On 7/9/2011 9:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Why? Biological tissue is made out of protons, neutrons, and electrons
just like computer chips. Why should anything other than their
input/output function matter?
A cadaver is made out of the same thing too. You could pump food into
it and
On 7/9/2011 9:58 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Sure, it would be great to have improved synthetic bodies, but I have
no reason to believe that depth and quality of consciousness is
independent from substance. If I have an artificial heart, that
artificiality may not affect me as much as having an
On 7/9/2011 5:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
A living cell is more than the sum of it's parts. A dead cell is made
of the same materials with the same organization as a living cell,
That's not true. It's dead precisely because it doesn't have the same
organization.
Brent
--
You received
I don't think we can say what is or what wouldn't be possible with a machine
of these
complexity; all machines we have built to date are primitive and simplistic
by comparison. The machines we deal with day to day don't usually do novel
things, exhibit creativity, surprise us, etc. but I think a
All right, but then honesty should force you to do the same with
computer ships. Unless you presuppose the molecules not being Turing
emulable.
Computer chips don't behave in the same way though. Your computer
can't become an ammoniaholic or commit suicide.The problem with
emulating molecules is
Exactly. So it doesn't depend on the components. Then what does it
depend on? It depends on their arrangement and interaction.
Yes, but my point is that arrangement and interaction alone don't
matter if the components don't have the capability to support the
desired higher level phenomena.
If
Sure, it would be great to have improved synthetic bodies, but I have
no reason to believe that depth and quality of consciousness is
independent from substance. If I have an artificial heart, that
artificiality may not affect me as much as having an artificial leg,
however, an artificial brain
How is it you are so sure that the organization is only part of it?
Because it makes sense to me that organization cannot create functions
which are not inherent potentials of whatever it is you are
organizing. It doesn't matter how many ping pong balls you have or how
you organize them, even if
That's what I thought he said. But I see no reason to suppose a UD is
running, much less running without physics. We don't know of any
computation that occurs immaterially.
All computation occurs materially and immaterially. An abacus doesn't
count itself. You ultimately have to have a
On 08 Jul 2011, at 01:59, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:12:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
One that happens to be incompatible with
theory that our minds are computer programs.
Can you explain that? It seems to be Bruno's central claim, but so
far as I can see he only
marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Friday, July 08, 2011 12:09 PM
Subject: Re: Bruno's blasphemy.
On 08 Jul 2011, at 01:59, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:12:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
One that happens to be incompatible with
theory that our minds
On 7/8/2011 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/8/2011 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That's what I thought he said. But I see no reason to suppose a UD is
running, much less running without physics. We don't know of any
computation that occurs immaterially.
All computation occurs materially
On 7/8/2011 2:59 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 7/8/2011 2:44 PM, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/8/2011 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That's what I thought he said. But I see no reason to suppose a UD is
running, much less running without physics. We don't know of any
computation that occurs
On 06.07.2011 21:50 B Soroud said the following:
actually the famous physicist famously does play mystic. very
incoherently too.
are you trying to advance argument by authority i.e. famous
physicist believes in classical metaphysics therefore there must be
something to it?
Well, my question
On 08 Jul 2011, at 14:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
That's what I thought he said. But I see no reason to suppose a UD
is
running, much less running without physics. We don't know of any
computation that occurs immaterially.
All computation occurs materially and immaterially. An abacus
Conscious is an informal term, so it depends how you want to use it. I
think of consciousness as the top level meta-awareness of a hierarchy
of levels which might be called awareness, perception, sensation, and
detection, where another person's idea of consciousness would equate
all of those
Indeed, why? Any talk of 'artificial circuits' might risk the patient saying
'No' to the doctor. I want real, digital circuits. Meat circuits are fine,
though there might be something better. I mean, if something better than 'skin'
comes along, I'll swap my skin for that. Probably need the
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:12:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
One that happens to be incompatible with
theory that our minds are computer programs.
Can you explain that? It seems to be Bruno's central claim, but so
far as I can see he only tries to prove that a physical reality is
otiose.
On 7/7/2011 4:59 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:12:45PM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
One that happens to be incompatible with
theory that our minds are computer programs.
Can you explain that? It seems to be Bruno's central claim, but so
far as I can see he only
Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter
then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena
(suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage terrestrial
phenomena for that matter i.e. water, plants, minerals etc. are
not conscious. and intellect and
Constantine, this is a rather trollish comment coming from an ignorant
position.
Let me put the following gedanken experiment - consider the
possibility that T. Rex might be either green or blue creatures, and
that either possibility is physically consistent with everything we
know about them. In
Russell: Yet the
reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds
Why do you say such things? How can you know that?
IF this is true, then how did you get into the position to know this? How
did you derive a true metanarrative from a confabulation.
IF all that we know and
anyways... I'm reconciled with you guys I'll try not to play nicer yet
remain a critic.
p.s. I'm no mathematician, computer scientist, or physicist I was
schooled in the humanities and avoided mathematics like the plague... so
I will need to ask you guys in the future to translate
But if Bruno is saying that we only have third-person analysis and can't
really account for the first-person perspective or origination or
history/destiny that makes sense.
I believe a lot of people make the error in thinking that science
understands how perception works, how vision and
On 7/6/2011 4:44 AM, Russell Standish wrote:
Constantine, this is a rather trollish comment coming from an ignorant
position.
Let me put the following gedanken experiment - consider the
possibility that T. Rex might be either green or blue creatures, and
that either possibility is physically
FWIW, I think a smart guy like you can appreciate that some technical
competence is required to be able to truly criticize a technical idea.
I used to hang out on an artificial intelligence forum that was
plagued by a guy who insisted on critiquing AI every chance he got,
but he had never
Stars are a body. our first-person experience is dependent on a body...
since first there was stars... second there was body, allowing for
first-person experience of stars.
There could be no first-person experience of stars prior to a human form
There could be no first-person experience
I would refer you to the Buddhistic notion of the negation of any ultimate
monadic consciousness whatsoever.
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 11:28 AM, B Soroud bsor...@gmail.com wrote:
Stars are a body. our first-person experience is dependent on a body...
since first there was stars... second
On 06.07.2011 05:14 Constantine Pseudonymous said the following:
Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter
then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena
(suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage terrestrial
phenomena for that matter i.e. water,
On 7/6/2011 12:22 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 06.07.2011 05:14 Constantine Pseudonymous said the following:
Bruno assumes that consciousness preceded matter
then why do we only find consciousness as a terrestrial phenomena
(suns and stars aren't conscious).. and as a later stage
actually the famous physicist famously does play mystic. very incoherently
too.
are you trying to advance argument by authority i.e. famous physicist
believes in classical metaphysics therefore there must be something to it?
On Wed, Jul 6, 2011 at 12:36 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:25:21AM -0700, B Soroud wrote:
Russell: Yet the
reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds
Why do you say such things? How can you know that?
Many people working in cognitive science seem to be in agreement on
this point. For a discussion,
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:52:49AM -0700, meekerdb wrote:
The question is, when was the colour of the dinosaur established as a
fact? Many of us many worlders would argue it wasn't established
until the photonics measurement was made - there was no 'matter of
fact' about the dinosaur colour
Russell: an interpretation of the sensory data stream based on
our already constructed theories and beliefs.
To me the notion of sensory data stream is a interpretation of our bare
and naive perception... based on -your- theories and beliefs
I don't believe in the model that says the world
On 7/6/2011 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
On Wed, Jul 06, 2011 at 10:25:21AM -0700, B Soroud wrote:
Russell: Yet the
reality we perceive is very definitely a construction of our minds
Why do you say such things? How can you know that?
Many people working in cognitive science
101 - 135 of 135 matches
Mail list logo
