Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

"Seems" ? To me any affirmation about "matter" seems like religion. Panpsychism is an adhoc idea constructed by materialists still afraid of letting go of the fairy-tale "matter" and go full idealism. On Monday, 29 April 2019 22:08:49 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Of > >

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Monday, April 29, 2019 at 8:41:18 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Apr 2019, at 22:25, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: Consciousness. Red is red. On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3,

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Monday, 29 April 2019 16:23:48 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Apr 2019, at 18:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > > > On Friday, 26 April 2019 18:41:06 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> And there can be more said about existence.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Sun, Apr 21, 2019, at 12:02, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 19 Apr 2019, at 14:09, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 09:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: >>> 1) The qualia of black-and-white is not on the same level with the qualia >>> of colors. The qualia

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 27 Apr 2019, at 09:28, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Computations are observer-relative. Th results of computations are observer-relative, but the computations are absolute, by the Church-Turing thesis. It is easy to write one simple program which generates all

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 27 Apr 2019, at 08:24, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 3:25:44 PM UTC-5, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > >> >> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: >> Consciousness. Red is red. >> >> On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3,

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 22:25, cloudver...@gmail.com > wrote: > > >> >> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: >> Consciousness. Red is red. >> >> On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com <> wrote: >> >> What

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 21:09, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2019 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some final >>> ontology? >> >> With mechanism, the combinators are enough, or the natural numbers,

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 19:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/26/2019 12:03 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com > wrote: >> >> >> On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:28:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 4/25/2019 1:42 PM, cloud...@gmail.com

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 18:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On Friday, 26 April 2019 18:41:06 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> And there can be more said about existence. How I also detail in the book, >> existance is first the act of self-reference of

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Computations are observer-relative. Thoughts are observer-absolutes. On Friday, 26 April 2019 22:09:20 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > > > They are enough to explain any universe in which conscious thoughts are > computations.?? > > Brent > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 3:25:44 PM UTC-5, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > > >>> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: Consciousness. Red is red. On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > > What specific

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

>> On Friday, April 26, 2019 at 2:04:31 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: >>> >>> Consciousness. Red is red. >>> >>> On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does one claim as* final*

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On 4/26/2019 9:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some final ontology? With mechanism, the combinators are enough, or the natural numbers, or the lambda expression. They are enough to explain any universe in which conscious

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On 4/26/2019 12:03 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:28:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 4/25/2019 1:42 PM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > The one-and-only code of nature is a hidden entity. We may > "approximate" it with our own code (like the

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Friday, 26 April 2019 18:41:06 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > And there can be more said about existence. How I also detail in the book, > existance is first the act of self-reference of looking-back-at-itself and > thus creating the first object: "I am". Then because of emergence > >

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 10:09, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > That is a good point. > > And that is the basic framework of Strawsonian panpsychism: > > Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter. > - >

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 09:03, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:28:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > On 4/25/2019 1:42 PM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > The one-and-only code of nature is a hidden entity. We may > > "approximate" it with our own code (like

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 22:42, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 10:34:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 24 Apr 2019, at 19:29, Philip Thrift > >> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:51:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >>

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 18:47, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:21:33 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > You forget the quote. I am not sure what is not self-reference, given that I > have given two definitions (third person self-reference and

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 18:44, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > What does "I survive a functional digital substitution at that level." mean ? The same as surviving with an artificial heart. But here it is an artficial brain, which copy the brain at the right level. For example

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 18:41, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > I don't understand anything. Where is consciousness in all that you said ? I did not aboard this in this post, but have already describe to you, I think, that I define consciousness as something which, from the point

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 09:41, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > That's precisely what exists: experiences. I agree that experience exists, but I want to explain them by something simpler concept. With mechanism, we are forced to explain both the psychological experience and the

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

That is a good point. And that is the basic framework of Strawsonian panpsychism: *Consciousness Isn’t a Mystery. It’s Matter.* - https://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/16/opinion/consciousness-isnt-a-mystery-its-matter.html - @philipthrift On Friday, April

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Consciousness. Red is red. On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > But off of what? > > What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does > one claim as* final* - i.e., *that *ontology is the "true" one? > > If none, should we expect that in

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 7:28:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/25/2019 1:42 PM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > The one-and-only code of nature is a hidden entity. We may > > "approximate" it with our own code (like the Marcolli code above), but > > unless there is some sort of

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On 4/25/2019 1:42 PM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: The one-and-only code of nature is a hidden entity. We may "approximate" it with our own code (like the Marcolli code above), but unless there is some sort of unforeseen revolution coming, that's the way things will always be. Right.??

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 10:34:25 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Apr 2019, at 19:29, Philip Thrift > > wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:51:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> With mechanism, there is no choice: physics must be explained in term of

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:21:33 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > You forget the quote. I am not sure what is not self-reference, given that > I have given two definitions (third person self-reference and first person > self-reference, and I have explained the link between (G* proves that

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

What does "I survive a functional digital substitution at that level." mean ? On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:13:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Apr 2019, at 20:06, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > So what does "computer science" has to do

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

I don't understand anything. Where is consciousness in all that you said ? On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:04:49 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:54, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > That's just a random definition that doesn't

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 24 Apr 2019, at 21:28, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/24/2019 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Until we get evidence for some matter (like observing a discrepancy between >> the physics extracted from arithmetic) > > Which is unlikely because no physics is

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 24 Apr 2019, at 19:29, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:51:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > With mechanism, there is no choice: physics must be explained in term of > number’s dream statistics. The logic of this gives a quantum logic, mincing >

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 23 Apr 2019, at 20:41, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On Friday, 19 April 2019 13:27:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List >> > wrote: >> recursion. > > That's precisely what self-reference is not. And I

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 23 Apr 2019, at 20:06, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > So what does "computer science" has to do with consciousness ? It seems to me > that you just make a random connection. I assume the indexical digital mechanist hypothesis, which assume that there exists a level of

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:54, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > That's just a random definition that doesn't mean anything. > > On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:27:18 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > With mechanism, the observer is just a number/machine, relative to some > other

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 09:52:14 UTC+3, telmo wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 21:35, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > > 1) You raise an interesting point. Can you give another example in that > direction beside the qualia of good and bad ? Because you made me think > about the

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

That's precisely what exists: experiences. And there can be more said about existence. How I also detail in the book, existance is first the act of self-reference of looking-back-at-itself and thus creating the first object: "I am". Then because of emergence where you have qualities

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Actually, this is precisely what existence is: that which is immediately > knowable. I see red, thus red exists. I see red, so certainly the experience of seeing red exists. I can agree with that. But it is not

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On 4/24/2019 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Until we get evidence for some matter (like observing a discrepancy between the physics extracted from arithmetic) Which is unlikely because no physics is extracted from arithmetic. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:51:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > With mechanism, there is no choice: physics must be explained in term of > number’s dream statistics. The logic of this gives a quantum logic, mincing > nature confirming Mechanism (and its immaterialism). > >

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 22 Apr 2019, at 21:38, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail nothing > more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to experience > reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force us to deny > the

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 22 Apr 2019, at 06:41, Terren Suydam wrote: > > 1) Causality can still exist even if time is an illusion. For example in > block-time, time is an indexical - all times can be said to exist at once - > but that in no way diminishes the role of causality in describing the > dynamics and

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

There is a special kind of "recognition of patterns in prior qualia". When I see a color, the color automatically includes in it various sub-levels: shades-of-gray, black-and-white, vividness, Self, etc. But this is not necessarily about prior qualia. It might be on an evolutionary context, in

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

You are confusing the Self with the ego. On Friday, 19 April 2019 15:50:16 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > With (panpsychic-experiential) materialism: > > - the self is not eternal :( [ of course you could be frozen in the > hope for some future technology ]) > - it is an independent

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Friday, 19 April 2019 13:27:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > recursion. > > > That's precisely what self-reference is not. And I specifically point this in the book. > The

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 1:06:59 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > So what does "computer science" has to do with consciousness ? > Computer science has to do with consciousness only when it turns to experience (vs. information) processing.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

So what does "computer science" has to do with consciousness ? It seems to me that you just make a random connection. On Friday, 19 April 2019 13:12:03 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 19 Apr 2019, at 09:16, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > It's

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

That's just a random definition that doesn't mean anything. On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:27:18 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > With mechanism, the observer is just a number/machine, relative to some > other numbers/machines. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Actually, this is precisely what existence is: that which is immediately knowable. I see red, thus red exists. On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:21:10 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > I doubt that existence is immediately knowable, etc. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

When engaging someone like Cosmin and trying to understand where he's coming from, I'd rather ask questions based on common understanding / null-hypothesis first, rather than muddy the water with my own loosely held philosophy. I'm probing to see if his ideas are consistent... I don't have an

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 21 Apr 2019, at 11:48, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 11:21, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 18 Apr 2019, at 15:36, Telmo Menezes >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 18:45, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 17

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 20 Apr 2019, at 01:15, Terren Suydam wrote: > > 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without causation. > In every instance I can think of, to influence something means to exert some > kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it otherwise would >

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 7:42:07 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2019 4:01 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:39:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> >> On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5,

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 21:35, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > 1) You raise an interesting point. Can you give another example in that > direction beside the qualia of good and bad ? Because you made me think about > the case that you mentioned, and it seems to me that it only works

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On 4/22/2019 4:01 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:39:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: The

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:39:34 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: >> >> >> The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On 4/22/2019 2:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 4:08:12 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there > whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings around to > agree about or argue about

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On 4/22/2019 1:56 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings around to agree about or argue about anything. Really? What people agree (or disagree) about,

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

The Kantian view is that *reality* is actually really real. It is there whether there are any of us (or anyone else) thinking beings around to agree about or argue about anything. What people agree (or disagree) about, "intersubjective" or otherwise (and it is questionable these days in 2019

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Reality is what we can reach intersubjective agreement on.  There is a consistency from person to person in perceptions, so that becomes the basis for hypothesizing there is person and mind independent reality, a common world.  Conscious thought, like percpetions, are epistemologically

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

And there are other reasons as well. The nature of self-reference is of such a kind that the very meaning of the word "existence" is "the looking-back-at-itself of self-reference", so existence can only be subjective. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

For every "Reality is X" statement, where X doesn't refer to an experience in consciousness, that statement is just a thought in consciousness, so it cannot be anything more than a fabricated theory. On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:38:20 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Of course we have a choice.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to experience reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force us to deny the possibility of an objective reality. If nothing else it forces us to

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Monday, April 22, 2019 at 1:21:50 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can > never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just > technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we >

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Are you aware of Donald Hoffman's work ? He too starts from interacting conscious agents and from there we deduces quantum mechanics. I don't agree with his theory, because he is not aware of the emergent nature of consciousness, but it's an interesting exercise of how physics can be derived

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we cannot search it outside consciousness. -- You received this message because you

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

My feedback for you, if you care for it, is to find a way to disprove your ideas in principle. What fact, if uncovered, what clearly show your ideas to be false? What counter-intuitive prediction could be used to test them? Without that, all you appear to have is a set of ideas, a little too

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

You can still continue to make science as you are doing it today, in order to increase the quality of life. The thing is that you never had causality, determinism, prediction, and any hope of understanding the universe to start with. What we gain is precisely this: the ability to understand

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

So to summarize: - We lose: causality, determinism, prediction, and any hope of understanding the universe without getting into the minds of competing consciousnesses, some proportion of which don't inhabit biological bodies - We gain: Can you help me out with that second line? Why

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Monday, 22 April 2019 07:41:14 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > 1) Causality can still exist even if time is an illusion. For example in > block-time, time is an indexical - all times can be said to exist at once - > but that in no way diminishes the role of causality in describing the >

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

1) Causality can still exist even if time is an illusion. For example in block-time, time is an indexical - all times can be said to exist at once - but that in no way diminishes the role of causality in describing the dynamics and interactions of the system as time 't' varies. 2) I don't even

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 19 Apr 2019, at 14:09, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 09:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: >> 1) The qualia of black-and-white is not on the same level with the qualia of >> colors. The qualia of colors include the qualia of black-and-white. You >>

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 11:21, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 18 Apr 2019, at 15:36, Telmo Menezes wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 18:45, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 17 Apr 2019, at 08:08, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 05:03, 'Brent

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:15:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without > causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means > to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it >

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

How can it produce the "right answer" if you don't tell it specifically what the "right answer" should be ? Only because you make a computer display on the screen "***This is the right answer!***" it doesn't mean you replicated the workings of consciousness. It only means you made the computer

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

I didn't say "see" I said identify, as it produce the right answer. Brent On 4/19/2019 11:01 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: You didn't read anything from what I wrote to you about meaning, purpose, free will, intelligence, learning, memory, etc, have you ? Because otherwise,

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

You didn't read anything from what I wrote to you about meaning, purpose, free will, intelligence, learning, memory, etc, have you ? Because otherwise, you would have understood that AIs don't see any colors. And there is no brain. On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:25:04 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > >

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On 4/19/2019 2:19 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: I like the questions. While I might not be able to give satisfactory answers to them, here's how I view the issues raised: On Friday, 19 April 2019 23:41:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: Hey Cosmin, What is the mechanism

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it otherwise would have. It *causes* it to change. 2) I'm not following your

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

I like the questions. While I might not be able to give satisfactory answers to them, here's how I view the issues raised: On Friday, 19 April 2019 23:41:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote: > > Hey Cosmin, > > What is the mechanism by which consciousness acts in a top down manner on > and

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Hey Cosmin, What is the mechanism by which consciousness acts in a top down manner on and influences electrons and presumably other particles? How does that causal link manifest? Some other questions: Given that electrons don't really exist by your account, what stops the seemingly inevitably

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On 4/19/2019 5:09 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 09:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: 1) The qualia of black-and-white is not on the same level with the qualia of colors. The qualia of colors include the qualia of black-and-white. You cannot see a color if

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

1) You raise an interesting point. Can you give another example in that direction beside the qualia of good and bad ? Because you made me think about the case that you mentioned, and it seems to me that it only works for cases of good and bad. A similar example to yours would be: blue and

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

With (panpsychic-experiential) materialism: - the self is not eternal :( [ of course you could be frozen in the hope for some future technology ]) - it is an independent consciousness (pretty much so, introducing outside chemicals aside) - pt On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 4:21:25 AM

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 09:09, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > 1) The qualia of black-and-white is not on the same level with the qualia of > colors. The qualia of colors include the qualia of black-and-white. You > cannot see a color if that color is not emergent upon

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > What does "self model" even mean ? Notice that any material attempt to > implement "self model" leads to infinite regress. Because let's say that a > machine has the parts A B C. To have a "self model" would mean to

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 19 Apr 2019, at 09:16, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > It's still not clear to me what your concept of "machine" is. Is it just an > abstract theory or is it some actually existing entity ? It is a machine in the sense of computer science. It is purely immaterial, and

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 19 Apr 2019, at 01:24, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 10:34:26AM -0700, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: >> >> >> On 4/18/2019 2:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>For >>instance, without an observer to interpret a certain pile of atoms as

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:56, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/18/2019 3:17 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: >> What does "self model" even mean ? Notice that any material attempt to >> implement "self model" leads to infinite regress. > > No. A "model"

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 19:34, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/18/2019 2:19 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> For >>> instance, without an observer to interpret a certain pile of atoms as >>> a machine, it is just a pile of atoms. >> Are you saying that Mars Rover cannot

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

And to add more regarding biology, take into account that reincarnation preserves memories from past lives. So biology is not merely "putting atoms in the right order". Is more than that. The conditions that biology satisfies in order to individuate the unique Self are going beyond mere

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

No, this cannot be done. The Self is eternal and it exists necessarily by the fact that it self-refers itself. All you can do is to give the Self different experiences and make him believe he is an individual consciousness. This is happening for example in biological reproduction. What

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

> On 18 Apr 2019, at 15:36, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 18:45, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 17 Apr 2019, at 08:08, Telmo Menezes >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Apr 17, 2019, at 05:03, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote:

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Of course (as you know) I say one could bring a "bunch of atoms together" to get something that is a conscious self. *First 3D Engineered Vascularized Human Heart Is Bioprinted* https://www.genengnews.com/news/first-3d-engineered-vascularized-human-heart-is-bioprinted/ In the future: a Brain?

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Exactly. This is the whole point. In order to have self-reference, you need to have a self. And you don't just get a self by arranging atoms in certain positions. You don't get a self by bringing a bunch of atoms together and calling them "a robot", because calling them "a robot" is just

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Vitalism is still true. Nobody knows how a being develops from embryo to its fully developed form. DNA is just a book. Nobody knows how it actually functions. It might well receive top-down influence in levels from higher order consciousness that guides the development of the biological entity.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Thursday, April 18, 2019 at 6:27:31 PM UTC-5, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 18, 2019 at 03:17:59AM -0700, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything > List wrote: > > Self-reference is formalisable. See Löb's theorem. > > > The problematic part of "self-reference" is "self". HOL theorem

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

Of course there are no atoms. The point is that the robot follows the same behavior as the appearances of "atoms" in our consciousness. In other words, if you know the behavior of atoms (even though they are nothing more than appearances in consciousness), you know the behavior of the robot.

<    1   2   3   4   5   >