subject:"Re\: No Chinese Room Necessary"

On 9/2/2012 12:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:28:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote:
> 6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all.
> A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give 
you a
> prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it 
while
> the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and 
you
> must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves
> the operation
> of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some
> sort, but it
> wouldn't look anything like a jet.

Good exposition.  But it's not the case every small step must be an 
improvement.  It's
sufficient that it not be a degradation.

It seems like both of you are attributing to evolution some kind of universal 
fitness.

Not at all.  In fact John was, in part, explaining why evolution often comes up with poor 
designs - because it's constrained by evolving what already exists and it can't go thru 
intermediate designs that are inferior at reproducing.

The terms improvement and degradation superimpose a pseudo-teleology on 
evolution.

No they are just relative to reproductive fitness.

In reality, if your island is suddenly underwater, whoever happens to have the leftover 
semi-gills stands a better chance of surviving and reproducing than the otherwise 
superior other species. It has nothing to do with improvement, it's just an accumulation 
of environmental shakeouts. Survival of the lucky.

That's the natural selection.  The other part is the random variation.

Brent
"And to think of this great country in danger of being dominated
by people ignorant enough to take a few ancient Babylonian legends
as the canons of modern culture. Our scientific men are paying for
their failure to speak out earlier. There is no use now talking
evolution to these people. Their ears are stuffed with Genesis."
--- Luther Burbank, on the Scopes trial

--
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:28:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote: 
> > 6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all. 
> > A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give 
> you a 
> > prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it 
> while 
> > the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, 
> and you 
> > must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves 
> > the operation 
> > of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some 
> > sort, but it 
> > wouldn't look anything like a jet. 
>
> Good exposition.  But it's not the case every small step must be an 
> improvement.  It's 
> sufficient that it not be a degradation. 
>
>
It seems like both of you are attributing to evolution some kind of 
universal fitness. The terms improvement and degradation superimpose a 
pseudo-teleology on evolution. In reality, if your island is suddenly 
underwater, whoever happens to have the leftover semi-gills stands a better 
chance of surviving and reproducing than the otherwise superior other 
species. It has nothing to do with improvement, it's just an accumulation 
of environmental shakeouts. Survival of the lucky. 

Craig 

-- 
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/-/5wfAX0iBmGYJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote:

6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all.
A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a
prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you
must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves
the operation
of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some
sort, but it
wouldn't look anything like a jet.


Good exposition.  But it's not the case every small step must be an improvement.  It's 
sufficient that it not be a degradation.


Brent
"What designer would put a recreational area between two waste disposal sites?"
   --- Woody Allen, on Intelligent Design

--
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:59:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 
>>
>>  *Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and 
>> shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the 
>> banal evils of game theory. ** * 
>>
>>  In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of 
>> sentiments. Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious processing. See 
>> for example the cheating detection mechanism in this book, which has been 
>> subject to an extensive set of test. and there are many papers about 
>> cheater detection. cheater detection is a module of logical reasoning 
>> specialized for situations where a deal can be broken.  It exist because 
>> cheater detection is critical in some situations and it must necessary to 
>> react quickly. Its effect is perceived by the conscious as anger of fear, 
>> depending on the situation.
>>  
>  
> That's not the point. It doesn't matter how tightly the incidence of 
> sentiment or emotion is bound with evolutionary function, I would expect 
> that given the fact of emotion's existence. The problem that needs to be 
> answered is given a universe of nothing but evolutionary functions, why 
> would or how could anything like an emotion arise? 
>
>
> When an amoeba detects a gradient of salinity and moves in the less saline 
> direction does it have a feeling?
>

I imagine that it does. Not much like a feeling we could relate to as human 
beings, but there is an experience there and it has more qualitative depth 
to it than when a steel needle interacts with a gradient of salinity, but 
less depth than when an animal's tongue encounters salinity.

Craig

 

>
> Brent
>  

-- 
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/-/P1BsfrVWQZIJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 9/2/2012 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's all I mean morals; having values about your own actions so that you can 
recognize that sometimes you do stupid or bad things - by your own standards - but 
which are not unethical because they have little or no effect on other people.


OK. May be it is a difference between english and french, where, at least in my country, 
moral is just a common term for ethical.



Yes, it is in english too.  But I'm trying to change that. :-)





Maybe you can suggest a different word, but the morals/ethics distinction I suggest 
seems close to common usage.  And even if you want to keep the two words as 
coextensive, it's still useful when someone refers to "immoral" to think whether he 
means something he would regard as bad in himself (like enjoying some pot)


?
(I can understand but I have to replace pot by alcohol, for which statistics exists that 
it is bad in himself).





or he means it harms other people and should be discouraged by society.


I appreciate that you seem to think that the society can only discouraged behavior which 
harms the others.




And that's the main reason I think the distinction is useful.  When a politician says "X 
is immoral and we should pass a law against X." his audience thinks, "Yes. He's right. I 
would feel badly if I did X or my child did X."   Sometimes X is also bad for other 
people, i.e. unethical and society should discourage it. But other times it is just 
personally repugnant to the audience (like homosexuality or getting drunk) and the 
audience should think, "Well I think it's immoral - but it's not unethical. We don't need 
such a law."   By not making the distinction they allow the inference 
immoral->unethical->illegal.


Brent

--
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

/Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the
deep and
violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game
theory. ///

In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of sentiments.
Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious processing. See for example
the
cheating detection mechanism in this book, which has been subject to an
extensive
set of test. and there are many papers about cheater detection. cheater
detection is
a module of logical reasoning specialized for situations where a deal can
be broken.
It exist because cheater detection is critical in some situations and it
must
necessary to react quickly. Its effect is perceived by the conscious as
anger of
fear, depending on the situation.

That's not the point. It doesn't matter how tightly the incidence of sentiment or
emotion is bound with evolutionary function, I would expect that given the fact of
emotion's existence. The problem that needs to be answered is given a universe of
nothing but evolutionary functions, why would or how could anything like an emotion arise?

When an amoeba detects a gradient of salinity and moves in the less saline direction does
it have a feeling?

Brent

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread John Clark

Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:

> There are greath differences between evolutionary designs and rational design.

Yes there are big differences, rational designs are, well, rational, but
evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow
and stupid
tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it
couldn't even
come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees!
Rational designers had less difficulty coming up with the wheel. The
only advantage
Evolution had is that until it managed to invent brains it was the
only way complex
objects could get built.

 I can think of a few reasons for natures poor design:

1) Time Lags: Evolution is so slow the animal is adapted to conditions that may
   no longer exist, that's why moths have an instinct to fly into candle
   flames. I have no doubt that if you just give them a million years or so,
   evolution will give hedgehogs a better defense than rolling up into a
   ball when confronted by their major predator, the automobile. The only
   problem is that by then there won't be any automobiles.

2) Historical Constraints: The eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards,
   the connective tissue of the retina is on the wrong side so light must
   pass through it before it hits the light sensitive cells. There's no doubt
   this degrades vision and we would be better off if the retina was
reversed as
   it is in squids whose eye evolved independently, however It's too late for
   that to happen now because all the intermediate forms would not be viable.

   Once a standard is set, with all its interlocking mechanisms it's very
   difficult to abandon it completely, even when much better methods are
   found. That's why we still have inches and yards even though the metric
   system is clearly superior. That's why we still have Windows. Nature is
   enormously conservative, it may add new things but it doesn't abandon the
   old because the intermediate stages must also work. That's also why humans
   have all the old brain structures that lizards have as well as new ones.

3) Lack of Genetic Variation: Mutations are random and you might not get the
   mutation you need when you need it. Feathers work better for flight than
   the skin flaps bats use, but bats never produced the right mutations for
   feathers and skin flaps are good enough.

4) Constraints of Costs and Materials: Life is a tangle of trade offs and
   compromises.

5) An Advantage on one Level is a Disadvantage on Another: One gene can give
   you resistance to malaria, a second identical gene will give you sickle
   cell anemia.

6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all.
   A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a
   prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
   the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you
   must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves
the operation
   of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some
sort, but it
   wouldn't look anything like a jet.

   If the tire on your car is getting worn you can take it off and put a
   new one on, but evolution could never do something like that, because when
   you take the old tire off you have temporally made things worse, now you
   have no tire at all. With evolution EVERY step (generation), no matter
   how many, MUST be an immediate improvement over the previous one. it
   can't think more than one step ahead, it doesn't understand one step
   backward two steps forward.

And that's why there are no 100 ton supersonic birds. Yes I know, such a
creature would use a lot of energy, but if we can afford to do so why
can't nature?
Being slow, weak, and cheap is not my idea a an inspired design.

 John K Clark

-- 
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 02 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg > wrote:


That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill  
friendly

cells. That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar
molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a
metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense -
everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the  
other way
around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any  
other way?


Panpsychism is not inconsistent with functionalism. David Chalmers is
a functionalist and panpsychist.



To use this as argument, you have to convince us that David Chalmers  
is consistent.

I already provide evidence that he is not.
In case he is consistent, then, as a human being having a complexity  
close to you and me, you cannot prove consistently that he is  
consistent.

You are using an inconsistent argument per authority here.

Also, what is "pan" in panpsychism?

His physicalist computationalism is already inconsistent with its own  
functionalism.
Like its dualist interpretation of Everett was inconsistent with  
Everett monistic motivation to abandon the collapse. Not sure he still  
defend that view though.


Bruno


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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Sep 2012, at 19:26, meekerdb wrote:


On 9/1/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me  
recommend a distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.   
Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in  
their interactions with other people.  They of course tend to  
overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone,  
so it's both immoral and unethical.  But they are not the  
same.  If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be  
disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral  
either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral?


In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to  
work.  It's personal.  It doesn't imply that it would be immoral  
for you to not work. But it would be unethical for you to not  
work and to be supported by others.  That's the point of making  
a distinction between moral (consistent with personal values,  
1P) and ethical (consistent with social values, 3p).


OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you).
By "OK with you" I mean you are free to use personal definition  
orthogonal to the use of the majority.

By "orthogonal" I mean ...
Hmm...


But it's not orthogonal, it's just at an slight angle.  Do you see  
no distinction between standards by which you judge yourself and  
those which by which society may judge you?


i just don't understand what is moral or immoral in the fact of  
eating too much pizza and not doing work. It might be stupid, but I  
don't see anything immoral.


To call it stupid is a value judgement.


Not necessarily.



That's all I mean morals; having values about your own actions so  
that you can recognize that sometimes you do stupid or bad things -  
by your own standards - but which are not unethical because they  
have little or no effect on other people.


OK. May be it is a difference between english and french, where, at  
least in my country, moral is just a common term for ethical.




Maybe you can suggest a different word, but the morals/ethics  
distinction I suggest seems close to common usage.  And even if you  
want to keep the two words as coextensive, it's still useful when  
someone refers to "immoral" to think whether he means something he  
would regard as bad in himself (like enjoying some pot)


?
(I can understand but I have to replace pot by alcohol, for which  
statistics exists that it is bad in himself).




or he means it harms other people and should be discouraged by  
society.


I appreciate that you seem to think that the society can only  
discouraged behavior which harms the others.


Bruno


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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On Sunday, September 2, 2012 7:18:14 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg 
> > 
> wrote: 
>
> > That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill 
> friendly 
> > cells. That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar 
> > molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a 
> > metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense - 
> > everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other 
> way 
> > around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other 
> way? 
>
> Panpsychism is not inconsistent with functionalism. David Chalmers is 
> a functionalist and panpsychist. 
>

True, but panpsychism isn't inconsistent with pre-functionalism either. To 
me it's pretty straightforward. It is easy to see the possibility of 
function as an experience in all cases, but it doesn't make sense to see 
experience as purely a function in any case. Of course subjectivity can be 
imagined as having a function after the fact, but if you start by imagining 
a universe without any possibility of subjectivity first, there is 
certainly no way that it could, should, or would be conjured from nowhere 
to accomplish something that could not be accomplished already, with more 
efficiency, by a Turing emulable mechanism.

Craig

>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou 
>

-- 
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/-/fB67of1Ae0wJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
>  *Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and 
> shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the 
> banal evils of game theory. ** *
>
> In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of 
> sentiments. Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious processing. See 
> for example the cheating detection mechanism in this book, which has been 
> subject to an extensive set of test. and there are many papers about 
> cheater detection. cheater detection is a module of logical reasoning 
> specialized for situations where a deal can be broken.  It exist because 
> cheater detection is critical in some situations and it must necessary to 
> react quickly. Its effect is perceived by the conscious as anger of fear, 
> depending on the situation.
>

That's not the point. It doesn't matter how tightly the incidence of 
sentiment or emotion is bound with evolutionary function, I would expect 
that given the fact of emotion's existence. The problem that needs to be 
answered is given a universe of nothing but evolutionary functions, why 
would or how could anything like an emotion arise? If you admit that 
feeling performs some function that could not be generated otherwise, then 
you have invalidated functionalism, since the presumed epiphenomenon of 
conscious experience could not be reduced to the physical interaction of 
mechanisms. One way or the other you have to explain why everything in the 
universe seems to function perfectly well being (presumably) unconscious, 
but that human bodies can only function if an entire universe of subjective 
experiences is invented out of thin air.

Craig

-- 
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/-/5ZB6JHdlRosJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread Stathis Papaioannou

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg  wrote:

> That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill friendly
> cells. That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar
> molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a
> metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense -
> everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other way
> around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other way?

Panpsychism is not inconsistent with functionalism. David Chalmers is
a functionalist and panpsychist.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-01 Thread Alberto G. Corona

>
> This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and
> instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a
> universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the
> revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the deep and
> violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game
> theory.
>
>
> They're found in your the banal neurons of your brain, so they could be
> part of the morals of a robot if we chose to build it that way.  From our
> perspective as citizens in a very diverse and interconnected world of
> billions of people, we can see ways in which we might give a robot better,
> more adaptive, values than biology has given us.
>


Only a world about the last paragraph. There are greath differences between
evolutionary designs and
rational design. Contrary to the engineering-minded opinion of many
scientists, evolutionary design
is much better. evolution is holistic and operates at all scales and with
all the problems at the
same time. Rationality is focused, has limited resources, operate for a
limited time and can´t ever
consider all the factors at the same time. There are evidences everywhere.
Not only genetic algoriths
applied to design circuits produce more fast and reduced designs, but also
whenever rational social
engineering  tried to replace naturally evolved institutions the result has
been a complete failure. Moreover
All the attemps of artificial intelligence have been pathetic to say
something (And I worked on it).

Because evolutionary design is holistic we never ever could know ALL the
reasons for which an evolutuonary
design has been made. Simply we can never know. To say that some
evolutionary design is a failure is a engineering minded sin which is the
sin of ignorance most of the times.

Also,because it is hollistic, the evolutionary designs are
not modular, neither each module has limited interfaces. These are rules of
good design for us who rationally
can not handle many balls in the air at the same time. this does not apply
to nature which for the effects
of design works as a infinitelly parallel computer.

I´m not raising neither nature nor natural selection to the deity status.
I´m only describing my humble
opinion of that, which I think is right, and is contrary to most if not all
the scientists. That is because
there are much ideology in science. The rational-centrism, the last phase
of the antropocentrism resist
its fall.

-- 
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-01 Thread meekerdb

On 9/1/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:

On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a
distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I
hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course
tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both
immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot
and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.

I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing,
yes, but immoral?

In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to work. It's
personal. It doesn't imply that it would be immoral for you to not work. But it
would be unethical for you to not work and to be supported by others. That's the
point of making a distinction between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and
ethical (consistent with social values, 3p).

OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you).
By "OK with you" I mean you are free to use personal definition orthogonal to the use
of the majority.

By "orthogonal" I mean ...
Hmm...

But it's not orthogonal, it's just at an slight angle. Do you see no distinction
between standards by which you judge yourself and those which by which society may
judge you?

i just don't understand what is moral or immoral in the fact of eating too much pizza
and not doing work. It might be stupid, but I don't see anything immoral.

To call it stupid is a value judgement. That's all I mean morals; having values about
your own actions so that you can recognize that sometimes you do stupid or bad things - by
your own standards - but which are not unethical because they have little or no effect on
other people. Maybe you can suggest a different word, but the morals/ethics distinction I
suggest seems close to common usage. And even if you want to keep the two words as
coextensive, it's still useful when someone refers to "immoral" to think whether he means
something he would regard as bad in himself (like enjoying some pot) or he means it harms
other people and should be discouraged by society.

Brent

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-01 Thread Alberto G. Corona

2012/8/31 meekerdb 

>  On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>
>> There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.
>>
>>   in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired
>> programs.
>>
>  codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic
>> program, which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an
>> amazing homogeneity for a single specie).
>>
>>  These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in
>> a social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash
>> equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for
>> all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are
>> the moral code.
>>
>
> In general they are not Nash equilibra.  Evolution doesn't settle on Nash
> equilibra because in many cases they are unstable for finitely repeated
> games, c.f. Ginitis "Bounds of Reason".
>

Game theory , and in concrete, evolutionary game theory is at the core of
evolutionary biology in the study of social behaviour in animals and men.
It is very important  in any science informed by evolutionary science, In
economy for example. Nash equilibria is the most important concept of it.
Read about evolutionary game theory. and in special about the pioneer:
Robert Axelrod

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-evolutionary/

>
>

>
>>  These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according
>> with the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These
>> maximums are know by our intuition because we have suffered social
>> selection, so a knowledge of them are intuitive.  That we have suffered
>> social selection means that the groups of hominids or the individual
>> hominids whose conducts were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared.
>>  To be near these equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired
>> intuitions, that the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.
>>
>
> That doesn't seem like something individual that will survive dissolution
> of the body.
>
> That is the role of the genetic code, that transmit  innate behaviours as
well as body structure. It is so for all kind of animals, including us.

>
>
>>  What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the
>> expression of the same moral code operating in different circunstances
>> where the optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies,
>> for example in foundational book of evolutionary psychology "The adapted
>> mind"
>>
>>  
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**The_Adapted_Mind
>>
>>  about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in
>> extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the
>> extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close
>> to ours, the rules are quite "normal". Both the normal behaviour or the
>> extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of
>> individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way
>> (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a
>> "normal" society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system.  Thanks to
>> the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game
>> theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that
>> await  a development of evolutionary morals
>>
>
> I don't think biological evolution has been nearly fast enough to give us
> hardwired ethics suited to modern industrial nation states.  That's why
> diverse cultures have evolved; Different ways of trying to satisfy the
> moral instincts that evolved for life in a small tribe.  In theory the
> interaction of these cultures would eventually pick a winner (cultural
> selection), but in practice technology and other factors (e.g. global
> warming, oil depletion, war) may change things on a much shorter time scale.
>
>
> Yes  the hardwired ethics or moral developed during millions of years.
10.000 years or agriculture and. 2 centuries of industry are nothing and
even maybe will not extend much more. That is why the innate human sense of
moral is universal.

>
>>
> Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality.
> Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the
> anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different than how the
> equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines whether I inhale or
> exhale.
>
>
> It also depends on what you want.  No decision problem can be solved with
> values.  The values that evolved biologically are common and don't change
> very fast; so it's a good bet you love your children more than yourself.
>
>
>
> This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and
> instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a per

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-01 Thread Alberto G. Corona

 *Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the
deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils
of game theory. ** *

In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of
sentiments. Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious processing. See
for example the cheating detection mechanism in this book, which has been
subject to an extensive set of test. and there are many papers about
cheater detection. cheater detection is a module of logical reasoning
specialized for situations where a deal can be broken.  It exist because
cheater detection is critical in some situations and it must necessary to
react quickly. Its effect is perceived by the conscious as anger of fear,
depending on the situation.


2012/8/30 Craig Weinberg 

>
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>
>> There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.
>>
>>  in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired
>> programs.
>>
> codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic program,
>> which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an amazing
>> homogeneity for a single specie).
>>
>> These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a
>> social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash
>> equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for
>> all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are
>> the moral code.
>>
>> These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according
>> with the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These
>> maximums are know by our intuition because we have suffered social
>> selection, so a knowledge of them are intuitive.  That we have suffered
>> social selection means that the groups of hominids or the individual
>> hominids whose conducts were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared.
>>  To be near these equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired
>> intuitions, that the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.
>>
>> What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the
>> expression of the same moral code operating in different circunstances
>> where the optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies,
>> for example in foundational book of evolutionary psychology "The adapted
>> mind"
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**The_Adapted_Mind
>>
>> about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in
>> extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the
>> extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close
>> to ours, the rules are quite "normal". Both the normal behaviour or the
>> extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of
>> individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way
>> (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a
>> "normal" society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system.  Thanks to
>> the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game
>> theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that
>> await  a development of evolutionary morals
>>
>>
> Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality.
> Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the
> anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different than how the
> equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines whether I inhale or
> exhale.
>
> This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and
> instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a
> universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the
> revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the deep and
> violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game
> theory.
>
> To understand morals we must look at sense and motive, and how the
> association of transgressive motives (criminality) is associated fairly and
> unfairly with transgressive sense (images, characters worthy of disgust,
> shame, etc). We must understand how super-signifying images are telegraphed
> socially through and second-hand exaggeration and dramatization, of
> story-telling and parenting, demagoguery, religious authority, etc.
> Morality is politics. It is the subjective topology which elevates and
> lowers events, objects, people, places, behaviors, etc so that we enforce
> our own behavioral control before outside authorities need to. It isn't
> only a mathematical system of rules, it is a visceral drama. Consciousness
> computes, but consciousness itself has almost nothing to do with
> computation. It is experience. That is all there is. One can experience the
> computation of other experiences, but without e

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-01 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me  
recommend a distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.   
Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in  
their interactions with other people.  They of course tend to  
overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so  
it's both immoral and unethical.  But they are not the same.  If  
I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed  
in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral  
either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral?


In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to  
work.  It's personal.  It doesn't imply that it would be immoral  
for you to not work. But it would be unethical for you to not work  
and to be supported by others.  That's the point of making a  
distinction between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P)  
and ethical (consistent with social values, 3p).


OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you).
By "OK with you" I mean you are free to use personal definition  
orthogonal to the use of the majority.

By "orthogonal" I mean ...
Hmm...


But it's not orthogonal, it's just at an slight angle.  Do you see  
no distinction between standards by which you judge yourself and  
those which by which society may judge you?


i just don't understand what is moral or immoral in the fact of eating  
too much pizza and not doing work. It might be stupid, but I don't see  
anything immoral.


Bruno


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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Friday, August 31, 2012 2:48:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 8/31/2012 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
> Uruguay, Armenia, El Salvador, Botswana, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Albania, 
> Belize, Uganda, Guatemala, have capitalist economies while Sweden is 
> socialist and China is Communist.
>
>
> But Sweden isn't socialist - the government doesn't own the major means of 
> production.  Sweden's economy is regulated capitalism plus lots of social 
> services (which conservatives in the U.S. call "socialist").  China has a 
> mixed economy with government owned enterprises and privately owned ones.  
> It is not communist as Marx envisioned, it is only "communist" in that is 
> what the ruling party calls itself and it allows no opposition parties.
>

 Why isn't it deregulated socialism plus lots of entrepreneurial support? 
My point is that these labels are not especially relevant and that the 
underlying conditions of population and ownership of resources are what 
matter, not the supposed ideology or system of bookkeeping. If you look at 
the skyline of any major city, you can't see any difference between the 
more capitalist, socialist, democratic, theocratic, etc political systems. 
It can work well or terribly in any mode - even monarchy.

Craig


> Brent
>  

-- 
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/-/1tuWzGuWFxkJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread meekerdb


On 8/31/2012 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Uruguay, Armenia, El Salvador, Botswana, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Albania, Belize, 
Uganda, Guatemala, have capitalist economies while Sweden is socialist and China is 
Communist.


But Sweden isn't socialist - the government doesn't own the major means of production.  
Sweden's economy is regulated capitalism plus lots of social services (which conservatives 
in the U.S. call "socialist").  China has a mixed economy with government owned 
enterprises and privately owned ones.  It is not communist as Marx envisioned, it is only 
"communist" in that is what the ruling party calls itself and it allows no opposition parties.


Brent

--
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread meekerdb


On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a 
distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.  Ethics is what I do and what I hope 
other people will do in their interactions with other people.  They of course tend to 
overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral 
and unethical.  But they are not the same.  If I spent my time smoking pot and not 
working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, 
yes, but immoral?


In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to work.  It's personal.  
It doesn't imply that it would be immoral for you to not work. But it would be 
unethical for you to not work and to be supported by others.  That's the point of 
making a distinction between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and ethical 
(consistent with social values, 3p).


OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you).
By "OK with you" I mean you are free to use personal definition orthogonal to the use of 
the majority.

By "orthogonal" I mean ...
Hmm... 


But it's not orthogonal, it's just at an slight angle.  Do you see no distinction between 
standards by which you judge yourself and those which by which society may judge you?


Brent

--
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:22:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 8/31/2012 8:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
> On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:39:12 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>
>>
>> ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could 
>> endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but I 
>> thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My mistake. My 
>> opinion is that whatever the particular intensions might be, we can judge 
>> by the results whether or not a policy is worth keeping. 
>>
>
> I agree, but how can you tell what isn't working when everything that 
> matters is getting worse? I say we should experiment with different 
> policies in different regions and compare them scientifically. Let people 
> move to where they feel most at home.
>  
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> The places that have fences around them to keep people "in" stand out 
> as the failures. 
>

If you have a high population and low ownership of resources, you don't 
need fences to fail. You can find examples of success and failure 
regardless of the economic system.

Uruguay, Armenia, El Salvador, Botswana, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Albania, 
Belize, Uganda, Guatemala, have capitalist economies while Sweden is 
socialist and China is Communist.


>   
>
>>  Our current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even 
>> possible? 
>>  
>
> That was the point, I don't think that anyone is suggesting perfection at 
> all. Progressive views are just that: progress-ive. Try to make things less 
> horrible for more people.
>  
>
> Sure, I can speak only to what I have seen for myself. Most policies 
> that I see so-called progressives proposing are not satisfying your 
> definition. Thus my remarks.
>

My view is that the Democrats tend to tell you they are going to do good 
things and then not do them while the Republicans will do bad things and 
tell you it is actually good. I don't think either party is progressive.  
If Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders could agree on a candidate, I would vote for 
them.

Craig 

>  

-- 
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/-/nMoBc8R2xwIJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Stephen P. King


On 8/31/2012 8:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:39:12 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:


ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could
endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but
I thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My
mistake. My opinion is that whatever the particular intensions
might be, we can judge by the results whether or not a policy is
worth keeping.


I agree, but how can you tell what isn't working when everything that 
matters is getting worse? I say we should experiment with different 
policies in different regions and compare them scientifically. Let 
people move to where they feel most at home.


Hi Craig,

The places that have fences around them to keep people "in" stand 
out as the failures.



Our current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even
possible?


That was the point, I don't think that anyone is suggesting perfection 
at all. Progressive views are just that: progress-ive. Try to make 
things less horrible for more people.


Sure, I can speak only to what I have seen for myself. Most 
policies that I see so-called progressives proposing are not satisfying 
your definition. Thus my remarks.




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 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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

ibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that 　it′s  
functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with  
this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the  
capability of _being_ aware

2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
Hi Alberto G. Corona

Awareness = I see X.
　or I am X.
or some similar statement.

There's no computer in that　behavior or state of being.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Roger,
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is  
that a inner computation can affect an external computation which  
is aware of the consequences of this inner computation.

　　like in the case of any relation of brain and mind,　I do  
not say that this IS 　the experience of awareness, but given the  
duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that  
the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind,  
the mind experiences awareness

2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
Hi Alberto G. Corona

What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.

Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi:

Awareness can 　be functionally (we do not know if experientially)  
　computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram)  
and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his  
real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these  
programs are called "interpreters".

　The lack of 　understanding, of this capability of  
metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the  
reason why 　it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a  
computer can never do. 　We humans can manage concepts in two  
ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result  
of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation.

For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or  
our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not  
interpreted programs. We can not know 　our deep thinking  
structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When  
we use　metaphorically　the verb "to be fired" 　to mean being  
redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware of  
it. 　Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with  
the observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of  
it by means of an adquired metacomputation.

The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of  
a woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that  
produces this intuition. In the other side, we can appreciate the  
fact that the process 　of diagonalization by G　del 　makes the  
Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be reached by  
a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program.  
(see my post about the G　del theorem).

Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of  
free will nor in any other existential question.

2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
Hi Craig Weinberg

I agree.

Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:

Cs = subject + object

The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate,　it is not computable.

QED

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary

This sentence does not speak English.

These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

s　l u　　　 　,u　　　 　s　　　

If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help  
illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far  
as ascertaining the origin of awareness.

Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a  
meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we  
presume that computation can and does exist independently of all  
awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is  
what we cal

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg 

>
>
> On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:57:15 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to
>>> find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political
>>> diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of
>>> diversity?
>>>
>>
>> You were the one saying "I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists,
>> hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and *have
>> never - ever - heard* anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of
>> political context at all."
>>
>
> Yes, so? What's the disconnect? I grew up in California talking to all
> kinds of left leaning radicals, so I know they don't discuss hopes of a
> 'perfect society'.  I live in North Carolina now, where people don't trust
> nature (for good reason) but trust businessmen (for not so good reasons).
>

And my answer to that was that somehow you were not living in the right
country, because *here* it's not the case... Anarchist  advocates discuss
that... What's the point calling yourself an anarchist if it's not even
your goal... Same oxymoron as non-practicing Catholic...

Quentin

>
> Craig
>
> --
> 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/-/qQBhCy7-Je8J.
>
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi meekerdb 

IMHO nature contains life and life is intelligence.
There may be random forces, and no dojubt
natural selection plays a role, but I can't help
but keep thinking that the intelligence of nature 
is a big part of guiding evolution. If life is
intelligent, one can hardly avoid the phnomenon 
of guided evolution.

BTW Saint Augustine believed that nature 
was full of "seeds" of intelligence.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 23:04:16
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 8/30/2012 6:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 
On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 



If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible 
purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience on 
top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical scripts? 
Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only conceivable 
in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?


We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's random. 

Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write here, 
they will never evolve into something that writes by itself.


Exactly. Randomness is more likely to kludge up an adaptation than create an 
efficient design from scratch.  Your words don't evolve because they don't move 
around and recombine randomly - except in your head.  


Are you suggesting that if I add a randomizer that the words being spit out 
will eventually learn to become an author?


That would be necessary but not sufficient.  You'd need an editor (or natural 
selection) to find something coherent.




Are you an Intelligent Design creationist?

Of course not.


Then why can't you accept that living systems are not designed, don't 'need' be 
they way they are, are just formed by random variation and natural selection.





 

It takes advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach after 
eating rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff like that 
again.

No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such thing as 
'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree algorithms. This 
is what I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a possibility unless you are 
looking back on it in hindsight after the fact. Sure, to you it seems like 
nausea is a good adaptation, but that's naive realism. You assume nausea is 
possible because you have experienced it. 

That's not an assumption - that's empiricism.  An assumption would be that a 
brain can't instantiate feelings.


Ok, then you know nausea is possible because you have experienced it. That 
doesn't change the fact that nausea has no business being possible in a 
universe driven only by bottom up evolution.


IT'S RANDOM!  Having business assumes a goal, foresight.






You would have to use evolution to explain the possibility of feeling in the 
first place, and it cannot.
 
  So what feeling would work to guide you not harm a child? - how about that 
'sick at your stomach' feeling. 



That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill friendly 
cells. 

No it doesn't.  T-cells are not social animals who need to care for their 
young. 


T-cells are social organisms who need to care for the other cells of the body. 
What's the difference?


For one the T-cells don't have young.  Their 'feelings' are simple and don't 
need to rise to level of being expressible or to be resolved with conflicting 
feelings.  You are again asking why some biological system 'needs' to be the 
way it is, as though there is a designer who can explain his choice.

Brent

-- 
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:57:15 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
>> I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to 
>> find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political 
>> diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of 
>> diversity?
>>
>
> You were the one saying "I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, 
> hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and *have 
> never - ever - heard* anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of 
> political context at all."
>

Yes, so? What's the disconnect? I grew up in California talking to all 
kinds of left leaning radicals, so I know they don't discuss hopes of a 
'perfect society'.  I live in North Carolina now, where people don't trust 
nature (for good reason) but trust businessmen (for not so good reasons).

Craig

-- 
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/-/qQBhCy7-Je8J.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg 

>
>
> On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:30:50 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg 


>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>>  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Craig,
>>>
>>> Umm, ever hear of the concept of "Heaven"? It sounds very much
>>> like a "a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were
>>> unnecessary".
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... " 
>> classless,
>> moneyless, and stateless
>>  social order  
>> structured
>>  upon common ownership
>>  of the means of 
>> production,
>> as well as a social , 
>> political
>>  and econom**ic  ideology
>> that aims at the establishment of this social order".
>>
>
> When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich
> talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like
> Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say "we must get rid
> of money and class!". All I have ever heard from progressives is "We 
> should
> pay teachers more and useless businessmen less." and "We should stop 
> paying
> private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on 
> meaningless
> drug charges". I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies,
> and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never 
> -
> ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political
> context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from
> Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.
>

 Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist
 who would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an
 "anarchist" which means "without hierarchy/authority" not without rules,
 that is anomie.

>>>
>>> What does where I live have to do with anything?
>>>
>>
>> Because if you had come to europe, you would have seen people advocating
>> communism, anarchism, socialism... but you'll had hard time finding
>> libertarian.
>>
>
> I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to
> find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political
> diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of
> diversity?
>

You were the one saying "I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists,
hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and *have
never - ever - heard* anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of
political context at all."
.

>
> Craig
>
> --
> 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/-/QrEm2qQw4PYJ.
>
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi Craig Weinberg 

Where today is Regressivism and Dystopianism ?
Or maybe that was just an ironic comment.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
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: 2012-08-31, 08:43:41
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:57:54 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:


Progressivism is another word for Utopianism.
Their utopias sound good but as of yet have never worked,
or worked for long.



Has Regressivism and Dystopianism fared much better?

Craig 

-- 
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/-/VYEIpZZfmq8J.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:39:12 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
> ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could 
> endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but I 
> thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My mistake. My 
> opinion is that whatever the particular intensions might be, we can judge 
> by the results whether or not a policy is worth keeping. 
>

I agree, but how can you tell what isn't working when everything that 
matters is getting worse? I say we should experiment with different 
policies in different regions and compare them scientifically. Let people 
move to where they feel most at home.

> Our current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even 
> possible? 
>

That was the point, I don't think that anyone is suggesting perfection at 
all. Progressive views are just that: progress-ive. Try to make things less 
horrible for more people.

Craig

-- 
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/-/Y6f3b7St7k0J.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:30:50 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg >
>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg 
>>>
>>>

 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King 
> wrote: 
>>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> Umm, ever hear of the concept of "Heaven"? It sounds very much 
>> like a "a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were 
>> unnecessary".
>>  
>
> Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?
>
> Craig 
>  
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... " 
> classless, 
> moneyless, and stateless
>  social order  
> structured
>  upon common ownership 
>  of the means of 
> production, 
> as well as a social , 
> political
>  and economic  ideology 
> that aims at the establishment of this social order".
>

 When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich 
 talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like 
 Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say "we must get rid 
 of money and class!". All I have ever heard from progressives is "We 
 should 
 pay teachers more and useless businessmen less." and "We should stop 
 paying 
 private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on 
 meaningless 
 drug charges". I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, 
 and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never 
 - 
 ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political 
 context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from 
 Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.

>>>
>>> Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who 
>>> would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an 
>>> "anarchist" which means "without hierarchy/authority" not without rules, 
>>> that is anomie.
>>>
>>
>> What does where I live have to do with anything? 
>>
>
> Because if you had come to europe, you would have seen people advocating 
> communism, anarchism, socialism... but you'll had hard time finding 
> libertarian.
>

I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to 
find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political 
diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of 
diversity?

Craig

-- 
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/-/QrEm2qQw4PYJ.
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.

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:57:54 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
>   
>  
> Progressivism is another word for Utopianism.
> Their utopias sound good but as of yet have never worked,
> or worked for long.
>  
>
Has Regressivism and Dystopianism fared much better?

Craig 

-- 
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/-/VYEIpZZfmq8J.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Stephen P. King

On 8/31/2012 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:30:30 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Craig,

They never state it explicitly, but it is the logical
implication of their arguments. "We should pay teachers more and
useless businessmen less" implies all are paid the same regardless
of skill, no? "We should stop paying private contractors so much
to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges"
implies? Most people simply don't try to explain their ideologies
to themselves or others, whether libertarian, republican,
progressive or whatever, they are simply not curious to know.

It's only the logical implication of their arguments if your logic is
that there must be some reason why they are wrong to begin with.
Paying teaches more (than they are paid now
http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/teacher-salary-data.html) and useless
businessmen less (than they are paid now
http://current.com/green/89118297_fortune-500-ceos-relative-to-the-average-wage-in-the-united-states.htm)
has nothing to do with all people or skill. It has only to do with
executives making more and more money without contributing positively
to anything outside of their own interests. Not imprisoning people for
no reason implies nothing other than it is a terrible idea to allow
people to make imprisoning people a for-profit enterprise.

Craig

ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could
endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but I
thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My mistake. My
opinion is that whatever the particular intensions might be, we can
judge by the results whether or not a policy is worth keeping. Our
current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even possible?

--
Onward!

Stephen

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

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:17:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03:32 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
>> which seem to be alive but are not actually so.
>>
>>
>>
>> The problem is that you cannot know that.
>>
>
> Then you can't know that he can't know that either. Maybe he does know it? 
> Maybe he can tell in his bones that this is true? You are arbitrarily being 
> conservative in your attribution of the veracity of human sense and liberal 
> in your attribution of machine sense.
>
>
>
> Oh? may be Hitler knew in his bones that Jewish were a problem. You have 
> weird argument.
>

I'm not the one arguing that we must accept the unacceptable because we 
can't prove it isn't true. With sense, we don't need to prove what we 
already know. We can disprove things we think we know, but we can't 
disprove ourselves or thinking that we know. We can sense that words are 
not going to evolve by themselves in a book. We can sense that a computer 
sitting in a box is not going to start writing screenplays by itself. To 
argue these things can only be naive ambition or sophistry.
 

>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>> In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to 
>> something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something 
>> conscious, as that can generate suffering.
>>
>
> It could generate suffering either way. If an android tells you that you 
> can sing and you believe it, you could be brainwashed by an advertisement. 
> You could choose to save a machine programmed to yell in a fire while other 
> real people burn alive.
>
>
> I don't see why saving a machine from fire would prevents me to save 
> children and woman first, as I feel closer to them. But then if I can, 
> after, save a machine, why not. You are the one talking like if you knew 
> that machines are forever zombies/puppets.
>

I am giving you a what if scenario, that it isn't necessarily harmless to 
give non-living machines the benefit of the doubt. In my scenario there is 
only time to save one or the other, and since the machine is programmed to 
authentically yell for help, the fireman saves the machine while the family 
suffocates to death in the basement. They would have been found first had 
they not been distracted by the machine.
 

>
>
>
>  
>
>>
>> There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot 
>> looking very much like humans. 
>> An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive 
>> people who might believe that such machine is alive.
>> He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that 
>> they have no problem with such question.
>>
>> As I said often, the "real" question is not "can machine think", but "can 
>> your daughter marry a machine" (like a man who did undergone a digital 
>> brain transplant).
>>
>> When will machine get the right to vote?
>>
>
> When will the machine demand the right to vote?
>
>
> ?
> In the year 4024. Perhaps. Or in the year 4024. I don't care. It is 
> not relevant for the issue. With the comp theory, some machines, us,  have 
> already the right to vote.
>

Then we can worry about it then.
 

>
>
>  
>
>>
>> When the Lutherans will baptize machines?
>>
>
> When will they demand to be baptized?
>
>
> When Lutherans will listen to them, and become sensible to their delicate 
> souls.
>

Lutherans have email addresses. The internet works both ways... 


>
>
>  
>
>>
>> Etc.
>>
>> Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical 
>> mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect 
>> for you.
>>
>
> Not even remotely persuasive to me. Sorry Bruno, but It sounds like you 
> are selling me a pet rock. It's not scientific - has there ever been a case 
> where a universal machine has developed respect for someone? Can a machine 
> tell the difference between respect and disrespect? Nah.
>
>
> In the comp theory we are machines, so all this already happened. You just 
> reiterate your non-comp assumption, presenting it as a truth, but in 
> science we never do that. 
>
>
The theory that non-comp is an assumption is your assumption. When dealing 
with consciousness, we don't have to justify our own non-comp experience to 
a comp conditionality within that experience. Wh

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg 

>
>
> On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg 
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Umm, ever hear of the concept of "Heaven"? It sounds very much
> like a "a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were
> unnecessary".
>

 Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

 Craig


 Hi Craig,

 Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... " 
 classless,
 moneyless, and stateless
  social order  
 structured
  upon common ownership  of
 the means of production,
 as well as a social , 
 political
  and economic  ideology that
 aims at the establishment of this social order".

>>>
>>> When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich
>>> talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like
>>> Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say "we must get rid
>>> of money and class!". All I have ever heard from progressives is "We should
>>> pay teachers more and useless businessmen less." and "We should stop paying
>>> private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless
>>> drug charges". I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies,
>>> and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never -
>>> ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political
>>> context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from
>>> Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.
>>>
>>
>> Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who
>> would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an
>> "anarchist" which means "without hierarchy/authority" not without rules,
>> that is anomie.
>>
>
> What does where I live have to do with anything?
>

Because if you had come to europe, you would have seen people advocating
communism, anarchism, socialism... but you'll had hard time finding
libertarian.

Quentin


> Are you saying that only people who want to see the US paved over and sold
> to WalMart are real Americans? When I say that people I have known are
> anarchists I mean that they have anarchic sympathies - not that they
> advocate a permanent realization of total anarchy.
>
> Craig
>
>
>> Quentin
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Craig
>>>
>>>
>>>  --
 Onward!

 Stephen
 http://webpages.charter.net/**st**ephenk1/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/-/-**We2MSfPkrkJ
>>> .
>>>
>>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@**
>>> googlegroups.com.
>>>
>>> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
>>> group/everything-list?hl=en
>>> .
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
>>
>  --
> 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/-/uL-e1u4uJA8J.
>
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
>
> 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg >
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>>  
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: 

 Hi Craig,

 Umm, ever hear of the concept of "Heaven"? It sounds very much like 
 a "a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were 
 unnecessary".
  
>>>
>>> Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?
>>>
>>> Craig 
>>>  
>>>
>>> Hi Craig,
>>>
>>> Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... " 
>>> classless, 
>>> moneyless, and stateless
>>>  social order  
>>> structured
>>>  upon common ownership  of 
>>> the means of production, 
>>> as well as a social , 
>>> political
>>>  and econom**ic  ideology that 
>>> aims at the establishment of this social order".
>>>
>>
>> When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich 
>> talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like 
>> Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say "we must get rid 
>> of money and class!". All I have ever heard from progressives is "We should 
>> pay teachers more and useless businessmen less." and "We should stop paying 
>> private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless 
>> drug charges". I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, 
>> and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - 
>> ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political 
>> context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from 
>> Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.
>>
>
> Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who 
> would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an 
> "anarchist" which means "without hierarchy/authority" not without rules, 
> that is anomie.
>

What does where I live have to do with anything? Are you saying that only 
people who want to see the US paved over and sold to WalMart are real 
Americans? When I say that people I have known are anarchists I mean that 
they have anarchic sympathies - not that they advocate a permanent 
realization of total anarchy. 

Craig


> Quentin
>  
>
>>
>> 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/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ.
>>
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com
>> .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
>> everything-li...@googlegroups.com .
>> For more options, visit this group at 
>> http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
>

-- 
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/-/uL-e1u4uJA8J.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:30:30 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>
>  Hi Craig,
>
> They never state it explicitly, but it is the logical implication of 
> their arguments.  "We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen 
> less" implies all are paid the same regardless of skill, no? "We should 
> stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on 
> meaningless drug charges" implies? Most people simply don't try to explain 
> their ideologies to themselves or others, whether libertarian, republican, 
> progressive or whatever, they are simply not curious to know. 
>
>
>
It's only the logical implication of their arguments if your logic is that 
there must be some reason why they are wrong to begin with. Paying teaches 
more (than they are paid now 
http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/teacher-salary-data.html) and useless 
businessmen less (than they are paid now 
http://current.com/green/89118297_fortune-500-ceos-relative-to-the-average-wage-in-the-united-states.htm)
 
has nothing to do with all people or skill. It has only to do with 
executives making more and more money without contributing positively to 
anything outside of their own interests. Not imprisoning people for no 
reason implies nothing other than it is a terrible idea to allow people to 
make imprisoning people a for-profit enterprise. 

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/-/WP4beotR9rIJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:05, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

I would answer by saying that even unconscious entities, such as
an immune system,  can enhance life, and so IMHO are good
(moral) while cancer, which tends to deminish life, is bad or evil.


Sure.

Bruno





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-30, 15:03:20
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi Roger

On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Alberto G. Corona

Seeming to be aware is not the same as actually being aware,
just as seeming to be alive is not the same as actually being alive.

And my view is that comp, since it must operate in (objective) code,
can only create entities that might seem to be alive, not actually  
be alive.


Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
which seem to be alive but are not actually so.



The problem is that you cannot know that.

In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness  
to something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to  
something conscious, as that can generate suffering.


There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot  
looking very much like humans.
An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive  
people who might believe that such machine is alive.
He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so  
that they have no problem with such question.


As I said often, the "real" question is not "can machine think", but  
"can your daughter marry a machine" (like a man who did undergone a  
digital brain transplant).


When will machine get the right to vote?

When the Lutherans will baptize machines?

Etc.

Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal  
dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't  
develop respect for you.



Bruno







Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that 　it′s  
functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with  
this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability  
of _being_ aware


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
Hi Alberto G. Corona
　
Awareness = I see X.
　or I am X.
or some similar statement.
　
There's no computer in that　behavior or state of being.
　
　
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Roger,
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is  
that a inner computation can affect an external computation which  
is aware of the consequences of this inner computation.


　　like in the case of any relation of brain and mind,　I do not  
say that this IS 　the experience of awareness, but given the  
duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that  
the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the  
mind experiences awareness


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
Hi Alberto G. Corona
　
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
　
　
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

----- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi:

Awareness can 　be functionally (we do not know if experientially)  
　computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and  
do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real  
time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs  
are called "interpreters".


　The lack of 　understanding, of this capability of  
metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the  
reason why 　it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a  
computer can never do. 　We humans can manage concepts in two  
ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result  
of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation.


For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or  
our intuitions because they are hardwired program

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



Progressivism is another word for Utopianism.
Their utopias sound good but as of yet have never worked,
or worked for long.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
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: 2012-08-30, 14:23:33
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary




On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics: indiividual 
versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus rational etc.  The 
whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we can, under the 
impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or more precisely that 
there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is such crap as the 
separation of facts and values (as if values (and in particular universal 
values) where not social facts).


Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in theoretical 
and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern gnosticism,  called 
progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases, that believes possible 
in a certain future a society with a perfect harmony of individual desires and 
social needs, making moral unnecessary. 

I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left wing 
opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect anything or 
that morals were unnecessary.

 
Craig

-- 
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/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On 30 Aug 2012, at 23:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with
invariants.

in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired
programs.
codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic
program, which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this
is an amazing homogeneity for a single specie).

These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact
in a social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there
are Nash equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of
well being for all withing the constraints of human nature called
nash equilibriums are the moral code.

These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly
according with the social coordinates. They are lines of surface
maximums. These maximums are know by our intuition because we have
suffered social selection, so a knowledge of them are intuitive.
That we have suffered social selection means that the groups of
hominids or the individual hominids whose conducts were away from
the nash equilibriums dissapeared. To be near these equilibriums
was an advantage so we have these hardwired intuitions, that the
greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.

What happens a broad variety of moral behaviours are really the
expression of the same moral code operating in different
circunstances where the optimum has been displaced. There are very
interesting studies, for example in foundational book of
evolutionary psychology "The adapted mind"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind

about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child
in extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would
be at the extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a
affluent society close to ours, the rules are quite "normal". Both
the normal behaviour or the extreme behaviour is created by the same
basic algoritm of individual/social optimization. No matter if we
see this from a dynamic way (contemplating the variations and
extremes) or a static one contemplating a "normal" society, the
moral is a unique, universal rule system. Thanks to the research on
evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game theory, It
is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that await
a development of evolutionary morals

Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of
morality.

I agree with this. But we must not confuse compuational analogies,
which can be inspiring but are analogies only, and the comp
hypothesis, where we bet we digitally truncable at some level. the
second assertion does indeed break many computer analogies, like it
breaks down digital physics, or the idea that consciousness is a
program or a computation.

Bruno

Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on
the anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different
than how the equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines
whether I inhale or exhale.

This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies
and instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a
person or a universe based on this description, what would we get?
Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and
shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found
in the banal evils of game theory.

To understand morals we must look at sense and motive, and how the
association of transgressive motives (criminality) is associated
fairly and unfairly with transgressive sense (images, characters
worthy of disgust, shame, etc). We must understand how super-
signifying images are telegraphed socially through and second-hand
exaggeration and dramatization, of story-telling and parenting,
demagoguery, religious authority, etc. Morality is politics. It is
the subjective topology which elevates and lowers events, objects,
people, places, behaviors, etc so that we enforce our own behavioral
control before outside authorities need to. It isn't only a
mathematical system of rules, it is a visceral drama. Consciousness
computes, but consciousness itself has almost nothing to do with
computation. It is experience. That is all there is.

Consciousness, as a first person experience, is provably not a
computable phenomenon. This is a consequence of comp, not an argument
against it.

One can experience the computation of other experiences, but without
experience, there is no access to computation.

That is arithmetical solipsism, and is wrong in the comp theory.

Bruno

Craig

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03:32 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
which seem to be alive but are not actually so.



The problem is that you cannot know that.

Then you can't know that he can't know that either. Maybe he does  
know it? Maybe he can tell in his bones that this is true? You are  
arbitrarily being conservative in your attribution of the veracity  
of human sense and liberal in your attribution of machine sense.



Oh? may be Hitler knew in his bones that Jewish were a problem. You  
have weird argument.







In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness  
to something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to  
something conscious, as that can generate suffering.


It could generate suffering either way. If an android tells you that  
you can sing and you believe it, you could be brainwashed by an  
advertisement. You could choose to save a machine programmed to yell  
in a fire while other real people burn alive.


I don't see why saving a machine from fire would prevents me to save  
children and woman first, as I feel closer to them. But then if I can,  
after, save a machine, why not. You are the one talking like if you  
knew that machines are forever zombies/puppets.







There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot  
looking very much like humans.
An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive  
people who might believe that such machine is alive.
He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so  
that they have no problem with such question.


As I said often, the "real" question is not "can machine think", but  
"can your daughter marry a machine" (like a man who did undergone a  
digital brain transplant).


When will machine get the right to vote?

When will the machine demand the right to vote?


?
In the year 4024. Perhaps. Or in the year 4024. I don't care. It  
is not relevant for the issue. With the comp theory, some machines,  
us,  have already the right to vote.






When the Lutherans will baptize machines?

When will they demand to be baptized?


When Lutherans will listen to them, and become sensible to their  
delicate souls.







Etc.

Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal  
dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't  
develop respect for you.


Not even remotely persuasive to me. Sorry Bruno, but It sounds like  
you are selling me a pet rock. It's not scientific - has there ever  
been a case where a universal machine has developed respect for  
someone? Can a machine tell the difference between respect and  
disrespect? Nah.


In the comp theory we are machines, so all this already happened. You  
just reiterate your non-comp assumption, presenting it as a truth, but  
in science we never do that.


Bruno





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that 　it′s  
functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with  
this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability  
of _being_ aware


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
Hi Alberto G. Corona
　
Awareness = I see X.
　or I am X.
or some similar statement.
　
There's no computer in that　behavior or state of being.
　
　
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Roger,
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is  
that a inner computation can affect an external computation which  
is aware of the consequences of this inner computation.


　　like in the case of any relation of brain and mind,　I do not  
say that this IS 　the experience of awareness, but given the  
duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that  
the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the  
mind experiences awareness


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
Hi Alberto G. Corona
　
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
　
　
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

----- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Rece

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi Bruno Marchal 

I would answer by saying that even unconscious entities, such as
an immune system,  can enhance life, and so IMHO are good
(moral) while cancer, which tends to deminish life, is bad or evil.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 15:03:20
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Hi Roger


On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Seeming to be aware is not the same as actually being aware,
just as seeming to be alive is not the same as actually being alive.

And my view is that comp, since it must operate in (objective) code,
can only create entities that might seem to be alive, not actually be alive.

Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
which seem to be alive but are not actually so.




The problem is that you cannot know that.


In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to something 
non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something conscious, as 
that can generate suffering.


There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot looking very 
much like humans. 
An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive people who 
might believe that such machine is alive.
He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that they 
have no problem with such question.


As I said often, the "real" question is not "can machine think", but "can your 
daughter marry a machine" (like a man who did undergone a digital brain 
transplant).


When will machine get the right to vote?


When the Lutherans will baptize machines?


Etc.


Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical mirror. 
If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect for you.




Bruno











Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that  it's functionality is 
computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of 
awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
Awareness = I see X.
 or I am X. 
or some similar statement.
 
There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content ----- 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Roger, 
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner 
computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the 
consequences of this inner computation.


  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS 
 the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and 
matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the 
paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness


2012/8/29 Roger Clough  
Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
----- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Hi:


Awareness can  be functionally (we do not know if experientially)  computable. 
A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on 
its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in 
computer science and these programs are called "interpreters". 


 The lack of  understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any 
turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why  it is said that the 
brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do.  We humans can manage 
concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the 
result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. 


For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions 
because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know  
our deep thinking struct

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg 

>
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>
>>  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Craig,
>>>
>>> Umm, ever hear of the concept of "Heaven"? It sounds very much like
>>> a "a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were
>>> unnecessary".
>>>
>>
>> Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... " 
>> classless,
>> moneyless, and stateless 
>>  social order  
>> structured
>>  upon common ownership  of
>> the means of production,
>> as well as a social , 
>> political
>>  and econom**ic  ideology that
>> aims at the establishment of this social order".
>>
>
> When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk
> about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie
> Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say "we must get rid of money
> and class!". All I have ever heard from progressives is "We should pay
> teachers more and useless businessmen less." and "We should stop paying
> private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless
> drug charges". I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies,
> and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never -
> ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political
> context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from
> Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.
>

Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who
would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an
"anarchist" which means "without hierarchy/authority" not without rules,
that is anomie.

Quentin


>
> 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/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ.
>
> 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.
>



-- 
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

-- 
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me  
recommend a distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.   
Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their  
interactions with other people.  They of course tend to overlap  
since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both  
immoral and unethical.  But they are not the same.  If I spent my  
time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself,  
but it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral  
either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral?


In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to  
work.  It's personal.  It doesn't imply that it would be immoral for  
you to not work. But it would be unethical for you to not work and  
to be supported by others.  That's the point of making a distinction  
between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and ethical  
(consistent with social values, 3p).


OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you).
By "OK with you" I mean you are free to use personal definition  
orthogonal to the use of the majority.

By "orthogonal" I mean ...
Hmm...








BTW:
I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and  
smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some  
people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew  
smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies  
early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the  
most prestigious post in the US.


But a single example doesn't tell one much about social policy.  I  
certainly wouldn't conclude that smoking lots of pot will improve  
your academic production.


You are right (in the usual sense of the words).






As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not  
been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize  
that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation  
for study. It is so easy.


Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a  
while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably  
diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or  
that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by  
treating adults like children. I think.


It's also encouraged by being drunk.


True, but I don't see the relevance.

Bruno


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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Stephen P. King


On 8/30/2012 7:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King
wrote:

Hi Craig,

Umm, ever hear of the concept of "Heaven"? It sounds very
much like a "a future society with a perfect anything or that
morals were unnecessary".


Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

Craig


Hi Craig,

Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... "classless
, moneyless,
andstateless
social order
structured
uponcommon
ownership of the
means of production
, as well as
asocial ,political
andeconomic
ideology that aims at the
establishment of this social order".


When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich 
talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists 
like Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say "we must 
get rid of money and class!". All I have ever heard from progressives 
is "We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less." and "We 
should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and 
more people on meaningless drug charges". I have hung out with many 
anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues 
socially throughout my life and have never - ever - heard anyone 
mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. 
Most of what I know about Marxism has come from Libertarians and 
Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.


Craig


Hi Craig,

They never state it explicitly, but it is the logical implication 
of their arguments.  "We should pay teachers more and useless 
businessmen less" implies all are paid the same regardless of skill, no? 
"We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and 
more people on meaningless drug charges" implies? Most people simply 
don't try to explain their ideologies to themselves or others, whether 
libertarian, republican, progressive or whatever, they are simply not 
curious to know.



--
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 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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:04:28 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 8/30/2012 6:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>  
>>>  
>>> If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What 
>>> possible purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of 
>>> experience on top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of 
>>> neurochemical scripts? Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a 
>>> thing is only conceivable in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?
>>>  
>>>
>>> We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's 
>>> random. 
>>>
>>
>> Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write 
>> here, they will never evolve into something that writes by itself.
>>  
>>
>> Exactly. Randomness is more likely to kludge up an adaptation than create 
>> an efficient design from scratch.  Your words don't evolve because they 
>> don't move around and recombine randomly - except in your head.  
>>  
>
> Are you suggesting that if I add a randomizer that the words being spit 
> out will eventually learn to become an author?
>  
>
> That would be necessary but not sufficient.  You'd need an editor (or 
> natural selection) to find something coherent.
>

No, you'd need the possibility of 'coherence' first. Then you would need an 
agent which cares whether something is coherent or not. Then you would need 
that agent to be causally empowered to execute their preference in a 
materially effective way. In other words, you would need an author. Once 
you have an author, then an editor or natural selection could certainly 
introduce specialization and diversification into the quality and quantity 
of authors, but authorship itself has no basis to be considered as a 
possible option to be selected by any means - natural selection, divine 
selection, whatever...not happening. My conclusion is that there is only 
one possible way that consciousness can exist, and that is if nothing else 
has ever existed but consciousness (not human consciousness, obviously, but 
awareness; sense.).

>
>   
>  
>>  Are you an Intelligent Design creationist?
>>
>
> Of course not.
>  
>
> Then why can't you accept that living systems are not designed, don't 
> 'need' be they way they are, are just formed by random variation and 
> natural selection.
>

I'm not talking about the design of specific living systems, I am talking 
about the possibility of order and experience in the first place. These are 
not possible results of arithmetic permutation and probability. Probability 
and evolution themselves are not systems which could have evolved (or 
created). Sense is the ground of being. Probability, order, awareness, 
evolution all occur as a subordinate limited conditionality within sense. 
Not everything evolves. The relation between blue and red doesn't evolve. 
The notion of an omnipotent designer adds nothing for the same reason, it 
doesn't explain itself. If the universe needs a designer then why doesn't 
the designer need a designer.

All you need is sense.

>   
>  
>>  
>>  
>>  
>>>  It takes advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach 
>>> after eating rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff 
>>> like that again.
>>>
>>
>> No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such 
>> thing as 'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree 
>> algorithms. This is what I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a 
>> possibility unless you are looking back on it in hindsight after the fact. 
>> Sure, to you it seems like nausea is a good adaptation, but that's naive 
>> realism. You assume nausea is possible because you have experienced it. 
>>
>>
>> That's not an assumption - that's empiricism.  An assumption would be 
>> that a brain can't instantiate feelings.
>>  
>
> Ok, then you *know* nausea is possible because you have experienced it. 
> That doesn't change the fact that nausea has no business being possible in 
> a universe driven only by bottom up evolution.
>  
>
> IT'S RANDOM!  Having business assumes a goal, foresight.
>

Random within what range? A magic hat of infinite phenomenological 
possibilities? Left, right, nausea, laughter, donkey smoke... just any old 
unexplainable comes into being whenever it is needed? And this is better 
than Creationism how? Randomism. Whatever is clearly 
unexplainable...evolution did it. Goal-lessness itself did it. It is a 
cosmic Willy Wonka of meaningless delights like passion, terror, and misery 
to be randomly attached to the oh-so-important cockroach-like functions of 
survival and reproduction. This is the reason that science never develops 
before religion, because common sense readily exposes it's instrumental 
reasoning as absurd

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 8/30/2012 6:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:




If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What 
possible
purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of 
experience on
top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical 
scripts?
Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only 
conceivable
in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?


We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's 
random.


Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write 
here, they
will never evolve into something that writes by itself.


Exactly. Randomness is more likely to kludge up an adaptation than create an
efficient design from scratch.  Your words don't evolve because they don't 
move
around and recombine randomly - except in your head.


Are you suggesting that if I add a randomizer that the words being spit out will 
eventually learn to become an author?


That would be necessary but not sufficient.  You'd need an editor (or natural selection) 
to find something coherent.




Are you an Intelligent Design creationist?


Of course not.


Then why can't you accept that living systems are not designed, don't 'need' be they way 
they are, are just formed by random variation and natural selection.







It takes advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach 
after
eating rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff like 
that again.


No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such 
thing as
'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree algorithms. 
This is
what I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a possibility unless you are 
looking
back on it in hindsight after the fact. Sure, to you it seems like nausea 
is a good
adaptation, but that's naive realism. You assume nausea is possible because 
you
have experienced it.


That's not an assumption - that's empiricism.  An assumption would be that 
a brain
can't instantiate feelings.


Ok, then you /know/ nausea is possible because you have experienced it. That doesn't 
change the fact that nausea has no business being possible in a universe driven only by 
bottom up evolution.


IT'S RANDOM!  Having business assumes a goal, foresight.





You would have to use evolution to explain the possibility of feeling in 
the first
place, and it cannot.

  So what feeling would work to guide you not harm a child? - how about 
that
'sick at your stomach' feeling.


That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill friendly 
cells.


No it doesn't.  T-cells are not social animals who need to care for their 
young.


T-cells are social organisms who need to care for the other cells of the body. What's 
the difference?


For one the T-cells don't have young.  Their 'feelings' are simple and don't need to rise 
to level of being expressible or to be resolved with conflicting feelings.  You are again 
asking why some biological system 'needs' to be the way it is, as though there is a 
designer who can explain his choice.


Brent

--
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
>
>
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>  
>>  
>> If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible 
>> purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience 
>> on top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical 
>> scripts? Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only 
>> conceivable in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?
>>  
>>
>> We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's 
>> random. 
>>
>
> Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write 
> here, they will never evolve into something that writes by itself.
>  
>
> Exactly. Randomness is more likely to kludge up an adaptation than create 
> an efficient design from scratch.  Your words don't evolve because they 
> don't move around and recombine randomly - except in your head.  
>

Are you suggesting that if I add a randomizer that the words being spit out 
will eventually learn to become an author? Of course 
 

> Are you an Intelligent Design creationist?
>

Of course not. Are you an Darwinian supremacist?
 

>  
>  
>  
>>  It takes advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach 
>> after eating rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff 
>> like that again.
>>
>
> No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such 
> thing as 'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree 
> algorithms. This is what I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a 
> possibility unless you are looking back on it in hindsight after the fact. 
> Sure, to you it seems like nausea is a good adaptation, but that's naive 
> realism. You assume nausea is possible because you have experienced it. 
>
>
> That's not an assumption - that's empiricism.  An assumption would be that 
> a brain can't instantiate feelings.
>

Ok, then you *know* nausea is possible because you have experienced it. 
That doesn't change the fact that nausea has no business being possible in 
a universe driven only by bottom up evolution.


>  You would have to use evolution to explain the possibility of feeling in 
> the first place, and it cannot.
>  
>
>>   So what feeling would work to guide you not harm a child? - how about 
>> that 'sick at your stomach' feeling. 
>>
>>  
> That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill 
> friendly cells. 
>
>
> No it doesn't.  T-cells are not social animals who need to care for their 
> young. 
>

T-cells are social organisms who need to care for the other cells of the 
body. What's the difference?
 

>
>  That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar 
> molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a 
> metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense - 
> everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other way 
> around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other way?
>  
>
> But then you have no way to explain why they feel this instead of that.
>

They feel what makes sense for them to feel in relation to the entirety of 
the cosmos. They feel what it is to experience the thing that they are in 
the context that is meaningful to the history of experiences that have 
developed through them.

Craig
 

>
> Brent
>  

-- 
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/-/rvbmmBIPeYAJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible
purpose
could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience on top
of the
perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical scripts? Don't
you see
that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only conceivable in
hindsight -
after the fact of its existence?

We didn't invent them. They evolved. Evolution has no foresight, it's
random.

Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write here, they will
never evolve into something that writes by itself.

Exactly. Randomness is more likely to kludge up an adaptation than create an efficient
design from scratch. Your words don't evolve because they don't move around and recombine
randomly - except in your head. Are you an Intelligent Design creationist?

It takes advantage of what is available. Feeling sick at your stomach
after eating
rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff like that again.

No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such thing as
'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree algorithms. This is what
I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a possibility unless you are looking back on it
in hindsight after the fact. Sure, to you it seems like nausea is a good adaptation, but
that's naive realism. You assume nausea is possible because you have experienced it.

That's not an assumption - that's empiricism. An assumption would be that a brain can't
instantiate feelings.

You would have to use evolution to explain the possibility of feeling in the first
place, and it cannot.

So what feeling would work to guide you not harm a child? - how about
that 'sick
at your stomach' feeling.

That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill friendly
cells.

No it doesn't. T-cells are not social animals who need to care for their young.

That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar molecules. If you believe
in functionalism, then all feeling is a metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite
makes more sense - everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other
way around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other way?

But then you have no way to explain why they feel this instead of that.

Brent

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible 
> purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience 
> on top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical 
> scripts? Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only 
> conceivable in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?
>  
>
> We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's 
> random. 
>

Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write 
here, they will never evolve into something that writes by itself.

 

> It takes advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach 
> after eating rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff 
> like that again.
>

No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such 
thing as 'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree 
algorithms. This is what I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a 
possibility unless you are looking back on it in hindsight after the fact. 
Sure, to you it seems like nausea is a good adaptation, but that's naive 
realism. You assume nausea is possible because you have experienced it. You 
would have to use evolution to explain the possibility of feeling in the 
first place, and it cannot.
 

>   So what feeling would work to guide you not harm a child? - how about 
> that 'sick at your stomach' feeling. 
>
>
That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill friendly 
cells. That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar 
molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a 
metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense - 
everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other way 
around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other way?

Craig

-- 
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/-/54ZG4n6uzCcJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 8/30/2012 4:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:38:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality.  
Should I
eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the anticipation 
of
statistical probabilities, etc...no different than how the equilibrium of 
oxygen
and CO2 in my blood determines whether I inhale or exhale.


It also depends on what you want.  No decision problem can be solved with values. 
The values that evolved biologically are common and don't change very fast; so it's

a good bet you love your children more than yourself.


It's a good bet to metabolize carbohydrates before protein too, but that doesn't imply 
that a moral dimension could or would be conjured out of nowhere to somehow assist that 
decision.





This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and 
instrumental
knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a universe based 
on this
description, what would we get? Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame 
- the
stigma and shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not 
found in
the banal evils of game theory.


They're found in your the banal neurons of your brain,


Not necessarily. All that we find in neurons so far is molecules. No sign of any 
disgust. We have only our own word to take for the fact that such a thing as disgust 
even exists. TV shows aren't in the banal pixels of a TV screen. The internet isn't in 
my computer.


so they could be part of the morals of a robot if we chose to build it that way. 
From our perspective as citizens in a very diverse and interconnected world of

billions of people, we can see ways in which we might give a robot better, 
more
adaptive, values than biology has given us.

Brent


If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible purpose could 
be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience on top of the perfectly 
efficient and simple execution of neurochemical scripts? Don't you see that the proposed 
usefulness of such a thing is only conceivable in hindsight - after the fact of its 
existence?


We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's random.  It takes 
advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach after eating rotten food is 
a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff like that again.  So what feeling would work 
to guide you not harm a child? - how about that 'sick at your stomach' feeling.


Brent

--
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:38:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>  On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>  
>>  Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of 
> morality.  Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends 
> on the anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different than 
> how the equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines whether I 
> inhale or exhale.
>  
>
> It also depends on what you want.  No decision problem can be solved with 
> values.  The values that evolved biologically are common and don't change 
> very fast; so it's a good bet you love your children more than yourself.
>

It's a good bet to metabolize carbohydrates before protein too, but that 
doesn't imply that a moral dimension could or would be conjured out of 
nowhere to somehow assist that decision.
 

>
>  
> This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and 
> instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a 
> universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the 
> revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the deep and 
> violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game 
> theory. 
>  
>
> They're found in your the banal neurons of your brain, 
>

Not necessarily. All that we find in neurons so far is molecules. No sign 
of any disgust. We have only our own word to take for the fact that such a 
thing as disgust even exists. TV shows aren't in the banal pixels of a TV 
screen. The internet isn't in my computer.
 

> so they could be part of the morals of a robot if we chose to build it 
> that way.  From our perspective as citizens in a very diverse and 
> interconnected world of billions of people, we can see ways in which we 
> might give a robot better, more adaptive, values than biology has given us.
>
> Brent
>

If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible 
purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience 
on top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical 
scripts? Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only 
conceivable in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?

Craig 

-- 
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/-/27rt0ahEiUwJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
>  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>  
>
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: 
>>
>> Hi Craig,
>>
>> Umm, ever hear of the concept of "Heaven"? It sounds very much like a 
>> "a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary".
>>  
>
> Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?
>
> Craig 
>  
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... " 
> classless, 
> moneyless, and stateless  
> social 
> order  
> structured
>  upon common ownership  of 
> the means of production , 
> as well as a social , 
> political
>  and economic  ideology that aims 
> at the establishment of this social order".
>

When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk 
about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie 
Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say "we must get rid of money 
and class!". All I have ever heard from progressives is "We should pay 
teachers more and useless businessmen less." and "We should stop paying 
private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless 
drug charges". I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, 
and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - 
ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political 
context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from 
Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.

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/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.

in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired
programs.

codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic program,
which
incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an amazing
homogeneity for a
single specie).

These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a
social
environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash
equilibriums among
these human players. These optimums of well being for all withing the
constraints of
human nature called nash equilibriums are the moral code.

In general they are not Nash equilibra. Evolution doesn't settle on Nash equilibra
because in many cases they are unstable for finitely repeated games, c.f. Ginitis "Bounds
of Reason".

These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according with
the
social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These maximums are
know by
our intuition because we have suffered social selection, so a knowledge of
them are
intuitive. That we have suffered social selection means that the groups of
hominids
or the individual hominids whose conducts were away from the nash
equilibriums
dissapeared. To be near these equilibriums was an advantage so we have
these
hardwired intuitions, that the greeks called Nous and the chistians call
soul.

That doesn't seem like something individual that will survive dissolution of
the body.

What happens a broad variety of moral behaviours are really the expression
of the
same moral code operating in different circunstances where the optimum has
been
displaced. There are very interesting studies, for example in foundational
book of
evolutionary psychology "The adapted mind"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind

about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in
extreme cases
(In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the extreme of
the social
spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close to ours, the rules
are quite
"normal". Both the normal behaviour or the extreme behaviour is created by
the same
basic algoritm of individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this
from a
dynamic way (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one
contemplating a "normal" society, the moral is a unique, universal rule
system.
Thanks to the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science
and game
theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that
await a
development of evolutionary morals

I don't think biological evolution has been nearly fast enough to give us hardwired ethics
suited to modern industrial nation states. That's why diverse cultures have evolved;
Different ways of trying to satisfy the moral instincts that evolved for life in a small
tribe. In theory the interaction of these cultures would eventually pick a winner
(cultural selection), but in practice technology and other factors (e.g. global warming,
oil depletion, war) may change things on a much shorter time scale.

Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality. Should I eat
my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the anticipation of statistical
probabilities, etc...no different than how the equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood
determines whether I inhale or exhale.

It also depends on what you want. No decision problem can be solved with values. The
values that evolved biologically are common and don't change very fast; so it's a good bet
you love your children more than yourself.

This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and instrumental
knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a universe based on this
description, what would we get? Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma
and shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal
evils of game theory.

They're found in your the banal neurons of your brain, so they could be part of the morals
of a robot if we chose to build it that way. From our perspective as citizens in a very
diverse and interconnected world of billions of people, we can see ways in which we might
give a robot better, more adaptive, values than biology has given us.

Brent

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Stephen P. King


On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Craig,

Umm, ever hear of the concept of "Heaven"? It sounds very much
like a "a future society with a perfect anything or that morals
were unnecessary".


Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

Craig


Hi Craig,

Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... "classless 
, moneyless, 
andstateless social 
order structured 
uponcommon 
ownership of the means of 
production , as well 
as asocial ,political 
andeconomic 
ideology that aims at the 
establishment of this social order".


--
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 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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> Umm, ever hear of the concept of "Heaven"? It sounds very much like a 
> "a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary".
>

Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

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/-/4uOV61ss6poJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Stephen P. King


On 8/30/2012 2:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional
versus rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world
as much as we can, under the impression that moral is subjective
and not objetive, or more precisely that there is no moral that
can be objective.  An there is such crap as the separation of
facts and values (as if values (and in particular universal
values) where not social facts).

Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed
in theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of
 modern gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is
one of the phases, that believes possible in a certain future a
society with a perfect harmony of individual desires and social
needs, making moral unnecessary.


I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left 
wing opinions state that they believe in a future society with a 
perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary.


Craig

Hi Craig,

Umm, ever hear of the concept of "Heaven"? It sounds very much like 
a "a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were 
unnecessary".


--
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 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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.
>
>  in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired 
> programs. 
>
codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic program, 
> which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an amazing 
> homogeneity for a single specie).
>
> These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a 
> social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash 
> equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for 
> all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are 
> the moral code. 
>
> These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according with 
> the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These maximums 
> are know by our intuition because we have suffered social selection, so a 
> knowledge of them are intuitive.  That we have suffered social selection 
> means that the groups of hominids or the individual hominids whose conducts 
> were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared.  To be near these 
> equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired intuitions, that 
> the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.
>
> What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the 
> expression of the same moral code operating in different circunstances 
> where the optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies, 
> for example in foundational book of evolutionary psychology "The adapted 
> mind"  
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind 
>
> about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in 
> extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the 
> extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close 
> to ours, the rules are quite "normal". Both the normal behaviour or the 
> extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of 
> individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way 
> (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a 
> "normal" society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system.  Thanks to 
> the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game 
> theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that 
> await  a development of evolutionary morals
>
>  
Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality.  
Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the 
anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different than how the 
equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines whether I inhale or 
exhale.

This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and 
instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a 
universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the 
revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the deep and 
violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game 
theory. 

To understand morals we must look at sense and motive, and how the 
association of transgressive motives (criminality) is associated fairly and 
unfairly with transgressive sense (images, characters worthy of disgust, 
shame, etc). We must understand how super-signifying images are telegraphed 
socially through and second-hand exaggeration and dramatization, of 
story-telling and parenting, demagoguery, religious authority, etc. 
Morality is politics. It is the subjective topology which elevates and 
lowers events, objects, people, places, behaviors, etc so that we enforce 
our own behavioral control before outside authorities need to. It isn't 
only a mathematical system of rules, it is a visceral drama. Consciousness 
computes, but consciousness itself has almost nothing to do with 
computation. It is experience. That is all there is. One can experience the 
computation of other experiences, but without experience, there is no 
access to computation.
 
 Craig

-- 
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/-/5ukgWqsvjuUJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.

 in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired
programs. codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic
program, which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an
amazing homogeneity for a single specie).

These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a
social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash
equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for
all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are
the moral code.

These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according with
the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These maximums
are know by our intuition because we have suffered social selection, so a
knowledge of them are intuitive.  That we have suffered social selection
means that the groups of hominids or the individual hominids whose conducts
were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared.  To be near these
equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired intuitions, that
the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.

What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the expression
of the same moral code operating in different circunstances where the
optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies, for example
in foundational book of evolutionary psychology "The adapted mind"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind

about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in
extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the
extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close
to ours, the rules are quite "normal". Both the normal behaviour or the
extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of
individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way
(contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a
"normal" society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system.  Thanks to
the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game
theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that
await  a development of evolutionary morals

2012/8/30 meekerdb 

>  On 8/30/2012 11:01 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
> indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
> rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
> can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
> more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
> such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
> particular universal values) where not social facts).
>
>
> That some societies value the education of women and some value their
> ignorance are both certainly facts.
>
>
>
>  Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
> theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
> gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
> that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
> perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
> unnecessary. They also believe that the current social reality is a
> demiurgic creation of repressive social forces that hinder an era
> of Wisdom and Peace
>
>  But this is impossible. Not only it is against judeochristian
> traditions, but against the theorical basis of the progressive ideology:
> the theory of evolution (natural selection). Men are social individuals and
> therefore moral is deep in his hardwired (instintive) nature, as multilevel
> selection theory can demonstrate.
>
>
> All the above is an example of using 'moral' where 'ethics' would be more
> accurate.  Morals (standards of self-evaluations) are subjective even
> though some of them are hardwired by evolution, ethics are intersubjective
> (standards of public, social evaluation) even though some of them are
> selected by cultural evolution.
>
> I would ask Alberto how he defines "morals" and "ethics".  Are they
> rules?  feelings?  opinions?  what?
>
> The point is not to separate them, in the sense of eliminating overlap,
> but to recognize that ethics and morals are not coextensive and it is often
> useful to distinguish them.  Many people believe it is immoral not to
> worship God in church on Sunday - and as an evaluation of their own
> behavoir that's fine.  But that doesn't mean it is unethical to think
> differently or that public policy should force or encourage church
> attendance (as it did in earlier times).
>
> Brent
>
>
>
>  So let´s call moral what is: moral.
>
> 2012/8/30 Bruno Marchal 
>
>>
>>  On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:
>>
>>  From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me
>> recommend a d

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Anyway this is tangential to the everything list, so I will not continue
discussions like this. I will only highlight these fact whenever the
question sufaces from other subjects, such is individuality.

2012/8/30 Alberto G. Corona 

> So you haven´t lived in the XX century perhaps.
>
> 2012/8/30 Craig Weinberg 
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>>
>>> I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
>>> indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
>>> rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
>>> can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
>>> more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
>>> such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
>>> particular universal values) where not social facts).
>>>
>>> Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
>>> theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
>>> gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
>>> that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
>>> perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
>>> unnecessary.
>>>
>>
>> I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left
>> wing opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect
>> anything or that morals were unnecessary.
>>
>>
>> Craig
>>
>>  --
>> 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/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ.
>>
>> 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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

So you haven´t lived in the XX century perhaps.

2012/8/30 Craig Weinberg 

>
>
> On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>
>> I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
>> indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
>> rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
>> can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
>> more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
>> such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
>> particular universal values) where not social facts).
>>
>> Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
>> theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
>> gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
>> that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
>> perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
>> unnecessary.
>>
>
> I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left wing
> opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect
> anything or that morals were unnecessary.
>
>
> Craig
>
>  --
> 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/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ.
>
> 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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03:32 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
> which seem to be alive but are not actually so.
>
>
>
> The problem is that you cannot know that.
>

Then you can't know that he can't know that either. Maybe he does know it? 
Maybe he can tell in his bones that this is true? You are arbitrarily being 
conservative in your attribution of the veracity of human sense and liberal 
in your attribution of machine sense.
 

>
> In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to 
> something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something 
> conscious, as that can generate suffering.
>

It could generate suffering either way. If an android tells you that you 
can sing and you believe it, you could be brainwashed by an advertisement. 
You could choose to save a machine programmed to yell in a fire while other 
real people burn alive.
 

>
> There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot looking 
> very much like humans. 
> An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive people 
> who might believe that such machine is alive.
> He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that 
> they have no problem with such question.
>
> As I said often, the "real" question is not "can machine think", but "can 
> your daughter marry a machine" (like a man who did undergone a digital 
> brain transplant).
>
> When will machine get the right to vote?
>

When will the machine demand the right to vote?
 

>
> When the Lutherans will baptize machines?
>

When will they demand to be baptized?
 

>
> Etc.
>
> Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical 
> mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect 
> for you.
>

Not even remotely persuasive to me. Sorry Bruno, but It sounds like you are 
selling me a pet rock. It's not scientific - has there ever been a case 
where a universal machine has developed respect for someone? Can a machine 
tell the difference between respect and disrespect? Nah.

Craig


>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>  
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
> 8/29/2012 
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
> everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content - 
> *From:* Alberto G. Corona  
> *Receiver:* everything-list  
> *Time:* 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
> *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
>
>  I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that it′s functionality is 
> computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of 
> awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware
>
> 2012/8/29 Roger Clough >
>
>>  Hi Alberto G. Corona 
>>  Awareness = I see X.
>>  or I am X. 
>> or some similar statement.
>>  There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.
>>Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 
>> 8/29/2012 
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
>> everything could function."
>>
>>  - Receiving the following content - 
>> *From:* Alberto G. Corona  
>> *Receiver:* everything-list  
>> *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
>> *Subject:* Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
>>  
>>  Roger, 
>> I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a 
>> inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the 
>> consequences of this inner computation.
>>
>>  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that 
>> this IS the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and 
>> matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in 
>> the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness
>>
>> 2012/8/29 Roger Clough > 
>>
>>>  Hi Alberto G. Corona 
>>>  What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
>>> It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
>>> way to hook it to my brain.
>>>Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 
>>> 8/29/2012 
>>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
>>> everything could function."
>>>
>>>  - Receiving the following content - 
>>> *From:* Alberto G. Corona  
>>> *Receiver:* everything-list  
>>> *Time:* 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
>>> *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
>>>
>>>   Hi:
>&g

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


Hi Roger

On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Alberto G. Corona

Seeming to be aware is not the same as actually being aware,
just as seeming to be alive is not the same as actually being alive.

And my view is that comp, since it must operate in (objective) code,
can only create entities that might seem to be alive, not actually  
be alive.


Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
which seem to be alive but are not actually so.



The problem is that you cannot know that.

In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to  
something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to  
something conscious, as that can generate suffering.


There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot  
looking very much like humans.
An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive  
people who might believe that such machine is alive.
He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so  
that they have no problem with such question.


As I said often, the "real" question is not "can machine think", but  
"can your daughter marry a machine" (like a man who did undergone a  
digital brain transplant).


When will machine get the right to vote?

When the Lutherans will baptize machines?

Etc.

Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal  
dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't  
develop respect for you.



Bruno







Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that 　it′s  
functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with  
this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability  
of _being_ aware


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
Hi Alberto G. Corona
　
Awareness = I see X.
　or I am X.
or some similar statement.
　
There's no computer in that　behavior or state of being.
　
　
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Roger,
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is  
that a inner computation can affect an external computation which is  
aware of the consequences of this inner computation.


　　like in the case of any relation of brain and mind,　I do not  
say that this IS 　the experience of awareness, but given the  
duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the  
brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind  
experiences awareness


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
Hi Alberto G. Corona
　
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
　
　
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -----
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi:

Awareness can 　be functionally (we do not know if experientially)  
　computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and  
do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real  
time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs  
are called "interpreters".


　The lack of 　understanding, of this capability of  
metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the  
reason why 　it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a  
computer can never do. 　We humans can manage concepts in two ways :  
a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an  
analysis of the first trough a metacomputation.


For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our  
intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted  
programs. We can not know 　our deep thinking structures because  
they are not exposed as metacomputations. When we use　metaphorically 
　the verb "to be fired" 　to mean being redundant, we are using  
category theory but we can not be aware of it. 　Only after research  
that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of  
humans, we can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired  
metacomputation.


The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a  
woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces  
this int

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:54, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Not only to lie. In order  to commerce and in general to interact,  
we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know  
what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in  
order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material  
expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of  
reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning..


I agree, and it is plausibly related to the origin of self- 
consciousness.
But consciousness itself is also plausibly more primitive. You don't  
need another to feel pain, but you might still need two universal  
machines in front of each other, and some other one (the computable  
part of the probable environment). Perhaps.


Bruno





2012/8/29 meekerdb 
But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.   
That's why something having human like intelligence and  
consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in  
it's environment.  Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is  
an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for  
almost everything we do.  Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did  
not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter- 
tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie.


Brent


On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that  
you perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information  
"craig says that he perceive"..


From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith

What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the  
same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from  
my side.


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
Hi Alberto G. Corona

The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.

For example, consider:

"I see the cat."Here:

I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.

When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is  
personal, as are all subjective

states and all experiences.

However, when he afterwards vocalizes "I see the cat", he has  
translated the experience
into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal  
experience into a

publicly accessible statement.

All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in  
words are objective.

Any statement is then objective.

Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are  
objective,
so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is  
wordless (codeless).



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 
On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
the subject 　is preceived as singular because it has memory. It  
has memory because it is   
intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs  
memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others.


Hi Albert,

　　　 Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content  
of memory and how it is sequentially ordered　 that matters. "I am  
what I remember myself to be."



in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted  
computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this  
metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about  
the moral Albert that others see on me.


This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same  
life of ourselves.


　　　 No, because we could never know that for sure. It is  
singular in the sense of "only I can know what it is like to be me"  
is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I  
cannot know what it is like to be you.


That′s why this uniqueness is not 　essential

But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed  
to other ourselves. 　Most twins consider each other another self.  
We 　could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently  
created clones. Although this　probably　will never happen.


　　　 Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it  
might occur. There is something important to this!


This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of  
uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person  
indeterminacy). 　But probably the cloning machine would never  
exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 
On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
　
I agree.
　
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
　
Cs = subject + object
　
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On 8/30/2012 11:01 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics: indiividual versus
social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus rational etc. The whole point is to
obviate the m*** world as much as we can, under the impression that moral is subjective
and not objetive, or more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective. An
there is such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
particular universal values) where not social facts).

That some societies value the education of women and some value their ignorance are both
certainly facts.

Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in theoretical and
practical terms. It is a consequence also of modern gnosticism, called progressivism
of which positivism is one of the phases, that believes possible in a certain future a
society with a perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
unnecessary. They also believe that the current social reality is a demiurgic creation
of repressive social forces that hinder an era of Wisdom and Peace

But this is impossible. Not only it is against judeochristian traditions, but against
the theorical basis of the progressive ideology: the theory of evolution (natural
selection). Men are social individuals and therefore moral is deep in his hardwired
(instintive) nature, as multilevel selection theory can demonstrate.

All the above is an example of using 'moral' where 'ethics' would be more accurate.
Morals (standards of self-evaluations) are subjective even though some of them are
hardwired by evolution, ethics are intersubjective (standards of public, social
evaluation) even though some of them are selected by cultural evolution.

I would ask Alberto how he defines "morals" and "ethics". Are they rules? feelings?
opinions? what?

The point is not to separate them, in the sense of eliminating overlap, but to recognize
that ethics and morals are not coextensive and it is often useful to distinguish them.
Many people believe it is immoral not to worship God in church on Sunday - and as an
evaluation of their own behavoir that's fine. But that doesn't mean it is unethical to
think differently or that public policy should force or encourage church attendance (as it
did in earlier times).

Brent

So let´s call moral what is: moral.

2012/8/30 Bruno Marchal mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be>>

On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a
distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and
what I
hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of
course
tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so
it's both
immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time
smoking pot
and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.

I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either.
Disappointing,
yes, but immoral?

BTW:
I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke
pot, and
then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work
very well.
The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening,
everyday,
since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the
most
prestigious post in the US.

As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been
allowed for
justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to
lie to
themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy.

Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the
number of
car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the
real culprit
is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is
encouraged by
treating adults like children. I think.

Bruno

On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need
to know
what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect
form
me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of
the moral
and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of
reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning..

2012/8/29 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>
> I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics: 
> indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus 
> rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we 
> can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or 
> more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is 
> such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in 
> particular universal values) where not social facts).
>
> Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in 
> theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern 
> gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases, 
> that believes possible in a certain future a society with a 
> perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral 
> unnecessary. 
>

I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left wing 
opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect 
anything or that morals were unnecessary.

 
Craig

-- 
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/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
particular universal values) where not social facts).

Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
unnecessary. They also believe that the current social reality is a
demiurgic creation of repressive social forces that hinder an era
of Wisdom and Peace

But this is impossible. Not only it is against judeochristian traditions,
but against the theorical basis of the progressive ideology: the theory of
evolution (natural selection). Men are social individuals and therefore
moral is deep in his hardwired (instintive) nature, as multilevel selection
theory can demonstrate.

So let´s call moral what is: moral.

2012/8/30 Bruno Marchal 

>
> On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:
>
>  From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend
> a distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.  Ethics is what I do and
> what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people.
> They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat
> someone, so it's both immoral and unethical.  But they are not the same.
> If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in
> myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.
>
>
> I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either.
> Disappointing, yes, but immoral?
>
> BTW:
> I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke
> pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot
> and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early
> morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who
> published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US.
>
> As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been
> allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were
> using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy.
>
> Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the
> number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot,
> because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but
> irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I
> think.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> Not only to lie. In order  to commerce and in general to interact, we need
> to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the
> others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in
> the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have
> about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral
> from the beginning..
>
> 2012/8/29 meekerdb 
>
>>  But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.
>> That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must
>> be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment.
>> Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of
>> subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do.
>> Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern
>> sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important
>> to learn to lie.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> --
> 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.
>

-- 
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 
every

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a
distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope
other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to
overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and
unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working
I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.

I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes,
but immoral?

In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to work. It's personal. It
doesn't imply that it would be immoral for you to not work. But it would be unethical for
you to not work and to be supported by others. That's the point of making a distinction
between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and ethical (consistent with social
values, 3p).

BTW:
I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then
blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only
researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early
childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US.

But a single example doesn't tell one much about social policy. I certainly wouldn't
conclude that smoking lots of pot will improve your academic production.

As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for
justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to
themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy.

Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car
accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not
this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating
adults like children. I think.

It's also encouraged by being drunk.

Brent

Bruno

On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know
what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me.
So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and
material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective
individuality, that is moral from the beginning..

2012/8/29 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's
why
something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot,
something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily
speaking,
conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is
responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that
humans did
not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal
commerce and it became important to learn to lie.

Brent

--
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me
recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics
is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their
interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap
since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both
immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my
time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but
it wouldn't be unethical.

I'm not sure I understand. "not working" wouldn't be immoral either.
Disappointing, yes, but immoral?

BTW:
I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and
smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people
smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot
from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood,
was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post
in the US.

As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not
been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that
they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for
study. It is so easy.

Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while
the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a
lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior,
but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like
children. I think.

Bruno

On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact,
we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to
know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself
in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material
expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of
reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning..

2012/8/29 meekerdb
But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.
That's why something having human like intelligence and
consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in
it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is
an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for
almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did
not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in
inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie.

Brent

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

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

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

>
> Hi Craig,
>
> You are on fire today! Nice! I like this real world example, but I am 
> a bit fuzzy on how you are seeing it. Let me do my interpretation/reaction 
> and see where it takes us. The "lack of recognition" is something important 
> as it can show us how bisimulations are almost never a single step process. 
> More often than not we have to go through several steps to, for this 
> instance, knowing what the cool shoe is. This implies that more resources 
> are required for strange objects to be recognized as opposed to fewer 
> resources to recognize the familiar ones.
>
>
I could go either way on the resource issue. In practice, trying to read 
Chinese takes more resources if I try to read it or perhaps if I am 
frustrated and trying to suppress my trying to read it. If I ignore the 
Chinese instead, then of course it uses less resources. When this happens 
at a lower level of my perception, I may not really even see the Chinese 
characters as something worth looking at. You may be talking about a more 
defined 'information processing' view though.

>  
> This same principle is what we are dealing with in our conception of 
> matter and space. We have to rely on the reports of our body to us about 
> its world. We are getting a consensus of organs, tissues, cells, molecules 
> and coming up with an anthropologically-appropriate sense of scale and 
> space. Now we have extended those body reports to include other instruments 
> which give us a prosthetic enhancement to our sense of scale and space into 
> the microcosm and macro-universe.
>  
> 
> Sure.
>
>
>  
> This extension has given us a peek behind our direct range of space and 
> scale and into realms of unexpected unities (quantum entanglement for 
> example, particle/wave duality, vacuum flux, etc) so that we are getting 
> more of an insider's view of the universe that we are not directly inside 
> of.
>  
>
> Umm, this is wandering off topic a little. The pointed question is how 
> does the duality on each individual maps between many such individuals? 
> This is how interaction, IMHO, is to be represented. 
>

What I am trying to say is that while it is necessary for us to feel each 
finger as a part of our hand, each finger does not have to model its 
neighboring fingers because they are all part of the same hand. It's one 
consciousness that is being all limbs, fingers, and toes at the same time. 

What I'm saying about space though is that ultimately there is no models 
being simulated, it is the particular definition of the separation which is 
being simulated. We are the hand on the inside but when we look out, all we 
see are separate fingers. In the absolute sense, nothing is separate, only 
diffracted. Our entire existence is partially diverged-converging, and 
partially converged-diverging.

The point about QM is important because the mutual commutativity rule is 
> very important! For a given set of interacting/measuring/observing 
> entities, their set of incontrovertible facts is strictly limited to 
> observables in mutually commuting bases. For example, I cannot measure 
> position data of a set of electrons and you measure momentum data on the 
> "same set of electrons" if there is the possibility that we can share data. 
> Mutual commutativity acts as a filter on what is "the same" 3p object. It 
> is interesting to note that classical physics assumes that all observable 
> bases commute... Newton et al never considered saw the need to consider the 
> non-commutative case.
>
> I think that the whole standard model is, in an absolute sense, 
> inside-out. Electrons are not particles but sensitivity modes which seem 
> particulate to our instruments because we are using their exteriors 
> specifically to externalize/objectify the events. QM measures that 
> objectification of matter interacting with itself from the outside.
>
 

>  
> As for mapping components onto each other's frames, the frames are already 
> the manifestation of all components separation from unity with each other.
>
>
> Yes, that's true, but there is more detail to how the separation goes. 
> There is something like a path and a "distance" between them and unity that 
> can be exploited. My thought is that the path might be defined on the graph 
> of all of the components relative to each other. From my research these 
> graphs are ultrametric and non-archimedean in the absolute sense, so the 
> usual graph ideas don't quite apply. This article explains the critical 
> difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Archimedean_time The trick 
> is the inclusion of event horizons that act to hide the infinitely distance 
> parts. This shows up as limited "forgetfulness" of residuation in Pratt's 
> dualism  idea.
>
>
I'm not sure if I am getting the non-Archimedean concept. It sounds like a 
Zeno paradox which divides time instead of space. My view of space is that 
it e

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread meekerdb

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction.
Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will
do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will
be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are
not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in
myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.

Brent

On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what
to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I
have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material
expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality,
that is moral from the beginning..

2012/8/29 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>

But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's
why
something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot,
something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily
speaking,
conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is
responsible
for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not
become
conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce
and it
became important to learn to lie.

Brent

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 8/29/2012 3:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:24:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Craig

But what you are saying here is true for each and every
individual observer; it is a 1p duality, along the lines of a
figure/frame relation. We have to consider multiple observers,
each with this property and see how components , in the
entanglement frame, in one observer, A maps onto a component in
the spatial frame of observer B and vise versa.


Hi Stephen,

I am thinking that it's like this. As an outsider to the Chinese 
language, I can't recognize the significance of the difference between 
one character or word and another. As an outsider to the world of 
modern kids, I can't recognize the difference between one brand of toy 
and another or one style of shoe and another. The information entropy 
is high. It seems like I could substitute any new shoe and it should 
serve the same purpose - but of course, that's because I'm not young 
and cool so I don't know what is cool. I have to take the kids word 
for it.


Hi Craig,

You are on fire today! Nice! I like this real world example, but I 
am a bit fuzzy on how you are seeing it. Let me do my 
interpretation/reaction and see where it takes us. The "lack of 
recognition" is something important as it can show us how bisimulations 
are almost never a single step process. More often than not we have to 
go through several steps to, for this instance, knowing what the cool 
shoe is. This implies that more resources are required for strange 
objects to be recognized as opposed to fewer resources to recognize the 
familiar ones.




This same principle is what we are dealing with in our conception of 
matter and space. We have to rely on the reports of our body to us 
about its world. We are getting a consensus of organs, tissues, cells, 
molecules and coming up with an anthropologically-appropriate sense of 
scale and space. Now we have extended those body reports to include 
other instruments which give us a prosthetic enhancement to our sense 
of scale and space into the microcosm and macro-universe.


Sure.



This extension has given us a peek behind our direct range of space 
and scale and into realms of unexpected unities (quantum entanglement 
for example, particle/wave duality, vacuum flux, etc) so that we are 
getting more of an insider's view of the universe that we are not 
directly inside of.


Umm, this is wandering off topic a little. The pointed question is 
how does the duality on each individual maps between many such 
individuals? This is how interaction, IMHO, is to be represented. The 
point about QM is important because the mutual commutativity rule is 
very important! For a given set of interacting/measuring/observing 
entities, their set of incontrovertible facts is strictly limited to 
observables in mutually commuting bases. For example, I cannot measure 
position data of a set of electrons and you measure momentum data on the 
"same set of electrons" if there is the possibility that we can share 
data. Mutual commutativity acts as a filter on what is "the same" 3p 
object. It is interesting to note that classical physics assumes that 
all observable bases commute... Newton et al never considered saw the 
need to consider the non-commutative case.




As for mapping components onto each other's frames, the frames are 
already the manifestation of all components separation from unity with 
each other.


Yes, that's true, but there is more detail to how the separation 
goes. There is something like a path and a "distance" between them and 
unity that can be exploited. My thought is that the path might be 
defined on the graph of all of the components relative to each other. 
From my research these graphs are ultrametric and non-archimedean in 
the absolute sense, so the usual graph ideas don't quite apply. This 
article explains the critical difference: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Archimedean_time The trick is the 
inclusion of event horizons that act to hide the infinitely distance 
parts. This shows up as limited "forgetfulness" of residuation in 
Pratt's dualism  idea.


Like tickling yourself doesn't work because on some level you know 
exactly when you are going to try to tickle yourself. It isn't that 
you have a model of a tickler of people and a tickled person and they 
interfere with each other when you try to tickle yourself - there 
isn't any model at all. When someone tickles you it is precisely 
because you can't anticipate their action that the sensation of being 
tickled becomes possible.


Right, but consider the schizophrenic that is operating out of 
synch between his hand movements and his perceptions of the sensations. 
He would be able to convincingly "tickle himself" but not recognize that 
those are his hands that are doing the tickling.




Space is like that. It is matter being tickled by matter that is not 
itself.


N

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:24:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:
>
> Hi Craig
>
> But what you are saying here is true for each and every individual 
> observer; it is a 1p duality, along the lines of a figure/frame relation. 
> We have to consider multiple observers, each with this property and see how 
> components , in the entanglement frame, in one observer, A maps onto a 
> component in the spatial frame of observer B and vise versa.
>

Hi Stephen,

I am thinking that it's like this. As an outsider to the Chinese language, 
I can't recognize the significance of the difference between one character 
or word and another. As an outsider to the world of modern kids, I can't 
recognize the difference between one brand of toy and another or one style 
of shoe and another. The information entropy is high. It seems like I could 
substitute any new shoe and it should serve the same purpose - but of 
course, that's because I'm not young and cool so I don't know what is cool. 
I have to take the kids word for it.

This same principle is what we are dealing with in our conception of matter 
and space. We have to rely on the reports of our body to us about its 
world. We are getting a consensus of organs, tissues, cells, molecules and 
coming up with an anthropologically-appropriate sense of scale and space. 
Now we have extended those body reports to include other instruments which 
give us a prosthetic enhancement to our sense of scale and space into the 
microcosm and macro-universe.

This extension has given us a peek behind our direct range of space and 
scale and into realms of unexpected unities (quantum entanglement for 
example, particle/wave duality, vacuum flux, etc) so that we are getting 
more of an insider's view of the universe that we are not directly inside 
of.

As for mapping components onto each other's frames, the frames are already 
the manifestation of all components separation from unity with each other. 
Like tickling yourself doesn't work because on some level you know exactly 
when you are going to try to tickle yourself. It isn't that you have a 
model of a tickler of people and a tickled person and they interfere with 
each other when you try to tickle yourself - there isn't any model at all. 
When someone tickles you it is precisely because you can't anticipate their 
action that the sensation of being tickled becomes possible. 

Space is like that. It is matter being tickled by matter that is not 
itself. It might experience it as some sound or feeling or something we 
can't understand, but whatever it is that atoms experience on that level, 
or bodies of atoms experience on another level, is what we see, feel, and 
understand on our level as space or place relations.

It's like that example of the parking lot full of shiny cars. Each chrome 
edge and corner shining is not a separate simulation of the sun, it is a 
single presentation of the sense that arises out of your relation to the 
sun and the cars. It is a specular sharing of sense, not a mechanical 
instantiation.

Craig

-- 
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/-/M1PQhJvQA0kJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 8/29/2012 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:23:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Craig,

What is the difference between the two? Ultimately, what we
are talking about is just that set of fact that is
incontrovertible among us.


I think the difference is that if we assume expansion then we have to 
assume an infinite unexplained plenum of space, whereas if we assume 
expansion of ratios between sensible nodes, then there need not be any 
plenum and space becomes nothing but information entropy - a gap 
between perceptual frames. If you are a native of one frame, you see 
space, if you are the native of another frame, there is 'entanglement' 
(i.e. pre-space reflection of node unity).


Craig

Hi Craig

But what you are saying here is true for each and every individual 
observer; it is a 1p duality, along the lines of a figure/frame 
relation. We have to consider multiple observers, each with this 
property and see how components , in the entanglement frame, in one 
observer, A maps onto a component in the spatial frame of observer B and 
vise versa.


--
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 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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:45:16 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
>
>  
> Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
> which seem to be alive but are not actually so.
>  
>
Exactly. I don't call them zombies though, because zombie implies a 
negative affirmation of life. They are puppets. They have no pretensions to 
being alive, that is our conceit - a Pinocchio fallacy. When we act on the 
assumptions of that fallacy, we have been warned about the two 
possibilities:

Frankenstein or HAL (Golem or demon).

Frankenstein is the embodiment of physicalism or material functionalism, 
the functional inversion of body as re-animated corpse.

HAL is the embodiment of computationalism or digital functionalism, the 
functional inversion of mind as disembodied self.

Both are the result of our confusion in trying to internalize externalized 
appearances. We wind up with the false images - an outsiders view of 
interiority. It's a category error. Cart before the horse.

I agree with Brent as far as an empirical approach to consciousness (robots 
building models from environmental test results) is superior to a rational 
approach (front loading logical models to be adapted to fit real 
environments) but both ultimately fail to locate awareness of any kind. 
There is awareness in a robot or computer, but it is the awareness of 
inanimate matter (which is what makes us able to script and control it in 
the first place). We exist on that level too - we are matter also, but the 
particular matter that we are has a different history which gives it the 
capacity to send and receive on a much broader spectrum of sense than just 
the inorganic spectrum.

Craig

-- 
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/-/zevWLAq0pYgJ.
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.

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi meekerdb 

By "words" I include "computer code." My position is that
nothing implemented or carried out in computer code can
be conscious, since consciousness is subjective, meaning personal,
unexpressed in code or words.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:47:46
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.  That's why 
something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, 
something that can act wordlessly in it's environment.  Evolutionarily 
speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which 
is responsible for almost everything we do.  Julian Jaynes theorized that 
humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in 
inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie.

Brent

On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 
That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. 
With these worlds you transmit to us this information "craig says that he 
perceive".. 

>From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith 



What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same 
functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side.


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.
 
For example, consider:
 
"I see the cat."Here:
 
I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.
 
When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are 
all subjective 
states and all experiences.
 
However, when he afterwards vocalizes "I see the cat", he has translated the 
experience 
into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into 
a 
publicly accessible statement. 
 
All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are 
objective.
Any statement is then objective.
 
Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective,
so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless 
(codeless). 
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 

On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory 
because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it 
needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. 



Hi Albert,

Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and 
how it is sequentially ordered  that matters. "I am what I remember myself to 
be." 



in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating 
over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from 
evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me.


This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of 
ourselves.


No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense 
of "only I can know what it is like to be me" is exactly true for each and 
every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. 


That's why this uniqueness is not  essential


But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other 
ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could come to 
consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this 
probably will never happen.



Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There 
is something important to this!


This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of 
individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy).  But 
probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate 
further





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
 
QED
Hi Roger,

It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to 
being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is 
possibly singular. 


 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leib

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:27:05 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote
>
>
>>  Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich 
>> it appear in humans)  exist just because exist morality. It is an 
>> exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be 
>> considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore 
>> unexistent, if there were no moral beings.
>>  
>
> You don't need to be immoral or unintelligent to be a psychopath. I agree 
> with Roger that consciousness does not depend on morality (however I think 
> that morality is an extension of significance, which is analogous to 
> density or gravity but in the temporal-figurative sense).
>
> Craig
>  
>
> Hi Craig,
>
> I think that the defining feature of a psychopath is an inability to 
> accurately model the internal reactions of and by others within one's own 
> thoughts. It is a form of autism.
>

Ah, you guys are right, I was thinking of psychotic not psychopathic. I 
normally think of the term sociopath for psychopath.

I wouldn't be so sure it is autism exactly. I think that sociopaths have an 
abnormally strong ability to accurately model the internal reactions of 
others, they just use it to exploit and torture them intentionally. It's 
more like they make other people autistic to their motives. I would guess 
that their schadenfreude conversion factor is such that they enjoy causing 
pain as their primary from of pleasure.  

Craig

-- 
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/-/1uZFIuUJ9ioJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:23:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
> What is the difference between the two? Ultimately, what we are 
> talking about is just that set of fact that is incontrovertible among us.
>

I think the difference is that if we assume expansion then we have to 
assume an infinite unexplained plenum of space, whereas if we assume 
expansion of ratios between sensible nodes, then there need not be any 
plenum and space becomes nothing but information entropy - a gap between 
perceptual frames. If you are a native of one frame, you see space, if you 
are the native of another frame, there is 'entanglement' (i.e. pre-space 
reflection of node unity).

Craig

-- 
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/-/OiAOqOftrdgJ.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:20:18 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

> Hi Craig,
>
> Nice idea but it would wreck the fungibility requirement that modern 
> economies require. The fact that the physical object Mars Bar is equivalent 
> to any other Mars Bar is how quality is maintained for a brand. The same 
> goes for the value of a Dollar bill. It the value where history dependent 
> then it would make all physical object unique and thus not fungible. The 
> cost of tracking the differences of commodities would be HUGE and swamp 
> everything else. We see a toy model of the case where  fungibility vanishes 
> (ideally as copies are forgeries!) in the art market.
>

 Hi Stephen,

Sure, yeah I'm not suggesting an alternative economic system, just making 
an analogy to comp. We could come up with a string of quantitative 
variables: $1.29 150,000 times on 8/19/12 in Trenton, NJ + $1.22 67,000 
times in Huntsville AL, etc = statistics for Mars Bars and nothing else - 
uniqueness is conserved but the inferred equivalence is bunk. The 
statistics are nothing but a silhouette of stochastic aggregations, having 
nothing to do with the underlying Mars Bar. Same goes for the brain. A 
perfect map of what a brain does gives you nothing to do with the 
possibility of copying consciousness.

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/-/JGlABmt6_v0J.
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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 8/29/2012 11:38 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:09:05 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

Craig:

I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why
idividuality exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an
effect of phisical laws).  I did an extended account of this
somewhere else in this list.
I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the
fallacy of the naturalistic fallacy.


I don't have any particular opinion about individuality. It seems like 
a more advanced topic. I am more interested in the very primitive 
basics of what consciousness actually is. Individuality, personality, 
human psychology...that's calculus. I am looking at multiplication and 
division. What I can see is that awareness seems ambivalent to the 
notion of individuality. Altered states of consciousness, mob 
mentality, mass hypnosis...it's not a well defined concept for me yet.



Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with
wich it appear in humans)  exist just because exist morality. It
is an exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it
can be considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and
therefore unexistent, if there were no moral beings.


You don't need to be immoral or unintelligent to be a psychopath. I 
agree with Roger that consciousness does not depend on morality 
(however I think that morality is an extension of significance, which 
is analogous to density or gravity but in the temporal-figurative sense).


Craig

Hi Craig,

I think that the defining feature of a psychopath is an inability 
to accurately model the internal reactions of and by others within one's 
own thoughts. It is a form of autism.


--
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 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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 8/29/2012 11:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:34:22 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:

Craig,

Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate)
because it " excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust "?
Richard


Yes, although it may not be the actual universe which is expanding but 
rather the astrophysical level of our perception of the universe may 
be the location where this expansion is most visible to us. In any 
case, there is nothing actual for the universe to expand into, as 
space itself does not exist until the matter of the universe defines 
it as space. It can be said that rather than expanding, the ratio of 
entropy to signal is increasing.


Craig

Hi Craig,

What is the difference between the two? Ultimately, what we are 
talking about is just that set of fact that is incontrovertible among us.


--
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 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.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Dear Roger,

Wrong. Computation is involved in the act of "seeing". 
Identification is a computational act. Any transformation of information 
(difference that makes a difference) is, by definition, a computation.


On 8/29/2012 11:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Alberto G. Corona
Awareness = I see X.
 or I am X.
or some similar statement.
There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
everything could function."


- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Alberto G. Corona <mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
    *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
*Subject:* Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Roger,
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is
that a inner computation can affect an external computation which
is aware of the consequences of this inner computation.

　　like in the case of any relation of brain and mind,　I do not
say that this IS 　the experience of awareness, but given the
duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that
the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind,
the mind experiences awareness

2012/8/29 Roger Clough mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>>

Hi Alberto G. Corona
　
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
　
　
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so everything could function."

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Alberto G. Corona <mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>
*Receiver:* everything-list
<mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Time:* 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
*Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi:

Awareness can 　be functionally (we do not know if
experientially) 　computable. A program can run another
program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on its
results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This
is rutine in computer science and these programs are
called "interpreters".

　The lack of 　understanding, of this capability of
metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is
IMHO the reason why 　it is said that the brain-mind can
do things that a computer can never do. 　We humans can
manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a
reflective way. The second is the result of an analysis of
the first trough a metacomputation.

For example we can not be aware of our use of category
theory or our intuitions because they are hardwired
programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know 　our
deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as
metacomputations. When we use　metaphorically　the verb
"to be fired" 　to mean being redundant, we are using
category theory but we can not be aware of it. 　Only
after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the
observable psichology of humans, we can create an
awareness of it by means of an adquired metacomputation.

The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the
beauty of a woman for adaptive reasons, but not the
computation that produces this intuition. In the other
side, we can appreciate the fact that the process 　of
diagonalization by G　del 　makes the Hilbert program
impossible, That same conclusion can be reached by a
program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical
program. (see my post about the G　del theorem).


Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential
problem of free will nor in any other existential question.

2012/8/29 Roger Clough mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>>

Hi Craig Weinberg
　
I agree.
　
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
　
Cs = subject + object
　
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate,　it is not computable.
　
QED
　
　
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 8/29/2012 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:14:38 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Right! That is how naming occurs.


Nice!

I was thinking of this:

If we recorded every commercial transaction by name, we could produce 
a fingerprint signature for any given commodity sold by plotting out a 
function of price vs location. If we wanted to quantify a Hershey with 
Almonds bar, we could come up with a unique set of datapoints for 
every store in every city that corresponds to those sales and reverse 
engineer a wavefunction that we could associate uniquely with the HwA 
bar.


Still we have said nothing about the chocolate or the consumers, 
buyers, or sellers. We can't ever get to the quality of what is being 
sole even though we have a convincing way of articulating the 
quantitative nature and topological distribution of the sales 
transactions.


I think this it the critical fault of all possible systems which seek 
to approach consciousness as a secondary effect. Whether materialist 
or idealist, all quant-based approaches are doomed to mistake the 
interstitial relation for that which is relating.


Craig

Hi Craig,

Nice idea but it would wreck the fungibility requirement that 
modern economies require. The fact that the physical object Mars Bar is 
equivalent to any other Mars Bar is how quality is maintained for a 
brand. The same goes for the value of a Dollar bill. It the value where 
history dependent then it would make all physical object unique and thus 
not fungible. The cost of tracking the differences of commodities would 
be HUGE and swamp everything else. We see a toy model of the case where  
fungibility vanishes (ideally as copies are forgeries!) in the art market.


--
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 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.

Re: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

What I say about what I see is a separate problem.
How I interpret what I see is peculiar to me, is indeterminate to you.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 12:02:39
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


You said that you perceive. Now you mean that you reflect on yourself. And I 
must believe so.




It is theoretically possible to do a robot that do so as well in very 
sophisticated ways. 


I agree with you that robots are zombies, but  some day, like in the novels of 
Stanislav Lem, they may adquire political rights and perhaps they could demand 
you for saying so. ;)


Note that all the time, like in any normal conversation we are obviating deep 
statements of faith: 


Are you a person?  a robot? an Lutheran robot? . An atheist robot that is 
trying to persuade us that intelligent robots don't exist?. A


The conclusions are very very different depending of which of these possible 
alternatives we choose.



2012/8/29 Roger Clough 

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
A grizzly bear, which seemingly has no moral code (other than "when hungry, 
kill and eat"), can still perceive 
perfectly well enough, or else he would starve.
 
 
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:26:29
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


It appears that subjectivity, has everithing to do with morality. This is not 
only evident for any religious person, but also for mathematics and game 
theory. 


 It appears that without  moral individuality, social collaboration is 
impossible, except for clones. I exposed the reasoning here. 


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
 
Subjectivity has nothing to do with morality or evolution, it is simply the 
private of personal state of a perceiver (of some object), ie it is experience. 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:08:43
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Craig:


I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist, (no 
matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws).  I did an 
extended account of this somewhere else in this list. 
I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy of 
the naturalistic fallacy. 


Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it 
appear in humans)  exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of 
morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality 
effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no 
moral beings.



2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg 



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 
the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory 
because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it 
needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. 

What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream whole 
ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be intelligent 
and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think you are making 
some normative assumptions. When we generalize about consciousness we should 
not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking consciousness only.
 



This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of 
ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to 
other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could come 
to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this 
probably will never happen.


In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider themselves 
both the same person in some contexts and different in others. They live the 
same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on the right side is 
not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more awkward position than 
the other, etc).
 



2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
 
QED
Hi Roger,

It is not a dipole in the normal

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 8/29/2012 10:39 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:



2012/8/29 Stephen P. King >


On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It
has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is
moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its
debts and merits with others.


Hi Albert,

Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of
memory and how it is sequentially ordered  that matters. "I am
what I remember myself to be."


in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) 
operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation 
comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert 
that others see on me.


Hi Alberto,

"to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me"! This is 
the essence of the dynamic reflexivity that my bisimulation algebra is 
meant to capture and it is what Pratt is trying to capture with his 
residuation process. The trick is to figure out how it is that names are 
generated such that "Alberto" is somehow different from "Stephen" and 
"Bruno" and "Craig" and ...




This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same
life of ourselves.


No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular
in the sense of "only I can know what it is like to be me" is
exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I
cannot know what it is like to be you.

That´s why this uniqueness is not  essential


In the ultimate sense all name differences vanish. Yes, but that is 
the ideal and not the real case. Our explanation have to be able to 
"back away slowly" from the perfect case without falling apart.





But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed
to other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self.
We  could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently
created clones. Although this probably will never happen.


Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might
occur. There is something important to this!


This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness 
of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). 
 But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not 
ellaborate further




It is the cloning machine that is problematic. Unless one has 
avaialble "space to put the copies" - real physical space in terms of 
vacuum ground states or virtual memory for the computations - cloning is 
impossible. This makes 1p indeterminacy contingent on the possibility of 
instantiation and we can capture the idea of "possibility of 
instantiation" in theoretical terms, I claim, by considering how naming 
occurs. Please review the thread "God has no name" that Bruno and I 
engaged in.


--
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 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.

Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Alberto G. Corona

You said that you perceive. Now you mean that you reflect on yourself. And
I must believe so.


It is theoretically possible to do a robot that do so as well in very
sophisticated ways.

I agree with you that robots are zombies, but  some day, like in the novels
of Stanislav Lem, they may adquire political rights and perhaps they could
demand you for saying so. ;)

Note that all the time, like in any normal conversation we are obviating
deep statements of faith:

Are you a person?  a robot? an Lutheran robot? . An atheist robot that is
trying to persuade us that intelligent robots don´t exist?. A

The conclusions are very very different depending of which of these
possible alternatives we choose.

2012/8/29 Roger Clough 

>  Hi Alberto G. Corona
>
> A grizzly bear, which seemingly has no moral code (other than "when
> hungry, kill and eat"), can still perceive
> perfectly well enough, or else he would starve.
>
>
>
>
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/29/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
> everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Alberto G. Corona 
> *Receiver:* everything-list 
> *Time:* 2012-08-29, 11:26:29
> *Subject:* Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
>
>  It appears that subjectivity, has everithing to do with morality. This
> is not only evident for any religious person, but also for mathematics and
> game theory.
>
>  It appears that without moral individuality, social collaboration is
> impossible, except for clones. I exposed the reasoning here.
>
> 2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
>
>>  Hi Alberto G. Corona
>>   Subjectivity has nothing to do with morality or evolution, it is
>> simply the private of personal state of a perceiver (of some object), ie it
>> is experience.
>>   Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 8/29/2012
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
>> everything could function."
>>
>>  - Receiving the following content -
>>  *From:* Alberto G. Corona 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>> *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:08:43
>>  *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
>>
>>Craig:
>>
>> I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality
>> exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical
>> laws). I did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list.
>> I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy
>> of the naturalistic fallacy.
>>
>> Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich
>> it appear in humans) exist just because exist morality. It is an
>> exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be
>> considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore
>> unexistent, if there were no moral beings.
>>
>> 2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg 
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
>>>>
>>>> the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has
>>>> memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral.
>>>> therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits
>>>> with others.
>>>
>>>
>>> What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream
>>> whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be
>>> intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think
>>> you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about
>>> consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking
>>> consciousness only.
>>>
>>>
>>>> This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life
>>>> of ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made
>>>> accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self.
>>>> We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created
>>>> clones. Although this probably will never happen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider
>>> themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others.
>>> They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on
>>> the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more
>>> awkward position than the other, etc).
>>>
>>>
>>&

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

I have no problem with that.  But the act of perceiving itself is personal and 
amoral.
I see what I see.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:54:29
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Not only to lie. In order  to commerce and in general to interact, we need to 
know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others 
expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the 
enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. 
This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the 
beginning.. 


2012/8/29 meekerdb 

But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.  That's why 
something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, 
something that can act wordlessly in it's environment.  Evolutionarily 
speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which 
is responsible for almost everything we do.  Julian Jaynes theorized that 
humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in 
inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie.

Brent


On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 
That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. 
With these worlds you transmit to us this information "craig says that he 
perceive".. 

>From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith 



What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same 
functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side.


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.
 
For example, consider:
 
"I see the cat."Here:
 
I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.
 
When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are 
all subjective 
states and all experiences.
 
However, when he afterwards vocalizes "I see the cat", he has translated the 
experience 
into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into 
a 
publicly accessible statement. 
 
All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are 
objective.
Any statement is then objective.
 
Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective,
so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless 
(codeless). 
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 

On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory 
because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it 
needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. 



Hi Albert,

Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and 
how it is sequentially ordered  that matters. "I am what I remember myself to 
be." 



in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating 
over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from 
evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me.


This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of 
ourselves.


No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense 
of "only I can know what it is like to be me" is exactly true for each and 
every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. 


That's why this uniqueness is not  essential


But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other 
ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could come to 
consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this 
probably will never happen.



Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There 
is something important to this!


This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of 
individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy).  But 
probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate 
further





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indetermi

Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

What functionality ?


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:41:42
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


sorry:




What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY POSSIBL to create a robot with the same 
functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side. 


2012/8/29 Alberto G. Corona 

That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. 
With these worlds you transmit to us this information "craig says that he 
perceive"..

>From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith 



What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same 
functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side.



2012/8/29 Roger Clough 

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.
 
For example, consider:
 
"I see the cat."Here:
 
I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.
 
When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are 
all subjective 
states and all experiences.
 
However, when he afterwards vocalizes "I see the cat", he has translated the 
experience 
into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into 
a 
publicly accessible statement. 
 
All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are 
objective.
Any statement is then objective.
 
Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective,
so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless 
(codeless). 
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 

On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory 
because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it 
needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. 



Hi Albert,

Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and 
how it is sequentially ordered  that matters. "I am what I remember myself to 
be." 



in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating 
over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from 
evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me.


This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of 
ourselves.


No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense 
of "only I can know what it is like to be me" is exactly true for each and 
every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. 


That's why this uniqueness is not  essential


But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other 
ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could come to 
consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this 
probably will never happen.



Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There 
is something important to this!


This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of 
individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy).  But 
probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate 
further





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
 
QED
Hi Roger,

It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to 
being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is 
possibly singular. 


 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary


This sentence does not speak English.
These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.
s l u ,u s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that 
form is not inherently informative.
The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
ascertaining

Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

 If I can perceive, I simply know that I can.

The problem only enters when I tell you what I perceived.
There faith matters, you can trust my word or not.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:40:43
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. 
With these worlds you transmit to us this information "craig says that he 
perceive"..

>From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith 



What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same 
functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side.


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.
 
For example, consider:
 
"I see the cat."Here:
 
I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.
 
When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are 
all subjective 
states and all experiences.
 
However, when he afterwards vocalizes "I see the cat", he has translated the 
experience 
into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into 
a 
publicly accessible statement. 
 
All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are 
objective.
Any statement is then objective.
 
Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective,
so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless 
(codeless). 
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 

On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory 
because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it 
needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. 



Hi Albert,

Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and 
how it is sequentially ordered  that matters. "I am what I remember myself to 
be." 



in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating 
over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from 
evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me.


This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of 
ourselves.


No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense 
of "only I can know what it is like to be me" is exactly true for each and 
every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. 


That's why this uniqueness is not  essential


But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other 
ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could come to 
consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this 
probably will never happen.



Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There 
is something important to this!


This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of 
individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy).  But 
probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate 
further





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
 
QED
Hi Roger,

It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to 
being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is 
possibly singular. 


 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary


This sentence does not speak English.
These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.
s l u ,u s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that 
form is not inherently informative.
The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
ascertaining the origin of awareness. 

Either we view computation inheren

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On 8/29/2012 10:34 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
> Craig,
>
> Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate)
> because it " excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust "?
> Richard

Maybe! One might argue that life in the cosmos is generating an
increasing number of possibilities for itself and thus space must exist
for the ground (vacuum) states of those.

>
> On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Craig Weinberg  > wrote:
>
> Hi Roger,
>
> Yes, and its indeterminacy and non-computability is only the
> beginning. Any system whose output is unreadable to another system
> will be indeterminate and non-computable to it, but that doesn't
> imply subjectivity. Subjectivity can only be an inherent
> possibility in all possible universes - and, I suggest is is
> perpetually the least likely possibility in any given universe.
> This means that subjectivity itself is the alpha and omega
> continuum, the band which underlies all possibility, from which
> the illusion of objectivity arises as consensus of wavefrorm
> perturbations in the frequency band.
>
> I know that sounds crazy, but I think that it reconciles physics,
> information theory, consciousness, and religion.
>
> Entropy is not an infinite, open ended quantity, but range of
> infinitely divisible states of disconnection within a single monad
> of 0.00...1% entropy (99.99...% signal). Note the ellipsis (...)
> means it is a floating constant. The singularity of the band, the
> monad, perpetually defines the extremes of signal and entropy
> possibilities while the objects form at the public center of space
> and the subjects inform at the private edge of 'time'.
>
> I call this cosmology a 'Sole Entropy Well' and the quality of
> accumulating qualitative significance attributed to the totality
> (monad) which balances the observed inflation of entropy in the
> universe of public space I call solitropy. The universe is a
> significance machine that excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust.
>
> Craig
>
>
> On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
>
> Hi Craig Weinberg
> I agree.
> Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
> Cs = subject + object
> The subject is always first person indeterminate.
> Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
> QED
> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
> 8/29/2012
> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
> so everything could function."
>
> - Receiving the following content -
> *From:* Craig Weinberg
> *Receiver:* everything-list
> *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
> *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary
>
> This sentence does not speak English.
>
> These words do not 锟斤拷refer锟斤拷 to themselves.
>
> s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷l u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤
> 拷,u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷
>
>
> If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can
> help illustrate that form is not inherently informative.
>
> The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring
> as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness.
>
> Either we view computation inherently having awareness as
> a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will),
> or we presume that computation can and does exist
> independently of all awareness but that a particular
> category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.
>
> Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my
> understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first
> person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic
> number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively
> assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My
> understanding is that G 锟斤拷del (and others) are used to
> support this negative assertion, and I of course agree
> that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to
> be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself
> completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have
> a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what
> understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this
> entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as
> explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume
> consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently
> of any arithmetic logic.
>
> Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive
> assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say /*that*/
> awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic
>

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Alberto G. Corona

Not only to lie. In order  to commerce and in general to interact, we need
to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the
others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in
the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have
about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral
from the beginning..

2012/8/29 meekerdb 

>  But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.
> That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must
> be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment.
> Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of
> subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do.
> Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern
> sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important
> to learn to lie.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you
> perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information "craig says
> that he perceive"..
>
> From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith
>
>  What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same
> functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side.
>
> 2012/8/29 Roger Clough 
>
>>  Hi Alberto G. Corona
>>
>> The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.
>>
>> For example, consider:
>>
>> "I see the cat."Here:
>>
>> I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.
>>
>> When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal,
>> as are all subjective
>> states and all experiences.
>>
>> However, when he afterwards vocalizes "I see the cat", he has translated
>> the experience
>> into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal
>> experience into a
>> publicly accessible statement.
>>
>> All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words
>> are objective.
>> Any statement is then objective.
>>
>> Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective,
>> so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless
>> (codeless).
>>
>>
>> Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
>> 8/29/2012
>> Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
>> everything could function."
>>
>>  - Receiving the following content -
>>  *From:* Alberto G. Corona 
>> *Receiver:* everything-list 
>>  *Time:* 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
>>  *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
>>
>>
>>
>>  2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 
>>
>>>  On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>>>
>>> the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has
>>> memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral.
>>> therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits
>>> with others.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Hi Albert,
>>>
>>> Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and
>>> how it is sequentially ordered that matters. "I am what I remember myself
>>> to be."
>>>
>>>
>>>   in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation)
>> operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes
>> from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others
>> see on me.
>>
>>>
>>>  This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life
>>> of ourselves.
>>>
>>>
>>>  No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the
>>> sense of "only I can know what it is like to be me" is exactly true for
>>> each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like
>>> to be you.
>>>
>>>   That′s why this uniqueness is not essential
>>
>>>
>>>  But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to
>>> other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come
>>> to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although
>>> this probably will never happen.
>>>
>>>
>>>  Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur.
>>> There is something important t

Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi Alberto G. Corona 

A grizzly bear, which seemingly has no moral code (other than "when hungry, 
kill and eat"), can still perceive 
perfectly well enough, or else he would starve.




Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:26:29
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


It appears that subjectivity, has everithing to do with morality. This is not 
only evident for any religious person, but also for mathematics and game theory.


 It appears that without  moral individuality, social collaboration is 
impossible, except for clones. I exposed the reasoning here. 


2012/8/29 Roger Clough 

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
 
Subjectivity has nothing to do with morality or evolution, it is simply the 
private of personal state of a perceiver (of some object), ie it is experience. 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:08:43
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Craig:


I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist, (no 
matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws).  I did an 
extended account of this somewhere else in this list. 
I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy of 
the naturalistic fallacy. 


Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it 
appear in humans)  exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of 
morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality 
effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no 
moral beings.



2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg 



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 
the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory 
because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it 
needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. 

What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream whole 
ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be intelligent 
and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think you are making 
some normative assumptions. When we generalize about consciousness we should 
not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking consciousness only.
 



This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of 
ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to 
other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could come 
to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this 
probably will never happen.


In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider themselves 
both the same person in some contexts and different in others. They live the 
same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on the right side is 
not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more awkward position than 
the other, etc).
 



2012/8/29 Stephen P. King 

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
 
QED
Hi Roger,

It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to 
being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is 
possibly singular. 


 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function."
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary


This sentence does not speak English.
These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.
s l u ,u s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that 
form is not inherently informative.
The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
ascertaining the origin of awareness. 

Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless 
epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can 
and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of 
meta-computation is what we call awareness.
Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno 
includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp conten

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread meekerdb

But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something
having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act
wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on
on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian
Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they
engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie.

Brent

On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. With
these worlds you transmit to us this information "craig says that he perceive"..

From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith

What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same functionality, and
subject to the same statement of faith from my side.

2012/8/29 Roger Clough mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>>

Hi Alberto G. Corona
The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.
For example, consider:
"I see the cat."Here:
I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.
When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as
are all
subjective
states and all experiences.
However, when he afterwards vocalizes "I see the cat", he has translated
the experience
into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience
into a
publicly accessible statement.
All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words
are objective.
Any statement is then objective.
Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective,
so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless
(codeless).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net <mailto:rclo...@verizon.net>
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could
function."

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Alberto G. Corona <mailto:agocor...@gmail.com>
*Receiver:* everything-list <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>
*Time:* 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
*Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012/8/29 Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>>

On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has
memory
because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral.
therefore it
needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with
others.

Hi Albert,

Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of
memory
and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. "I am what I
remember
myself to be."

in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation)
operating
over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from
evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see
on me.

This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same
life of
ourselves.

No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular
in the
sense of "only I can know what it is like to be me" is exactly true
for each
and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is
like to be
you.

That′s why this uniqueness is not essential

But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to
other
ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could
come
to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones.
Although
this probably will never happen.

Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might
occur.
There is something important to this!

This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness
of
individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But
probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not
ellaborate
further

2012/8/29 Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>>

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
I agree.
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
Cs = subject + object
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.

Re: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary