread. But on the other hand.if Ross had known all that maybe 
he'd never had had his insights. A double edged blade that one 
certainly...but let's not forget it is a two edged thing.,
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 4:32:47 PM UTC+1, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On Sun, May 25, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Bruno Marchal 
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 25 May 2014, at 02:43, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 25 May 2014, at 4:23 am, Bruno Marchal > 
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 May 2014, at 06:47, Kim Jones wrote:
>>
>>
>> Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno.
>>
>>
>> (OK, just to be clear the quote was from Hibbsa).
>>
>>
>>
>> Wps! OK - some of these monster threads become a bit confusing as to 
>> who has their mouth open and in whose direction
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 23 May 2014, at 10:00 pm, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>>
>>
>> I've been saying that it isn't necessary to refute something that 
>> contains no knowledge about something fundamental to its claim. 
>> Consciousness was never understood...and it's reasonable to think it is the 
>> more important mystery of computation, than anything contained in the 
>> discovery of computers, so far. It would be like, as I said, assuming 
>> something vast about matter in 1700 before anything about matter had been 
>> discovered, and building streams of logic from that along. What we'd have 
>> missed out on, was the discovery of chemistry, the scientific method and 
>> eventually atoms and QM, if we'd gone a way like that. Why would it be any 
>> different here?
>>
>>
>>
>> This is very interesting. Are you saying that if we somehow get our 
>> assumptions right - in whatever period and under whatever  framework, 
>> theory etc. - and this, quite apart from the level of our knowledge, then 
>> it might be possible to circumvent the need for the endless search for the 
>> knowledge that would eventually get us closer to the truth?
>>
>>
>> This would mean that a lot of science might be the "try hard" view of 
>> achieving cultural goals if all we must do is to assume the correct things 
>> at the outset and then build our knowledge downstream of these foundational 
>> assumptions. 
>>
>>
>> I think in this context of extra-terrestrial technology, supposed to be 
>> more or less undeniably real and evident, if you believe the supposed 
>> evidence for it these days. Perhaps aliens have not bothered with all the 
>> streams of learning in science, computing, mathematics etc. and have gone 
>> straight to the cultural goals they envisaged however inconceivable this 
>> thought to us might appear. I mean, it is said to be quasi-impossible for 
>> beings to cross the vast inter-galactic distances and this is the main 
>> argument used in answer to Fermi's Paradox, yet are we not almost certainly 
>> - to take a leaf out of GHibbsa's manual momentarily - unconsciously 
>> assuming that all sentient, intelligent beings, wherever they arise in the 
>> universe, will do the try-hard human thing of slowly and painstakingly 
>> amassing their knowledge in painfully slow and logical steps? Why do we 
>> assume this? What about Lateral Thinking, where the trick is to bypass 
>> logical correctness at every step of the way and to use some very novel and 
>> highly illogical procedures to forge previously unseen connections in 
>> information that were hidden to our logical mindset? What if the aliens are 
>> masters of Lateral Thinking? 
>>
>>
>> The connection are the choice of the axioms. They can't be logical. They 
>> are the product of creative insight and bet. 
>>
>> Exactly! The choice of the starting axioms is always "arbitrary" at some 
>> level. This is surely because what motivates our freedom of decision is 
>> something we rarely admit drives our human enterprises - our creativity 
>> (lateral thinking) - which reaches out ahead of our logical vertical 
>> thinking, which we prefer to think is always in the driving seat. This is 
>> at once the great virtue and the great failing of the human mind. Virtuous 
>> because a creative insight or bet CAN leapfrog over decades of plodding 
>> step by step vertical, logical thinking and laser-in on a goal (cf de 
>> Bono-think) and a failing because unless we realise we really are governed 
>> by some deeply illogical, desire-laden set of values we wish to promote, 
>> our actions in the world often reek of unconscious motivation that we then 
>>  seek to justify or "sell" by logical argument. Any travesty at all can be 
>> justified by logical argument. John Ross is demonstrating this right now. 
>> He is convinced that there is a place on his mantel-piece that is reserved 
>> for a little gold statue and everything he writes is motivated by his egoic 
>> desire to realise that prize that he believes he was always destined for 
>> but will never admit to publicly.
>>
>> A "person" is not a logical being. Smullyan explores this terrain 
>> regularly. I am standing on top of this hill because I am standing on top 
>> of this hill and that is no reason at all.
>>
>>
>>
>> I am not sure what you mean by "logical being". I agree that arithmetic 
>> and universal machine are already not logical being

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Sunday, May 25, 2014 1:43:49 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
>
> On 25 May 2014, at 4:23 am, Bruno Marchal > 
> wrote:
>
>
> On 24 May 2014, at 06:47, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno.
>
>
> (OK, just to be clear the quote was from Hibbsa).
>
>
>
> Wps! OK - some of these monster threads become a bit confusing as to 
> who has their mouth open and in whose direction
>
>
>
>
> On 23 May 2014, at 10:00 pm, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
> I've been saying that it isn't necessary to refute something that contains 
> no knowledge about something fundamental to its claim. Consciousness was 
> never understood...and it's reasonable to think it is the more important 
> mystery of computation, than anything contained in the discovery of 
> computers, so far. It would be like, as I said, assuming something vast 
> about matter in 1700 before anything about matter had been discovered, and 
> building streams of logic from that along. What we'd have missed out on, 
> was the discovery of chemistry, the scientific method and eventually atoms 
> and QM, if we'd gone a way like that. Why would it be any different here?
>
>
>
> This is very interesting. Are you saying that if we somehow get our 
> assumptions right - in whatever period and under whatever  framework, 
> theory etc. - and this, quite apart from the level of our knowledge, then 
> it might be possible to circumvent the need for the endless search for the 
> knowledge that would eventually get us closer to the truth?
>
>
> This would mean that a lot of science might be the "try hard" view of 
> achieving cultural goals if all we must do is to assume the correct things 
> at the outset and then build our knowledge downstream of these foundational 
> assumptions. 
>
>
> I think in this context of extra-terrestrial technology, supposed to be 
> more or less undeniably real and evident, if you believe the supposed 
> evidence for it these days. Perhaps aliens have not bothered with all the 
> streams of learning in science, computing, mathematics etc. and have gone 
> straight to the cultural goals they envisaged however inconceivable this 
> thought to us might appear. I mean, it is said to be quasi-impossible for 
> beings to cross the vast inter-galactic distances and this is the main 
> argument used in answer to Fermi's Paradox, yet are we not almost certainly 
> - to take a leaf out of GHibbsa's manual momentarily - unconsciously 
> assuming that all sentient, intelligent beings, wherever they arise in the 
> universe, will do the try-hard human thing of slowly and painstakingly 
> amassing their knowledge in painfully slow and logical steps? Why do we 
> assume this? What about Lateral Thinking, where the trick is to bypass 
> logical correctness at every step of the way and to use some very novel and 
> highly illogical procedures to forge previously unseen connections in 
> information that were hidden to our logical mindset? What if the aliens are 
> masters of Lateral Thinking? 
>
>
> The connection are the choice of the axioms. They can't be logical. They 
> are the product of creative insight and bet. 
>
> Exactly! The choice of the starting axioms is always "arbitrary" at some 
> level. This is surely because what motivates our freedom of decision is 
> something we rarely admit drives our human enterprises - our creativity 
> (lateral thinking) - which reaches out ahead of our logical vertical 
> thinking, which we prefer to think is always in the driving seat. This is 
> at once the great virtue and the great failing of the human mind. Virtuous 
> because a creative insight or bet CAN leapfrog over decades of plodding 
> step by step vertical, logical thinking and laser-in on a goal (cf de 
> Bono-think) and a failing because unless we realise we really are governed 
> by some deeply illogical, desire-laden set of values we wish to promote, 
> our actions in the world often reek of unconscious motivation that we then 
>  seek to justify or "sell" by logical argument. Any travesty at all can be 
> justified by logical argument. John Ross is demonstrating this right now. 
> He is convinced that there is a place on his mantel-piece that is reserved 
> for a little gold statue and everything he writes is motivated by his egoic 
> desire to realise that prize that he believes he was always destined for 
> but will never admit to publicly.
>
> A "person" is not a logical being. Smullyan explores this terrain 
> regularly. I am standing on top of this hill because I am standing on top 
> of this hill and that is no reason at all.
>
>
>
>
> Then we would ipso facto have no way of understanding how they arrived at 
> their technological level, yet we might emulate in some way the spirit of 
> their enterprise which has self-accelerated in a way we can only dream of? 
> Why do we have to spend forever working things out? Surely this is a 
> plodding homo sapiens thing...
>
>
>
> Concerning what ca

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 5:47:47 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> Actually, the below quoted text I was responding to was by Bruno. 
>
>  
Hi Kim - you might have been responding to me there actually. Either way 
though...I will certainly reply to your post in the next few days and hope 
you'll not mind me doing so. Because you said some things that touch on 
things that I spend a lot of time thinking about. Not to mean any more 
value for 'lot of time' because that's obviously not how it goes. But that 
I'm interested...so will respond. Currently in a busy moment though. 
Cheers. 
 

> Kim 
>
>
>
> > 
> >> On 23 May 2014, at 10:00 pm, ghi...@gmail.com  wrote: 
> >> 
> >> I've been saying that it isn't necessary to refute something that 
> contains no knowledge about something fundamental to its claim. 
> Consciousness was never understood...and it's reasonable to think it is the 
> more important mystery of computation, than anything contained in the 
> discovery of computers, so far. It would be like, as I said, assuming 
> something vast about matter in 1700 before anything about matter had been 
> discovered, and building streams of logic from that along. What we'd have 
> missed out on, was the discovery of chemistry, the scientific method and 
> eventually atoms and QM, if we'd gone a way like that. Why would it be any 
> different here? 
> >> 
> > 
> > This is very interesting. Are you saying that if we somehow get our 
> assumptions right - in whatever period and under whatever  framework, 
> theory etc. - and this, quite apart from the level of our knowledge, then 
> it might be possible to circumvent the need for the endless search for the 
> knowledge that would eventually get us closer to the truth? 
> > 
> > This would mean that a lot of science might be the "try hard" view of 
> achieving cultural goals if all we must do is to assume the correct things 
> at the outset and then build our knowledge downstream of these foundational 
> assumptions. 
> > 
> > I think in this context of extra-terrestrial technology, supposed to be 
> more or less undeniably real and evident, if you believe the supposed 
> evidence for it these days. Perhaps aliens have not bothered with all the 
> streams of learning in science, computing, mathematics etc. and have gone 
> straight to the cultural goals they envisaged however inconceivable this 
> thought to us might appear. I mean, it is said to be quasi-impossible for 
> beings to cross the vast inter-galactic distances and this is the main 
> argument used in answer to Fermi's Paradox, yet are we not almost certainly 
> - to take a leaf out of GHibbsa's manual momentarily - unconsciously 
> assuming that all sentient, intelligent beings, wherever they arise in the 
> universe, will do the try-hard human thing of slowly and painstakingly 
> amassing their knowledge in painfully slow and logical steps? Why do we 
> assume this? What about Lateral Thinking, where the trick is to bypass 
> logical correctness at every step of the way and to use some very novel and 
> highly illogical procedures to forge previously unseen connections in 
> information that were hidden to our logical mindset? What if the aliens are 
> masters of Lateral Thinking? Then we would ipso facto have no way of 
> understanding how they arrived at their technological level, yet we might 
> emulate in some way the spirit of their enterprise which has 
> self-accelerated in a way we can only dream of? Why do we have to spend 
> forever working things out? Surely this is a plodding homo sapiens thing... 
> > 
> > Kim 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: The end to end structure associated wit Falsification

[ghibbsa]

On Saturday, May 24, 2014 11:53:44 AM UTC+1, Liz R wrote:
>
>
> Well, this is ironic(al)...
>
> :-)
>
>  
>
 
Is the bottom axis weight?  Speaking of, guess what, without having run for 
months I ran 10km for charity today, and 'ardly broke a sweat :o) Daughter 
did much better mind you...she's getting near an athletic standard now

>  
>
 
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: TRONNIES

[ghibbsa]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 2:44:31 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:57:25 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 5/22/2014 12:59 PM, John Clark wrote:
>  
>
>  Why not? No physicist is going to take your theory seriously or even 
> call it a theory if you can't calculate with it, if you can't get numbers 
> out of it so it can be checked with observation.  Why is the proton 1836 
> times as massive as the electron? Why is the neutron almost the same but 
> not quite, why is it 1842 times as massive as the electron? Why do 
> independent protons have a half life of an infinite number of minutes but 
> independent neutrons have a half life of 10 minutes 11 seconds?
>  
>But willing to talk out of his backside when it suits him...say on 
climate. So what does it show that he 'knows' what you 'know' about math 
and its link to nature?  Show trimmed content
But I am No.1 fan of John Clarke, original American kid, made a pile in the 
investment industry, probably went across the states on a Harley. Ode to 
johnny boy 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YMh8orMNqc&list=RD4YMh8orMNqc&index=1
  

> ...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Is Consciousness Computable?

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 8:12:59 AM UTC+1, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 21 May 2014, at 22:02, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: 
>
> > 
> > 
> > -Original Message- 
> > From: LizR > 
> > To: everything-list > 
> > Sent: Sun, May 18, 2014 9:26 pm 
> > Subject: Re: Is Consciousness Computable? 
> > 
> > On 19 May 2014 05:12, spudboy100 via Everything List &
> lt;everyt...@googlegroups.com  
> > > wrote: 
> >  So you do not have a testable, falsifiable, theory Bruno. Not in   
> > the scientific sense. 
>
>
> Could you tell me why? I have answered this to hibbsa since. What is   
> wrong with the equation which provides the propositional physics (its   
> logic of the observable) and its actual testing? 
>
 
Because you don't have one. Is anyone independent working on a prediction 
unique to your work? If they aren't, you don't have one. Doesn't mean you 
won't have one. But does mean you don't currently have a falsifiable 
theory. 
 

>
>
>
>
> > No one calls you on this.here.but then again.let's face   
> > it no one answered my question either. 
>
> I did. 
>
 
You did. And you have many times before. But the question was, could anyone 
OTHER than you answer it. 
 
See that's the issue. I don't think anyone really understands whether you 
have a falsifiable prediction or not. And these things are 3p if you like. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: TRONNIES

[ghibbsa]

On Thursday, May 22, 2014 9:57:25 PM UTC+1, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 5/22/2014 12:59 PM, John Clark wrote:
>  
>
>  Why not? No physicist is going to take your theory seriously or even 
> call it a theory if you can't calculate with it, if you can't get numbers 
> out of it so it can be checked with observation.  Why is the proton 1836 
> times as massive as the electron? Why is the neutron almost the same but 
> not quite, why is it 1842 times as massive as the electron? Why do 
> independent protons have a half life of an infinite number of minutes but 
> independent neutrons have a half life of 10 minutes 11 seconds?
>
>
> See, JKC knows why the world of physics is described by mathematics - no 
> other kind of description is as explicit and predictive.
>
> Brent
>
 
But willing to talk out of his backside when it suits him...say on climate. 
So what does it show that he 'knows' what you 'know' about math and its 
link to nature?  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: So, a new kind of non-boolean, non-digital, computer architecture

[ghibbsa]

On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:57:18 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
> On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:39:04 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:22:34 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, May 23, 2014 1:00:26 PM UTC+1, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Friday, May 23, 2014 9:03:00 AM UTC+1, Kim Jones wrote:
>
>
> > On 22 May 2014, at 11:57 pm, Bruno Marchal  
> wrote: 
> > 
> > Can you at least confirm that you pretend to have a refutation of 
> comp 
>
> The word 'pretend' here is a "false friend". Bruno is assuming that 
> this word works the same in English as in French. It doesn't. 
>
> He means only modestly  "Can you at least confirm that you CLAIM to 
> have a refutation of comp?" 
>
 thanks for this KimI didn't know the difference. But at the same 
 time, I wasn't too bothered about the meaning, but more that here things 
 were again exactly where they were right at the start. I meant right at 
 the 
 very first post I made on this matter. 
  
 I've been saying that it isn't necessary to refute something that 
 contains no knowledge about something fundamental to its claim. 
 Consciousness was never understood...and it's reasonable to think it is 
 the 
 more important mystery of computation, than anything contained in the 
 discovery of computers, so far. It would be like, as I said, assuming 
 something vast about matter in 1700 before anything about matter had been 
 discovered, and building streams of logic from that along. What we'd have 
 missed out on, was the discovery of chemistry, the scientific method and 
 eventually atoms and QM, if we'd gone a way like that. Why would it be any 
 different here? 

>>>  
>>> I think the confusion between views may hard to straighten out. I'm not 
>>> suggesting there's anything wrong with making a conjecture that is short on 
>>> knowledge. The issue is about what can reasonably be done with any 
>>> conclusions. If everyone is reasonable, it can be a fruitful contribution 
>>> over time. 
>>>  
>>> The rise, as I mentioned before, is that people won't be reasonable. And 
>>> so small and large theories show up that build over the top of that low 
>>> knowledge conjecture. And they are exciting theories, of course, because 
>>> they appear to be in the scientific stream but are no longer constrained 
>>> the way science has been to date, to mass hard knowledge at the base before 
>>> building over the top. So they are free to go anywhere, and they typically 
>>> do. 
>>>  
>>> And no one is looking too hard at that original conjecture, because now 
>>> it looks like a hard historical link built into a major arterial thread of 
>>> hard science. And later on - down the line - predictions, new technology 
>>> and major advances dry up. 
>>>
>>  
>> one further point about the long running argument itself. I can remember 
>> a long time ago, after Russell mentioned his approach to building on 
>> nothingness at the root of his thinking (i.e. a first beginning in 
>> nothingness). I responsed with my personal opinion that he was doing it 
>> wrong. I didn't sneakily try to flatter him into a discussion intending to 
>> ambush him later on. I said what I thought. He either missed it, or decided 
>> it wasn't a useful/knowledgeable position. Whatever. He ignored it. And I 
>> didn't badger him..I've not mentioned it since. 
>>  
>> But Bruno, and others, have chosen to argue the point. If people think 
>> it's bullshit (as opposed to pretending French sense), or whateverthey 
>> shouldn't encourage the discussion. I'm not badger people...if they aren't 
>> interested in what I have to say, I'll move on and say something 
>> thing sometime. 
>>  
>> But just as I don't expect anyone to back down other than when they see 
>> the point, no one should expect me to. All I've had back from Bruno99% 
>> of the time, is blanket dismissal that he's no clue what I'm talking about. 
>> That's just going to make me take him at his word, and look for a better 
>> way to say it.o
>>
>  
> and I'm not like this guy I hope, because I work at my own theory a long 
> time that involves 'computation', and 'nothingness' though nothing like 
> those words used here. But I'm not ready...and I don't want to do a John 
> Ross or Edgar Owen
>  
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nkZdTHmX0TQ
>
 
but would have to hold me hands up to this: 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UuM_iSwMof8 

>  
>  
>
>>  
>>
>>>  

>>>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For mor