Re: A Sherlock Holmes computer

2012-09-08 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 07 Sep 2012, at 16:20, Roger Clough wrote:




There is a quote by Sherlock Holmes that suggests a way to possibly  
filter out

solid truth from a comp (?)

List all of the possibilities or possible solutions. Then remove  
all from that list
that are impossible (now or ever, I would add).   Whatever is left  
over is the

(rational or necesssary) truth.


This is akin to proof of p = proof that (not p) leads to an  
impossibility.  Sherlock was good in logic :)


Bruno





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-09-06, 19:59:11
Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer



On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:37:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King  
wrote:

On 9/5/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38:07 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Hi Stephen P. King

No, the stuff in our skulls  is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p.
Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference.

Hi Roger,

锟斤拷 Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced  
technology is indistinguishable from magic. The trouble is that  
the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different  
from a bunch of diodes and transistors.


锟斤拷 Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the  
brain special? I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement  
effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that  
cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. Our  
mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content  
thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible  
abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self- 
model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions!


I think you are both right. Computers qua computers don't feel  
anything because they aren't anything. The physical material that  
you are using to execute computations on does however have  
experiences - just not experiences that we associated with our own.  
There is a concrete experience associated with the production of  
these pixels on your screen - many experiences on many levels, of  
molecules that make up the wires etc., but those experiences don't  
seem to lead to anything we would consider significant. It's pretty  
straightforward to me. A stuffed animal that looks like a bear is  
not a bear. A picture of a person is not a person, even if it is a  
fancy interactive picture.


Craig
--


Hi Craig,

I think that the difference that makes a difference here is the  
identity that emerges between matching of the experience *of* object  
and experience *by* object. Ranulph Glanville has, with others in  
the Cybernetics community, written masterfully on this in his Same  
is Different paper.



Hi Stephen,

How does the of/by distinction compare with map-territory and use- 
mention distinctions?


Craig

--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/LAHBiforecoJ 
.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



A Sherlock Holmes computer

2012-09-07 Thread Roger Clough


There is a quote by Sherlock Holmes that suggests a way to possibly filter out
solid truth from a comp (?)

List all of the possibilities or possible solutions. Then remove all from that 
list
that are impossible (now or ever, I would add).   Whatever is left over is the
(rational or necesssary) truth. 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/7/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-06, 19:59:11
Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer




On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:37:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
On 9/5/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38:07 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: 
Hi Stephen P. King 

No, the stuff in our skulls  is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p.
Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference.

Hi Roger,

??? Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is 
indistinguishable from magic. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does 
not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. 

??? Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? 
I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize 
and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical 
physical methods. Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 
1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible 
abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and 
report on it would lead us to very different conclusions!


I think you are both right. Computers qua computers don't feel anything because 
they aren't anything. The physical material that you are using to execute 
computations on does however have experiences - just not experiences that we 
associated with our own. There is a concrete experience associated with the 
production of these pixels on your screen - many experiences on many levels, of 
molecules that make up the wires etc., but those experiences don't seem to lead 
to anything we would consider significant. It's pretty straightforward to me. A 
stuffed animal that looks like a bear is not a bear. A picture of a person is 
not a person, even if it is a fancy interactive picture.

Craig

-- 


Hi Craig,

I think that the difference that makes a difference here is the identity 
that emerges between matching of the experience *of* object and experience *by* 
object. Ranulph Glanville has, with others in the Cybernetics community, 
written masterfully on this in his Same is Different paper.



Hi Stephen,

How does the of/by distinction compare with map-territory and use-mention 
distinctions?

Craig
 

-- 
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/LAHBiforecoJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.