Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-08 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 7 Mar 2019, at 22:13, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/7/2019 8:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 6 Mar 2019, at 20:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3/6/2019 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Every time I mention this you strike back at the straw man of primitive 
> matter...which I never refer to.
 But then, why do you criticise the theorem? Maybe you don’t? Bt then why 
 are you saying that elementary arithmetic is not a TOE? It explain the 
 coupling consciousness/matter using only elementary arithmetic.
>>> 
>>> My criticism of the theory is different from my criticism of your repeated 
>>> claim that you have eliminated and matter and attributing anything to it is 
>>> "Aristotles error".   My criticism of the theory that arithmetic is a TOE 
>>> is that arithmetic proves too much.  
>> 
>> 
>> That looks like Deutsch criticism on Schmidhuber type of computationalist 
>> explanation.
>> 
>> But, this omit completely the first person indeterminacy, which not only 
>> explains (in a testable way) the origin of the physical laws, but above all 
>> makes the physics unique, and invariant for all machines.
>> 
>> The postulation of a primary universe, on the contrary, explains only the 
>> current first person prediction by using an identity thesis which is 
>> inconsistent with mechanism.
> 
> You're back to criticizing a strawman "primary" universe which I didn't 
> mention.

But then what is your point in critiszing the idea that with mechanism, we 
*must* derive physics from arithmetic, not for getting a new physics which 
would better than current theories in physics, but to solve the mind-body 
problem.




> 
>> Physics fails both for the prediction of “seeing an eclipse”, and miss the 
>> mind-body problem.
> 
> Let's see arithmetic predict an eclipse.  ISTM that you the ONLY thing your 
> theory predicts is the ineffability of consciousness.


No. It predicts/explain the existence of an apparent stable physical universe, 
which physics just assumed, and it predicts its quantum nature, which 
physicists cannot explain at all, nor even try. Then physics fails to predict 
anything without using an identity thesis which is inconsistent with Mechanism. 
It changes noting for all FAPP use of physics, and that will remain for long, 
like nobody would use quantum physics to do a pizza (although a microwave is 
based on quantum physics, but that’s not the point).

We might be at cross purpose. Keep in mind that I am working on the mind body 
problem, not on the problem to predict anything, but to more to justify why we 
can do prediction at all, and how our consciousness is related to them.



> 
>> Compared to the explanation in arithmetic, there is just no explanation 
>> given for the physical experiment and experience. It works very well 
>> locally, but only by using an inconsistent metaphysics. In fact, it does not 
>> tackle the fundamental question, and gives recipe to make prediction, 
>> without attempting to explains why we can be conscious of the prediction.
> 
> But your "mechanism" doesn't explain it either.  It simply identifies it with 
> logical inferences.

I don’t see that. Mechanism shows that the physical prediction can make sense, 
but the physics, to make sense with Mechanism (which is not proposed as a 
solution but used to reformulate an old problem mathematically), must be 
derived from arithmetic. And the derivation has given the theories S4Grz1, Z1* 
and X1*, which explains already why there is an apparent physical universe for 
all universal machine’s first person view, why it is symmetrical, but looks 
assymettrical, why its logics of observable cannot be boolean and is quantum 
like, etc. 

To pursue this, we need to solve mathematical problems. If nature refutes this, 
it will be time to search another metaphysics. But the Aristotelian has been 
shown to make no sense, or to eliminate consciousness and persons, and that is 
a position which I take as irrational deny of evidences. It is not serious with 
respect to cognitive science, which indeed is not the main interest in physics, 
even if it appears in the foundational studies.

Mechanism leads to a simple conceptual theory (indeed two small axioms), and 
explain consciousness and physical appearance, correctly up to now. Physics has 
not yet find a unifying theory, does not tackle consciousness, and use, with 
respect to mechanist cognitive science, an inconsistent metaphysics. 

Bruno 





> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> With mechanism we get the whole fundamental science, already axiomatised 
>> completely (thanks to Solovay- at the propositional level. I don’t see it 
>> explains too much. You might confuse Mechanism and digital physics. Digital 
>> physics just assume that there is some u such that phi_u is the physical 
>> universe. That reduce physics to arithmetic, but that explains 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-07 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 3/7/2019 8:57 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 6 Mar 2019, at 20:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
> wrote:




On 3/6/2019 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Every time I mention this you strike back at the straw man of primitive 
matter...which I never refer to.

But then, why do you criticise the theorem? Maybe you don’t? Bt then why are 
you saying that elementary arithmetic is not a TOE? It explain the coupling 
consciousness/matter using only elementary arithmetic.


My criticism of the theory is different from my criticism of your 
repeated claim that you have eliminated and matter and attributing 
anything to it is "Aristotles error".   My criticism of the theory 
that arithmetic is a TOE is that arithmetic proves too much.



That looks like Deutsch criticism on Schmidhuber type of 
computationalist explanation.


But, this omit completely the first person indeterminacy, which not 
only explains (in a testable way) the origin of the physical laws, but 
above all makes the physics unique, and invariant for all machines.


The postulation of a primary universe, on the contrary, explains only 
the current first person prediction by using an identity thesis which 
is inconsistent with mechanism.


You're back to criticizing a strawman "primary" universe which I didn't 
mention.


Physics fails both for the prediction of “seeing an eclipse”, and miss 
the mind-body problem.


Let's see arithmetic predict an eclipse.  ISTM that you the ONLY thing 
your theory predicts is the ineffability of consciousness.


Compared to the explanation in arithmetic, there is just no 
explanation given for the physical experiment and experience. It works 
very well locally, but only by using an inconsistent metaphysics. In 
fact, it does not tackle the fundamental question, and gives recipe to 
make prediction, without attempting to explains why we can be 
conscious of the prediction.


But your "mechanism" doesn't explain it either.  It simply identifies it 
with logical inferences.


Brent



With mechanism we get the whole fundamental science, already 
axiomatised completely (thanks to Solovay- at the propositional level. 
I don’t see it explains too much. You might confuse Mechanism and 
digital physics. Digital physics just assume that there is some u such 
that phi_u is the physical universe. That reduce physics to 
arithmetic, but that explains too much, or nothing. And is wrong. With 
mechanism, even if some u plays some more special role, that choice of 
u and that role have to be explained, given the differentiation of 
conscious on all relative computational computations.


Bruno






Brent

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-07 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 6 Mar 2019, at 20:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/6/2019 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> Every time I mention this you strike back at the straw man of primitive 
>>> matter...which I never refer to.
>> But then, why do you criticise the theorem? Maybe you don’t? Bt then why are 
>> you saying that elementary arithmetic is not a TOE? It explain the coupling 
>> consciousness/matter using only elementary arithmetic.
> 
> My criticism of the theory is different from my criticism of your repeated 
> claim that you have eliminated and matter and attributing anything to it is 
> "Aristotles error".   My criticism of the theory that arithmetic is a TOE is 
> that arithmetic proves too much.  


That looks like Deutsch criticism on Schmidhuber type of computationalist 
explanation.

But, this omit completely the first person indeterminacy, which not only 
explains (in a testable way) the origin of the physical laws, but above all 
makes the physics unique, and invariant for all machines.

The postulation of a primary universe, on the contrary, explains only the 
current first person prediction by using an identity thesis which is 
inconsistent with mechanism. Physics fails both for the prediction of “seeing 
an eclipse”, and miss the mind-body problem. Compared to the explanation in 
arithmetic, there is just no explanation given for the physical experiment and 
experience. It works very well locally, but only by using an inconsistent 
metaphysics. In fact, it does not tackle the fundamental question, and gives 
recipe to make prediction, without attempting to explains why we can be 
conscious of the prediction.

With mechanism we get the whole fundamental science, already axiomatised 
completely (thanks to Solovay- at the propositional level. I don’t see it 
explains too much. You might confuse Mechanism and digital physics. Digital 
physics just assume that there is some u such that phi_u is the physical 
universe. That reduce physics to arithmetic, but that explains too much, or 
nothing. And is wrong. With mechanism, even if some u plays some more special 
role, that choice of u and that role have to be explained, given the 
differentiation of conscious on all relative computational computations.

Bruno




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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-06 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List



On 3/6/2019 5:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Every time I mention this you strike back at the straw man of primitive 
matter...which I never refer to.

But then, why do you criticise the theorem? Maybe you don’t? Bt then why are 
you saying that elementary arithmetic is not a TOE? It explain the coupling 
consciousness/matter using only elementary arithmetic.


My criticism of the theory is different from my criticism of your 
repeated claim that you have eliminated and matter and attributing 
anything to it is "Aristotles error".   My criticism of the theory that 
arithmetic is a TOE is that arithmetic proves too much.


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 5 Mar 2019, at 20:01, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List 
>  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/5/2019 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> RNA, proteins, krebs cycle, and proton pumps are all necessary for that.
>> 
>> That is carbon chauvinism, with all my respect. I am a lover of Krebs cycle, 
>> and even more Calvin cycle (in photosynthesis). My initial inspiration of 
>> Mechanism came from Molecular biology. But nothing there has been shown to 
>> be non-Turing emulable. Your artificial brain, when you say “yes” to the 
>> doctor, might not involve any of these cycles, but use a simple battery 
>> instead (or you are just telling me that you doubt Digital Mechanism, which 
>> is my basic working hypothesis to solve the Mind-Body problem.
> 
> That you can emulate those processes is beside the point.  The point is that 
> you would have to emulate them in order to support your contention that 
> bacteria are Turing complete. 

? I do’nt undersatnd. When Turing showed that his Turing machine are able to 
emulate lambda calculus, and that lambda calculus can emulate the Turing 
machine, nobody ask them to emulate them. Turing also showed that elementary 
arithmetic emulates them “already”.

You argument is equivalent to saying that we have to enumerate the primes 
number to make sense of Riemann hypothesis. That looks like extreme 
physicalism, akin to ultra-finitism.




> That's has been my "doubt" of your theory all along.  It is not a TOE in 
> which consciousness appears without matter.  It is a theory in which 
> consciousness and matter must appear together. 

Yes, but from numbers only (or from combinators only, …), which is the point, 
and that makes elementary arithmetic into the only TOE available. If you can 
found a discrepancy with nature, you will show that we cannot be machine (if 
your proofs is understandable by humans).



> Every time I mention this you strike back at the straw man of primitive 
> matter...which I never refer to.


But then, why do you criticise the theorem? Maybe you don’t? Bt then why are 
you saying that elementary arithmetic is not a TOE? It explain the coupling 
consciousness/matter using only elementary arithmetic. No need of Mechanism, 
which can be used only for the motivation for the Theatetus definition, for 
those who have not read Plato.

I am just trying to understand your point.

Bruno 



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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-05 Thread 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List




On 3/5/2019 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

RNA, proteins, krebs cycle, and proton pumps are all necessary for that.


That is carbon chauvinism, with all my respect. I am a lover of Krebs 
cycle, and even more Calvin cycle (in photosynthesis). My initial 
inspiration of Mechanism came from Molecular biology. But nothing 
there has been shown to be non-Turing emulable. Your artificial brain, 
when you say “yes” to the doctor, might not involve any of these 
cycles, but use a simple battery instead (or you are just telling me 
that you doubt Digital Mechanism, which is my basic working hypothesis 
to solve the Mind-Body problem.


That you can emulate those processes is beside the point.  The point is 
that you would have to emulate them in order to support your contention 
that bacteria are Turing complete.  That's has been my "doubt" of your 
theory all along.  It is not a TOE in which consciousness appears 
without matter.  It is a theory in which consciousness and matter must 
appear together.  Every time I mention this you strike back at the straw 
man of primitive matter...which I never refer to.


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 2 Mar 2019, at 08:22, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:25:05 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 1 Mar 2019, at 09:28, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 2:05:03 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 5:15:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/28/2019 3:00 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
 
 
 On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
 
 
 On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is Galen 
> Strawson.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson 
> 
> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/ 
> 
> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429 
> 
> 
> There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
> available online.
> 
> The main word that is synonymous with consciousness is experience.
 
 Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
 ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
 
 Brent
 
 
 
 Galen is a (type of) micropsychist.
>>> 
>>> But the point is we don't need a philosopher to explain that level of 
>>> consciousness to us.  It's already at the level of engineering.  If 
>>> Strawson is going to provide any useful explanations of consciousness he 
>>> should study machine learning...it's getting close to engineering 
>>> consciousness at the next higher level.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> It won't be accomplished via certain types of engineering, like 
>>> "information network" approaches (IIT [ 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory 
>>>  ]) but 
>>> potentially could with a "synthetic" approach that combines networks with 
>>> synthetic biology. Something along these lines is the "fusion" idea 
>>> proposed by
>> 
>> I don't know why IIT is even discussed.  Aaronson pretty well shot it down.
>> 
>> My son may get a chance to work on the Deepmind team.  What kind of brain 
>> cells would you suggest he sprinkle on the CPUs?
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> 
>> Like The Graduate's "plastics", today, "polymers".
>> 
>> 
>> Biomaterials for the central nervous system
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475552/ 
>> 
>> 
>> Scientists Have Built Artificial Neurons That Fully Mimic Human Brain Cells
>> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-build-an-artificial-neuron-that-fully-mimics-a-human-brain-cell
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Scientists develop promising new type of polymer
>> https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-polymers.html 
>> 
>> 
>> Synthetic Glycopolymers for Highly Efficient Differentiation of Embryonic 
>> Stem Cells into Neurons: Lipo- or Not?
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28287262 
>> 
>> 
>> Elastic materials for tissue engineering applications: Natural, synthetic, 
>> and hybrid polymers
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S174270611830494X 
>> 
>> 
>> Biomaterials for Scaffolds: Synthetic Polymers
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286340849_Biomaterials_for_Scaffolds_Synthetic_Polymers
>>  
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> Biosynthetic Polymers as Functional Materials
>> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.macromol.6b00439 
>> 
> 
> 
> You might be interested by this quite remarkable news: a 8 letters synthetic 
> DNA, which seems to work well.
> If that is true, it really suggests that we all come from one bacteria, I 
> think. It is amazing that all life use only the same 4 letters coding (A, T, 
> G, C).
> 
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00650-8 
> 
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> As this sort of stuff progresses, and bioengineers make conscious 'robots' 
> out of alternative materials, phenomenologists will wonder how their 
> experiences differ from ours.
> 
> (But now Dan Dennett says Don't make conscious robots in the first place.)


The universal “virgin” machine is maximally conscious. Any non universal 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Mar 2019, at 19:45, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:08:43 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is Galen 
>>> Strawson.
>>> 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson 
>>> 
>>> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/ 
>>> 
>>> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
>>> available online.
>>> 
>>> The main word that is synonymous with consciousness is experience.
>> 
>> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and ability 
>> to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
> 
> What the thermostat lacks, that the bacteria and plants do not lack, is 
> Turing universality. That gives the mind, and even the free-will. 
> 
> I think free-will is just universality, and we lost it when we impose 
> “security”. What makes a universal machine universal is the ability to search 
> for a number which do not exist, making them able to “not stop”, and that is 
> what a thermostat cannot do.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
> 
> 
> Galen Strawson has an argument that makes 'free-will' something of a 
> 'non-thing'. It's based on his concept of 'self'. A conscious entity (me) is 
> a self in the sense that 'I am me’.

I guess this fits with the first person self, given by the “truth” variant of 
provability ([]p & p) of Theatetus when translated in the arithmetical language.




> I can't really have free will since I can't choose not to be me.

We have partial control. Free-will is just the ability to decide when knowing 
we lack information. It is related only to the logical self-indetermination 
(not the first person indeterminacy, which gives randomness, which limits 
free-will.




> 
> We have 'autonomous will' but not 'free will’.

It depends on the definition that we accept for free-will. Some makes it just 
absurd, like a possibility to violate physical or mathematical laws. I am not 
sure that makes any sense.

Bruno



> Whenever someone talks about 'free will' not I just think of the Protestant 
> denomination Free Will Baptist [ 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Will_Baptist] and nothing more beyond that.
> 
> - pt
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 4 Mar 2019, at 19:48, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/4/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>  Unconsciousness is an illusion of consciousness … It should be obvious that 
>> “being unconscious” cannot be a first person experience, for logical reason. 
>> To die is not a personal event. That happens only to the others.
> I agree.  Except I don't suppose that all events are personal.


I don’t like this much, but physics is first person plural. Is is not purely 
personal, we share the histories, thanks to entanglement, which is just the 
sharing of realities in the duplication/multiplication of the observers.

Bruno 


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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 4 Mar 2019, at 19:47, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/4/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>   I have had two relatives die of Alzheimers and they lost their identity 
>>> gradually as they lost memory. 
>> They lost they memory. Not their identity, but the apprehension of their 
>> identity. If not, when you ask where they are in the hospital, the nurse 
>> would say “what are you talking about”. Even a corpse has an identity. 
> At last you recognize the importance of the material.

Matter and physics are even more important, and more reasonable, with 
Mechanism. The fact that matter becomes derivable from number makes matter 
theories more well founded than any extrapolation we could do from a finite 
number of observation. The material becomes unavoidable for *all* universal 
machine, but its existence is phenomenological.
The quantum weirdness was to be expected, when we look at ourselves closely 
around our substitution level. (Indeed exactly below that level in case we 
assume us to be classically computed, it is more complicated if we have a 
quantum brain, which I doubt, but that would mean our brains exploits the 
massive parallelism intrinsic to the arithmetical reality.

Bruno 



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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 4 Mar 2019, at 19:46, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/4/2019 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Snip
> 
> A bacterium doesn't have Turing universiality, only bacteria in the 
> abstract of a potentially infinite set of evolving bacteria interacting 
> with their environment.  But if a consider a potentially infinite set of 
> thermostats interacting with their environment of furnaces and rooms, it 
> will be Turing universal too.  Turing universality is cheap.
 
 Yes, it is cheap, like consistency, and plausibly consciousness.
 
 But it is more cheap you might think, because even one bacteria is fully 
 Turing universal. The genome of Escherichia Coli can be “programmed” to 
 run a Turing universal set of quadruplet. Of course, the bacteria’s “tape” 
 is quite limited, and they can exploit their universality only by 
 cooperation in the long run, and so no individual bacteria can be 
 self-conscious or Löbian.
>>> 
>>> I think that's what I said.  Except I also noted that all this requires an 
>>> environment within which the bacteria can metabolize. 
>> 
>> That is contingent with respect of the bacteria “mental life”. All programs 
>> needs a code, and an environment which run it, but it can be arithmetic. 
>> Then a physical reality emerges as a means on all accessible 
>> computations-continuations.
>> 
>> Mentioning the environment can be misleading. If a material environment is 
>> needed, matter would play some role, and there is no more reason to say 
>> accept a digital, even if physical, brain.
> 
> I didn't say anything about the environment being "material".But your 
> objection seems to reduce to, "But that's contrary to my theory.”

The context indicates that I was using “material” for “primitively material”. 
My objection is not “that’s contrary to my theory”, but to my theorem. I am 
just saying that you cannot have both “primitive matter” (or just physicalism) 
and Mechanism together. Even without that theorem, the 
simple-buta-pparently-not-so simple *fact* that elementary arithmetical truth 
is Turing complete should make us doubt, at the least, about physicalism.




>   It's no good saying your theory is testable when you only test it within 
> the assumptions you used to derive it.

Where do I do that?




> 
>> In a dream, we create more clearly the environment by ourself, and that is 
>> enough for being conscious, or even self-conscious, like in a lucid dream, 
>> or a sophisticated virtual environment.
> 
> The dream is realized by the brain and it is about elements of our real 
> environment.

The human dreams are realised by the human brain, and is about element of our 
human environment. To invoke “real” or “reality” or “truth” is not admissible 
in science. Doubly so in metaphysics, as it begs the main question, which is 
indeed about what could be real, and what could not be real.






> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> So to say bacteria have Turing universality is like saying water is 
>>> lemonade...if you add lemons and sugar.
>> 
>> It means that with the 4 letters, you can program any partial recursive 
>> function. Of course you need the decoding apparatus, but that is entirely in 
>> the bacteria. It means that you can simulate any other computer, with a 
>> basic set of DNA-enzyme molecular interaction. A universal machine is just a 
>> number u such that for all x and y phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y) *in principle. You 
>> can implement all control structure. The operon illustrates a 
>> “if-then-else”, and the regulation apparatus is enough to get universality. 
>> René Thomas, in Brussels, has succeeded to make a loop, with a plasmid 
>> (little circular gene) entering in the bacterium, and then going out, 
>> repetitively. It is even a “fuzzy computer”. Some product are regulated in a 
>> continuum, depending on the concentration of the metabolites. When I was 
>> young, I have made e project for a massively parallel computers which was a 
>> solution of bacteria (E. coli) and bacteriophage. One drop of it could 
>> process billions of instructions in a second. But the read and write was 
>> demanding highly sophisticated molecular biology. I think that such ideas 
>> have more success today. After all, molecular biology studies “natural 
>> nanotechnology”.
> 
> You're wrong.  The environment is essential.  The fact that DNA can encode 
> functions means nothing without the ability to read and execute the code. 

You can easily program a decoder of instruction, and a decoder of addresses in 
the arithmetical language, and *all* models of arithmetic implements them.



> RNA, proteins, krebs cycle, and proton pumps are all necessary for that.  

That is carbon chauvinism, with all my respect. I am a lover of Krebs cycle, 
and even more Calvin cycle (in photosynthesis). My initial inspiration of 
Mechanism came from Molecular biology. But nothing there has been shown to be 
non-Turing emulable. 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-04 Thread Brent Meeker




On 3/4/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

  Unconsciousness is an illusion of consciousness … It should be obvious that 
“being unconscious” cannot be a first person experience, for logical reason. To 
die is not a personal event. That happens only to the others.

I agree.  Except I don't suppose that all events are personal.

Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-04 Thread Brent Meeker



On 3/4/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

   I have had two relatives die of Alzheimers and they lost their identity 
gradually as they lost memory.

They lost they memory. Not their identity, but the apprehension of their 
identity. If not, when you ask where they are in the hospital, the nurse would 
say “what are you talking about”. Even a corpse has an identity.

At last you recognize the importance of the material.

Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-04 Thread Brent Meeker



On 3/4/2019 3:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 3 Mar 2019, at 20:15, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 3/3/2019 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 1 Mar 2019, at 21:36, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 3/1/2019 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness 
is *Galen Strawson*.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429

There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) 
freely available online.


The main word that is synonymous with /consciousness /is 
/experience/.


Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat 
have...and ability to detect and react to the environment based 
on internal states.


What the thermostat lacks, that the bacteria and plants do not 
lack, is Turing universality. That gives the mind, and even the 
free-will.


A bacterium doesn't have Turing universiality, only bacteria in the 
abstract of a potentially infinite set of evolving bacteria 
interacting with their environment.  But if a consider a 
potentially infinite set of thermostats interacting with their 
environment of furnaces and rooms, it will be Turing universal too. 
Turing universality is cheap.


Yes, it is cheap, like consistency, and plausibly consciousness.

But it is more cheap you might think, because even one bacteria is 
fully Turing universal. The genome of Escherichia Coli can be 
“programmed” to run a Turing universal set of quadruplet. Of course, 
the bacteria’s “tape” is quite limited, and they can exploit their 
universality only by cooperation in the long run, and so no 
individual bacteria can be self-conscious or Löbian.


I think that's what I said.  Except I also noted that all this 
requires an environment within which the bacteria can metabolize.


That is contingent with respect of the bacteria “mental life”. All 
programs needs a code, and an environment which run it, but it can be 
arithmetic. Then a physical reality emerges as a means on all 
accessible computations-continuations.


Mentioning the environment can be misleading. If a material 
environment is needed, matter would play some role, and there is no 
more reason to say accept a digital, even if physical, brain.


I didn't say anything about the environment being "material".    But 
your objection seems to reduce to, "But that's contrary to my theory."  
It's no good saying your theory is testable when you only test it within 
the assumptions you used to derive it.


In a dream, we create more clearly the environment by ourself, and 
that is enough for being conscious, or even self-conscious, like in a 
lucid dream, or a sophisticated virtual environment.


The dream is realized by the brain and it is about elements of our real 
environment.






So to say bacteria have Turing universality is like saying water is 
lemonade...if you add lemons and sugar.


It means that with the 4 letters, you can program any partial 
recursive function. Of course you need the decoding apparatus, but 
that is entirely in the bacteria. It means that you can simulate any 
other computer, with a basic set of DNA-enzyme molecular interaction. 
A universal machine is just a number u such that for all x and y 
phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y) *in principle. You can implement all control 
structure. The operon illustrates a “if-then-else”, and the regulation 
apparatus is enough to get universality. René Thomas, in Brussels, has 
succeeded to make a loop, with a plasmid (little circular gene) 
entering in the bacterium, and then going out, repetitively. It is 
even a “fuzzy computer”. Some product are regulated in a continuum, 
depending on the concentration of the metabolites. When I was young, I 
have made e project for a massively parallel computers which was a 
solution of bacteria (E. coli) and bacteriophage. One drop of it could 
process billions of instructions in a second. But the read and write 
was demanding highly sophisticated molecular biology. I think that 
such ideas have more success today. After all, molecular biology 
studies “natural nanotechnology”.


You're wrong.  The environment is essential.  The fact that DNA can 
encode functions means nothing without the ability to read and execute 
the code.  RNA, proteins, krebs cycle, and proton pumps are all 
necessary for that.


Brent

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

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 3 Mar 2019, at 20:23, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/3/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 1 Mar 2019, at 23:21, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3/1/2019 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 The “minimal” consciousness require only a weak notion of self. It does 
 not require memory, nor any sense. It is a highly dissociated state of 
 consciousness. It is quite different from the usual mundane consciousness 
 of the everyday life.
 
 
>>> How can there be a notion of self...something that persists through 
>>> time..without memory?
>> I am aware this is highly counter-intuitive, but consciousness does not seem 
>> to require time, nor even any notion of identity. Identity is already a sort 
>> of global illusion, a construct of the universal machine, even if it looks 
>> “persistent” in the terrestrial (effective) plane.
> 
> I agree that consciousness, at the level of my thermostat, does not require a 
> notion of identity. 

I don’t think so. You need only a personal body. And you thermostat has one. If 
not, there is no more un thermostat.



> But identity requires memory.

Consciousness of one’s identity requires memory. But that is close to 
self-consciousness. For consciousness, any (universal) body will do. It will be 
a highly dissociative state of consciousness. To get a life from it will 
require memory, but consciousness is more general, and will use the memory only 
for the self-differentiating purpose.



>   I have had two relatives die of Alzheimers and they lost their identity 
> gradually as they lost memory. 

They lost they memory. Not their identity, but the apprehension of their 
identity. If not, when you ask where they are in the hospital, the nurse would 
say “what are you talking about”. Even a corpse has an identity. 




> Eventually they were only reactive, living in the moment...like my 
> thermostat, but more complicated.

In slow sleep, out of the dream REM sleep period, some onirophysiolog 
(neuroscientist specialised in dreams) begin to acknowledge that we might be 
conscious, but the consciousness does not imprint new memories, and we forget 
it at each instant, giving us a feeling that we have been unconscious. With 
practice, we can learn to get micro-moment of awareness helping us to notice 
it. Unconsciousness is an illusion of consciousness … It should be obvious that 
“being unconscious” cannot be a first person experience, for logical reason. To 
die is not a personal event. That happens only to the others. 

Bruno




> 
> Brent
>> 
>> I don’t use this in my derivation of physics from arithmetical theology, but 
>> many evidences accumulate for this, but they are so close the te logical 
>> trap that I have no way to convey this without feeling uneasy.
>> 
>> Memory and persistence through space and time is required only for 
>> self-consciousness? It is something build from consciousness and 
>> self-consciousness, eventually, but as subject, we see those logical 
>> causality in reverse. The theory explains why we cannot understand this, or 
>> justify it rationally.
>> 
>> Bruno
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-04 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 3 Mar 2019, at 20:15, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/3/2019 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 1 Mar 2019, at 21:36, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 3/1/2019 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is 
>> Galen Strawson.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson 
>> 
>> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/ 
>> 
>> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429 
>> 
>> 
>> There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
>> available online.
>> 
>> The main word that is synonymous with consciousness is experience.
> 
> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
> ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
 
 What the thermostat lacks, that the bacteria and plants do not lack, is 
 Turing universality. That gives the mind, and even the free-will. 
>>> 
>>> A bacterium doesn't have Turing universiality, only bacteria in the 
>>> abstract of a potentially infinite set of evolving bacteria interacting 
>>> with their environment.  But if a consider a potentially infinite set of 
>>> thermostats interacting with their environment of furnaces and rooms, it 
>>> will be Turing universal too.  Turing universality is cheap.
>> 
>> Yes, it is cheap, like consistency, and plausibly consciousness.
>> 
>> But it is more cheap you might think, because even one bacteria is fully 
>> Turing universal. The genome of Escherichia Coli can be “programmed” to run 
>> a Turing universal set of quadruplet. Of course, the bacteria’s “tape” is 
>> quite limited, and they can exploit their universality only by cooperation 
>> in the long run, and so no individual bacteria can be self-conscious or 
>> Löbian.
> 
> I think that's what I said.  Except I also noted that all this requires an 
> environment within which the bacteria can metabolize. 

That is contingent with respect of the bacteria “mental life”. All programs 
needs a code, and an environment which run it, but it can be arithmetic. Then a 
physical reality emerges as a means on all accessible 
computations-continuations.

Mentioning the environment can be misleading. If a material environment is 
needed, matter would play some role, and there is no more reason to say accept 
a digital, even if physical, brain. In a dream, we create more clearly the 
environment by ourself, and that is enough for being conscious, or even 
self-conscious, like in a lucid dream, or a sophisticated virtual environment.



> So to say bacteria have Turing universality is like saying water is 
> lemonade...if you add lemons and sugar.

It means that with the 4 letters, you can program any partial recursive 
function. Of course you need the decoding apparatus, but that is entirely in 
the bacteria. It means that you can simulate any other computer, with a basic 
set of DNA-enzyme molecular interaction. A universal machine is just a number u 
such that for all x and y phi_u(x, y) = phi_x(y) *in principle. You can 
implement all control structure. The operon illustrates a “if-then-else”, and 
the regulation apparatus is enough to get universality. René Thomas, in 
Brussels, has succeeded to make a loop, with a plasmid (little circular gene) 
entering in the bacterium, and then going out, repetitively. It is even a 
“fuzzy computer”. Some product are regulated in a continuum, depending on the 
concentration of the metabolites. When I was young, I have made e project for a 
massively parallel computers which was a solution of bacteria (E. coli) and 
bacteriophage. One drop of it could process billions of instructions in a 
second. But the read and write was demanding highly sophisticated molecular 
biology. I think that such ideas have more success today. After all, molecular 
biology studies “natural nanotechnology”.

Bruno





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

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-03 Thread Brent Meeker




On 3/3/2019 3:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 1 Mar 2019, at 23:21, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 3/1/2019 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

The “minimal” consciousness require only a weak notion of self. It does not 
require memory, nor any sense. It is a highly dissociated state of 
consciousness. It is quite different from the usual mundane consciousness of 
the everyday life.



How can there be a notion of self...something that persists through 
time..without memory?

I am aware this is highly counter-intuitive, but consciousness does not seem to 
require time, nor even any notion of identity. Identity is already a sort of 
global illusion, a construct of the universal machine, even if it looks 
“persistent” in the terrestrial (effective) plane.


I agree that consciousness, at the level of my thermostat, does not 
require a notion of identity.  But identity requires memory.  I have had 
two relatives die of Alzheimers and they lost their identity gradually 
as they lost memory.  Eventually they were only reactive, living in the 
moment...like my thermostat, but more complicated.


Brent


I don’t use this in my derivation of physics from arithmetical theology, but 
many evidences accumulate for this, but they are so close the te logical trap 
that I have no way to convey this without feeling uneasy.

Memory and persistence through space and time is required only for 
self-consciousness? It is something build from consciousness and 
self-consciousness, eventually, but as subject, we see those logical causality 
in reverse. The theory explains why we cannot understand this, or justify it 
rationally.

Bruno


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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-03 Thread Brent Meeker



On 3/3/2019 3:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 1 Mar 2019, at 21:36, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 3/1/2019 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness 
is *Galen Strawson*.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429

There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) 
freely available online.


The main word that is synonymous with /consciousness /is /experience/.


Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal 
states.


What the thermostat lacks, that the bacteria and plants do not lack, 
is Turing universality. That gives the mind, and even the free-will.


A bacterium doesn't have Turing universiality, only bacteria in the 
abstract of a potentially infinite set of evolving bacteria 
interacting with their environment.  But if a consider a potentially 
infinite set of thermostats interacting with their environment of 
furnaces and rooms, it will be Turing universal too.  Turing 
universality is cheap.


Yes, it is cheap, like consistency, and plausibly consciousness.

But it is more cheap you might think, because even one bacteria is 
fully Turing universal. The genome of Escherichia Coli can be 
“programmed” to run a Turing universal set of quadruplet. Of course, 
the bacteria’s “tape” is quite limited, and they can exploit their 
universality only by cooperation in the long run, and so no individual 
bacteria can be self-conscious or Löbian.


I think that's what I said.  Except I also noted that all this requires 
an environment within which the bacteria can metabolize. So to say 
bacteria have Turing universality is like saying water is lemonade...if 
you add lemons and sugar.


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 1 Mar 2019, at 23:21, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/1/2019 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>> The “minimal” consciousness require only a weak notion of self. It does not 
>> require memory, nor any sense. It is a highly dissociated state of 
>> consciousness. It is quite different from the usual mundane consciousness of 
>> the everyday life.
>> 
>> 
> How can there be a notion of self...something that persists through 
> time...without memory?

I am aware this is highly counter-intuitive, but consciousness does not seem to 
require time, nor even any notion of identity. Identity is already a sort of 
global illusion, a construct of the universal machine, even if it looks 
“persistent” in the terrestrial (effective) plane.

I don’t use this in my derivation of physics from arithmetical theology, but 
many evidences accumulate for this, but they are so close the te logical trap 
that I have no way to convey this without feeling uneasy.

Memory and persistence through space and time is required only for 
self-consciousness? It is something build from consciousness and 
self-consciousness, eventually, but as subject, we see those logical causality 
in reverse. The theory explains why we cannot understand this, or justify it 
rationally.

Bruno





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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Mar 2019, at 21:36, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 3/1/2019 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker >> > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
 
 
 The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is Galen 
 Strawson.
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson 
 
 https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/ 
 
 https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429 
 
 
 There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
 available online.
 
 The main word that is synonymous with consciousness is experience.
>>> 
>>> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and ability 
>>> to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
>> 
>> What the thermostat lacks, that the bacteria and plants do not lack, is 
>> Turing universality. That gives the mind, and even the free-will. 
> 
> A bacterium doesn't have Turing universiality, only bacteria in the abstract 
> of a potentially infinite set of evolving bacteria interacting with their 
> environment.  But if a consider a potentially infinite set of thermostats 
> interacting with their environment of furnaces and rooms, it will be Turing 
> universal too.  Turing universality is cheap.

Yes, it is cheap, like consistency, and plausibly consciousness.

But it is more cheap you might think, because even one bacteria is fully Turing 
universal. The genome of Escherichia Coli can be “programmed” to run a Turing 
universal set of quadruplet. Of course, the bacteria’s “tape” is quite limited, 
and they can exploit their universality only by cooperation in the long run, 
and so no individual bacteria can be self-conscious or Löbian.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> 
>> I think free-will is just universality, and we lost it when we impose 
>> “security”. What makes a universal machine universal is the ability to 
>> search for a number which do not exist, making them able to “not stop”, and 
>> that is what a thermostat cannot do.
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>>> .
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>>> .
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>>> .
>> 
>> -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
>> .
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
>> .
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:25:05 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Mar 2019, at 09:28, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 2:05:03 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 5:15:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/2019 3:00 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



 On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is 
> *Galen 
> Strawson*. 
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
>
> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429
>
> There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
> available online.
>
> The main word that is synonymous with *consciousness *is *experience*.
>
>
> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
> ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
>

> Brent
>



 Galen is a (type of) micropsychist.


 But the point is we don't need a philosopher to explain that level of 
 consciousness to us.  It's already at the level of engineering.  If 
 Strawson is going to provide any useful explanations of consciousness he 
 should study machine learning...it's getting close to engineering 
 consciousness at the next higher level.

 Brent

>>>
>>> It won't be accomplished via certain types of engineering, like 
>>> "information network" approaches (IIT [ 
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory ]) but 
>>> potentially could with a "synthetic" approach that *combines networks 
>>> with synthetic biology*. Something along these lines is the "fusion" 
>>> idea proposed by
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know why IIT is even discussed.  Aaronson pretty well shot it 
>>> down.
>>>
>>> My son may get a chance to work on the Deepmind team.  What kind of 
>>> brain cells would you suggest he sprinkle on the CPUs?
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>> Like The Graduate's "plastics", today, "polymers".
>>
>>
>> Biomaterials for the central nervous system
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475552/
>>
>> Scientists Have Built Artificial Neurons That Fully Mimic Human Brain 
>> Cells
>>
>> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-build-an-artificial-neuron-that-fully-mimics-a-human-brain-cell
>>
>> Scientists develop promising new type of polymer
>> https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-polymers.html
>>
>> Synthetic Glycopolymers for Highly Efficient Differentiation of Embryonic 
>> Stem Cells into Neurons: Lipo- or Not?
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28287262
>>
>> Elastic materials for tissue engineering applications: Natural, 
>> synthetic, and hybrid polymers
>> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S174270611830494X
>>
>> Biomaterials for Scaffolds: Synthetic Polymers
>>
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286340849_Biomaterials_for_Scaffolds_Synthetic_Polymers
>>  
>>
>>
> Biosynthetic Polymers as Functional Materials
> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.macromol.6b00439
>
>
>
> You might be interested by this quite remarkable news: a 8 letters 
> synthetic DNA, which seems to work well.
> If that is true, it really suggests that we all come from one bacteria, I 
> think. It is amazing that all life use only the same 4 letters coding (A, 
> T, G, C).
>
> https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00650-8
>
> Bruno
>


As this sort of stuff progresses, and bioengineers make conscious 'robots' 
out of alternative materials, phenomenologists will wonder how their 
experiences differ from ours.

(But now Dan Dennett says *Don't make conscious robots in the first place*.)

- pt

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 6:25:05 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 1 Mar 2019, at 00:15, Brent Meeker > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 3:00 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is *Galen 
>>> Strawson*. 
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
>>> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
>>> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429
>>>
>>> There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
>>> available online.
>>>
>>> The main word that is synonymous with *consciousness *is *experience*.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
>>> ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
>>>
>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Galen is a (type of) micropsychist.
>>
>>
>> But the point is we don't need a philosopher to explain that level of 
>> consciousness to us.  It's already at the level of engineering.  If 
>> Strawson is going to provide any useful explanations of consciousness he 
>> should study machine learning...it's getting close to engineering 
>> consciousness at the next higher level.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> It won't be accomplished via certain types of engineering, like 
> "information network" approaches (IIT [ 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory ]) but 
> potentially could with a "synthetic" approach that *combines networks 
> with synthetic biology*. Something along these lines is the "fusion" idea 
> proposed by
>
>
> I don't know why IIT is even discussed.  Aaronson pretty well shot it down.
>
> My son may get a chance to work on the Deepmind team.  What kind of brain 
> cells would you suggest he sprinkle on the CPUs?
>
>
>
> Good question!
>
> Once we relate consciousness to matter, there is no reason to evacuate any 
> cells. May be consciousness is produced by our bones and by our hair. Some 
> people have believed that if they cut too much of their hairs, they lose 
> their soul!
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
This is related of course to *the combination problem*:

https://philarchive.org/archive/GOFTPB
cf.: https://heddahasselmorch.wordpress.com/

 - pt

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Brent Meeker




On 3/1/2019 7:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


You might be interested by this quite remarkable news: a 8 letters 
synthetic DNA, which seems to work well.
If that is true, it really suggests that we all come from one 
bacteria, I think. It is amazing that all life use only the same 4 
letters coding (A, T, G, C).


https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00650-8


I find it even more indicative of a single origin that all life 
(excluding viruses) uses the same proton pump across membranes to change 
ADP to ATP and uses that as a kind of universal energy currency.  This 
must have developed well before DNA and RNA.  I highly recommend Nick 
Lane's book "The Vital Question".  He also has some very good popular 
lectures online, such as his address to the Royal Society.


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Mar 2019, at 09:28, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 2:05:03 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 5:15:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/28/2019 3:00 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
 
 
 The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is Galen 
 Strawson.
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson 
 
 https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/ 
 
 https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429 
 
 
 There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
 available online.
 
 The main word that is synonymous with consciousness is experience.
>>> 
>>> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and ability 
>>> to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Galen is a (type of) micropsychist.
>> 
>> But the point is we don't need a philosopher to explain that level of 
>> consciousness to us.  It's already at the level of engineering.  If Strawson 
>> is going to provide any useful explanations of consciousness he should study 
>> machine learning...it's getting close to engineering consciousness at the 
>> next higher level.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> It won't be accomplished via certain types of engineering, like "information 
>> network" approaches (IIT [ 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory 
>>  ]) but 
>> potentially could with a "synthetic" approach that combines networks with 
>> synthetic biology. Something along these lines is the "fusion" idea proposed 
>> by
> 
> I don't know why IIT is even discussed.  Aaronson pretty well shot it down.
> 
> My son may get a chance to work on the Deepmind team.  What kind of brain 
> cells would you suggest he sprinkle on the CPUs?
> 
> Brent
> 
> 
> Like The Graduate's "plastics", today, "polymers".
> 
> 
> Biomaterials for the central nervous system
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475552/ 
> 
> 
> Scientists Have Built Artificial Neurons That Fully Mimic Human Brain Cells
> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-build-an-artificial-neuron-that-fully-mimics-a-human-brain-cell
>  
> 
> 
> Scientists develop promising new type of polymer
> https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-polymers.html 
> 
> 
> Synthetic Glycopolymers for Highly Efficient Differentiation of Embryonic 
> Stem Cells into Neurons: Lipo- or Not?
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28287262 
> 
> 
> Elastic materials for tissue engineering applications: Natural, synthetic, 
> and hybrid polymers
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S174270611830494X 
> 
> 
> Biomaterials for Scaffolds: Synthetic Polymers
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286340849_Biomaterials_for_Scaffolds_Synthetic_Polymers
>  
> 
>  
> 
> 
> Biosynthetic Polymers as Functional Materials
> https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.macromol.6b00439


You might be interested by this quite remarkable news: a 8 letters synthetic 
DNA, which seems to work well.
If that is true, it really suggests that we all come from one bacteria, I 
think. It is amazing that all life use only the same 4 letters coding (A, T, G, 
C).

https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-00650-8

Bruno




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

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 1 Mar 2019, at 00:15, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/28/2019 3:00 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
 
 
 The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is Galen 
 Strawson.
 
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson 
 
 https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/ 
 
 https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429 
 
 
 There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
 available online.
 
 The main word that is synonymous with consciousness is experience.
>>> 
>>> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and ability 
>>> to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
>>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Galen is a (type of) micropsychist.
>> 
>> But the point is we don't need a philosopher to explain that level of 
>> consciousness to us.  It's already at the level of engineering.  If Strawson 
>> is going to provide any useful explanations of consciousness he should study 
>> machine learning...it's getting close to engineering consciousness at the 
>> next higher level.
>> 
>> Brent
>> 
>> It won't be accomplished via certain types of engineering, like "information 
>> network" approaches (IIT [ 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory 
>>  ]) but 
>> potentially could with a "synthetic" approach that combines networks with 
>> synthetic biology. Something along these lines is the "fusion" idea proposed 
>> by
> 
> I don't know why IIT is even discussed.  Aaronson pretty well shot it down.
> 
> My son may get a chance to work on the Deepmind team.  What kind of brain 
> cells would you suggest he sprinkle on the CPUs?


Good question!

Once we relate consciousness to matter, there is no reason to evacuate any 
cells. May be consciousness is produced by our bones and by our hair. Some 
people have believed that if they cut too much of their hairs, they lose their 
soul!

Bruno



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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Brent Meeker




On 3/1/2019 7:04 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


The “minimal” consciousness require only a weak notion of self. It 
does not require memory, nor any sense. It is a highly dissociated 
state of consciousness. It is quite different from the usual mundane 
consciousness of the everyday life.



How can there be a notion of self...something that persists through 
time...without memory?


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 2:36:06 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/1/2019 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is *Galen 
> Strawson*. 
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429
>
> There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
> available online.
>
> The main word that is synonymous with *consciousness *is *experience*.
>
>
> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
> ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
>
>
> What the thermostat lacks, that the bacteria and plants do not lack, is 
> Turing universality. That gives the mind, and even the free-will. 
>
>
> A bacterium doesn't have Turing universiality, only bacteria in the 
> abstract of a potentially infinite set of evolving bacteria interacting 
> with their environment.  But if a consider a potentially infinite set of 
> thermostats interacting with their environment of furnaces and rooms, it 
> will be Turing universal too.  Turing universality is cheap.
>
> Brent
>
>

Programming the bacterium


*The development of genetic parts to precisely program the human commensal 
gut bacterium Bacteroides thetaiotaomicron lays the foundation for 
microbiome engineering.*

https://www.cell.com/cell-systems/pdfExtended/S2405-4712(15)6-X

- pt
 

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Brent Meeker



On 3/1/2019 7:08 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker > wrote:




On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is 
*Galen Strawson*.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429

There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
available online.


The main word that is synonymous with /consciousness /is /experience/.


Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.


What the thermostat lacks, that the bacteria and plants do not lack, 
is Turing universality. That gives the mind, and even the free-will.


A bacterium doesn't have Turing universiality, only bacteria in the 
abstract of a potentially infinite set of evolving bacteria interacting 
with their environment.  But if a consider a potentially infinite set of 
thermostats interacting with their environment of furnaces and rooms, it 
will be Turing universal too.  Turing universality is cheap.


Brent



I think free-will is just universality, and we lost it when we impose 
“security”. What makes a universal machine universal is the ability to 
search for a number which do not exist, making them able to “not 
stop”, and that is what a thermostat cannot do.


Bruno





Brent

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 9:08:43 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is *Galen 
> Strawson*. 
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429
>
> There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
> available online.
>
> The main word that is synonymous with *consciousness *is *experience*.
>
>
> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
> ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
>
>
> What the thermostat lacks, that the bacteria and plants do not lack, is 
> Turing universality. That gives the mind, and even the free-will. 
>
> I think free-will is just universality, and we lost it when we impose 
> “security”. What makes a universal machine universal is the ability to 
> search for a number which do not exist, making them able to “not stop”, and 
> that is what a thermostat cannot do.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> Brent
>
>
Galen Strawson has an argument that makes 'free-will' something of a 
'non-thing'. It's based on his concept of 'self'. A conscious entity (me) 
is a self in the sense that 'I am me'. I can't really have free will since 
I can't choose not to be me.

We have 'autonomous will' but not 'free will'. Whenever someone talks about 
'free will' not I just think of the Protestant denomination Free Will 
Baptist [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Will_Baptist] and nothing more 
beyond that.

- pt


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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 28 Feb 2019, at 22:47, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is Galen 
>> Strawson.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson 
>> 
>> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/ 
>> 
>> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429 
>> 
>> 
>> There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
>> available online.
>> 
>> The main word that is synonymous with consciousness is experience.
> 
> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and ability 
> to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.

What the thermostat lacks, that the bacteria and plants do not lack, is Turing 
universality. That gives the mind, and even the free-will. 

I think free-will is just universality, and we lost it when we impose 
“security”. What makes a universal machine universal is the ability to search 
for a number which do not exist, making them able to “not stop”, and that is 
what a thermostat cannot do.

Bruno



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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 28 Feb 2019, at 21:32, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/28/2019 10:35 AM, Azutmai wrote:
>> Brent . . . it might be helpful to equate the word ‘consciousness’ and 
>> ‘awareness.’ If we are conscious or aware of something . . . then it 
>> pertains to our viewpoint and lifestyle. 
> 
> I take awareness to be consciousness without reflection or evaluation; a 
> minimal level of consciousness.  


Usually I use awareness and consciousness as synonym, for that “minimal level 
of consciousness” (but with mechanism, that consciousness is more “intense” 
than all other form of consciousness: the brain just filter it a lot.

Then I use self-consciousness and del-awareness as synonymous, and “self” 
refers to that mode of reflection, which somehow delude us in making us believe 
in a personal identity (which is locally true, but globally false).




> 
>> Memory is a secondary feature to allow the individual to retain over time . 
>> . . otherwise we would have to learn the same thing over and over and over 
>> again . . . which we still somewhat do anyway. 
> 
> Without memory we couldn't even learn something the first time.  Without even 
> short term memory one is reduced to the level of aware=>react; the level at 
> which my thermostat is conscious.

The “minimal” consciousness require only a weak notion of self. It does not 
require memory, nor any sense. It is a highly dissociated state of 
consciousness. It is quite different from the usual mundane consciousness of 
the everyday life.





> 
>> Observe someone’s interests, passions, habits, etc . . . and one can get a 
>> very good idea of their general level or state of consciousness. 
> 
> One can only observe someone's actions.  The rest is inference from assuming 
> they have an inner life similar to your own. That's a good bet with other 
> humans, and even many animals.  But does it apply to an octopus?  To an 
> artificially intelligent Mars rover?   If two Mars rovers use a single AI via 
> an RF link are they two consicousness because they have two different 
> viewpoints?  Or are they just one consciousness that uses two viewpoints to 
> create a worldview?

OK. We just cannot know the consciousness of another by any empirical means. Of 
course we can try theories.
If the two Mars Rover are driven by one AI, they will be one person, unless you 
make the AI be able to differ on the different mars Rover.

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> It is consciousness where we all differ . . . one from the other. We might 
>> all be the same . . . we might all be One . . . but individual consciousness 
>> differentiates each of us from the other . . . no matter how great or minute 
>> the differences are. 
>> 
>> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 4:24:45 PM UTC-8, Brent wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Two recent books: 
>> > 
>> > The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness 
>> > Arthur S. Reber 
>> > https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ 
>> > 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity 
>> > Paul Thagard 
>> > https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > via 
>> > When Did Consciousness Begin? 
>> > Paul Thagard 
>> > https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>> >  
>> > 
>> >  
>> > 
>> > Thagard's 10 hypotheses: 
>> > 
>> > 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal. 
>> > 
>> > 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion 
>> > years ago. 
>> > 
>> > 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion 
>> > years ago (Reber). 
>> > 
>> > 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million 
>> > years ago. 
>> > 
>> > 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>> > neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>> > 
>> > 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains 
>> > with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons 
>> > (zebrafish) around 560 million years ago. 
>> > 
>> > 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals 
>> > developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 
>> > 200 million years ago. [Thagard] 
>> > 
>> > 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years 
>> > ago. 
>> > 
>> > 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
>> > years ago (Julian Jaynes). 
>> > 
>> > 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
>> > (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
>> 
>> A good exposition, but I wish he had taken some time to 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 28 Feb 2019, at 19:35, Azutmai  wrote:
> 
> Brent . . . it might be helpful to equate the word ‘consciousness’ and 
> ‘awareness.’

Yes. We can at some point add nuance, but as long as we don’t use the nuance, 
it is better to not make things complex for no reason. 




> If we are conscious or aware of something . . . then it pertains to our 
> viewpoint and lifestyle. Memory is a secondary feature to allow the 
> individual to retain over time . . . otherwise we would have to learn the 
> same thing over and over and over again . . . which we still somewhat do 
> anyway. Observe someone’s interests, passions, habits, etc . . . and one can 
> get a very good idea of their general level or state of consciousness. It is 
> consciousness where we all differ . . . one from the other. We might all be 
> the same . . . we might all be One . . . but individual consciousness 
> differentiates each of us from the other . . . no matter how great or minute 
> the differences are. 

Rather good insight with respect to Mechanism in Cognitive science (not to be 
confused with digitalise in physics, which is interesting but metaphysically or 
theologically flawed).

Then indeed, there is only the consciousness of the universal Turing machine, 
and, in all models of arithmetic (that: provably in elementary arithmetic) the 
universal machine consciousness differentiated on infinitely many consistent 
histories, and the physical reality appearance appears in that way from “inside 
arithmetic” (which id defined using some tools from mathematical logic or 
theoretical computer science. OK.

Bruno







> 
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 4:24:45 PM UTC-8, Brent wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > Two recent books: 
> > 
> > The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness 
> > Arthur S. Reber 
> > https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ 
> >  
> > 
> > Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity 
> > Paul Thagard 
> > https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ 
> >  
> > 
> > via 
> > When Did Consciousness Begin? 
> > Paul Thagard 
> > https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
> >  
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > Thagard's 10 hypotheses: 
> > 
> > 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal. 
> > 
> > 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion 
> > years ago. 
> > 
> > 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion 
> > years ago (Reber). 
> > 
> > 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million 
> > years ago. 
> > 
> > 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
> > neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
> > 
> > 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains 
> > with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons 
> > (zebrafish) around 560 million years ago. 
> > 
> > 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals 
> > developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 
> > 200 million years ago. [Thagard] 
> > 
> > 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years 
> > ago. 
> > 
> > 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
> > years ago (Julian Jaynes). 
> > 
> > 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
> > (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
> 
> A good exposition, but I wish he had taken some time to consider what is 
> consciousness.  I think he recognizes that there are different kinds and 
> levels of consciousness, but he doesn't make it clear what they are; how 
> are they related to memory and communication and planning.  It seems 
> clear to me that different kinds and levels of consciousness appeared at 
> different times. 
> 
> Brent 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list 
> .
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout 
> .

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

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, March 1, 2019 at 2:05:03 AM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 5:15:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/28/2019 3:00 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 



 On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



 The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is *Galen 
 Strawson*. 

 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
 https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
 https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429

 There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
 available online.

 The main word that is synonymous with *consciousness *is *experience*.


 Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
 ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.

>>>
 Brent

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Galen is a (type of) micropsychist.
>>>
>>>
>>> But the point is we don't need a philosopher to explain that level of 
>>> consciousness to us.  It's already at the level of engineering.  If 
>>> Strawson is going to provide any useful explanations of consciousness he 
>>> should study machine learning...it's getting close to engineering 
>>> consciousness at the next higher level.
>>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>> It won't be accomplished via certain types of engineering, like 
>> "information network" approaches (IIT [ 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory ]) but 
>> potentially could with a "synthetic" approach that *combines networks 
>> with synthetic biology*. Something along these lines is the "fusion" 
>> idea proposed by
>>
>>
>> I don't know why IIT is even discussed.  Aaronson pretty well shot it 
>> down.
>>
>> My son may get a chance to work on the Deepmind team.  What kind of brain 
>> cells would you suggest he sprinkle on the CPUs?
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
> Like The Graduate's "plastics", today, "polymers".
>
>
> Biomaterials for the central nervous system
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475552/
>
> Scientists Have Built Artificial Neurons That Fully Mimic Human Brain Cells
>
> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-build-an-artificial-neuron-that-fully-mimics-a-human-brain-cell
>
> Scientists develop promising new type of polymer
> https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-polymers.html
>
> Synthetic Glycopolymers for Highly Efficient Differentiation of Embryonic 
> Stem Cells into Neurons: Lipo- or Not?
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28287262
>
> Elastic materials for tissue engineering applications: Natural, synthetic, 
> and hybrid polymers
> https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S174270611830494X
>
> Biomaterials for Scaffolds: Synthetic Polymers
>
> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286340849_Biomaterials_for_Scaffolds_Synthetic_Polymers
>  
>
>
Biosynthetic Polymers as Functional Materials
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.macromol.6b00439

- pt

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-03-01 Thread Philip Thrift


On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 5:15:17 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 3:00 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is *Galen 
>>> Strawson*. 
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
>>> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
>>> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429
>>>
>>> There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
>>> available online.
>>>
>>> The main word that is synonymous with *consciousness *is *experience*.
>>>
>>>
>>> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
>>> ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
>>>
>>
>>> Brent
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Galen is a (type of) micropsychist.
>>
>>
>> But the point is we don't need a philosopher to explain that level of 
>> consciousness to us.  It's already at the level of engineering.  If 
>> Strawson is going to provide any useful explanations of consciousness he 
>> should study machine learning...it's getting close to engineering 
>> consciousness at the next higher level.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> It won't be accomplished via certain types of engineering, like 
> "information network" approaches (IIT [ 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory ]) but 
> potentially could with a "synthetic" approach that *combines networks 
> with synthetic biology*. Something along these lines is the "fusion" idea 
> proposed by
>
>
> I don't know why IIT is even discussed.  Aaronson pretty well shot it down.
>
> My son may get a chance to work on the Deepmind team.  What kind of brain 
> cells would you suggest he sprinkle on the CPUs?
>
> Brent
>


Like The Graduate's "plastics", today, "polymers".


Biomaterials for the central nervous system
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2475552/

Scientists Have Built Artificial Neurons That Fully Mimic Human Brain Cells
https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-build-an-artificial-neuron-that-fully-mimics-a-human-brain-cell

Scientists develop promising new type of polymer
https://phys.org/news/2019-01-scientists-polymers.html

Synthetic Glycopolymers for Highly Efficient Differentiation of Embryonic 
Stem Cells into Neurons: Lipo- or Not?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28287262

Elastic materials for tissue engineering applications: Natural, synthetic, 
and hybrid polymers
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S174270611830494X

Biomaterials for Scaffolds: Synthetic Polymers
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286340849_Biomaterials_for_Scaffolds_Synthetic_Polymers
 

...

- pt

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-28 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/28/2019 3:00 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



The best current philosopher of (and writer about)
consciousness is *Galen Strawson*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson

https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429



There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos,
etc.) freely available online.

The main word that is synonymous with /consciousness /is
/experience/.


Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat
have...and ability to detect and react to the environment
based on internal states.


Brent




Galen is a (type of) micropsychist.


But the point is we don't need a philosopher to explain that level
of consciousness to us.  It's already at the level of
engineering.  If Strawson is going to provide any useful
explanations of consciousness he should study machine
learning...it's getting close to engineering consciousness at the
next higher level.

Brent


It won't be accomplished via certain types of engineering, like 
"information network" approaches (IIT 
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory ]) but 
potentially could with a "synthetic" approach that *combines networks 
with synthetic biology*. Something along these lines is the "fusion" 
idea proposed by


I don't know why IIT is even discussed.  Aaronson pretty well shot it down.

My son may get a chance to work on the Deepmind team.  What kind of 
brain cells would you suggest he sprinkle on the CPUs?


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-28 Thread Philip Thrift


On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 4:34:54 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote: 
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is *Galen 
>> Strawson*. 
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
>> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
>> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429
>>
>> There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
>> available online.
>>
>> The main word that is synonymous with *consciousness *is *experience*.
>>
>>
>> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
>> ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
>>
>
>> Brent
>>
>
>
>
> Galen is a (type of) micropsychist.
>
>
> But the point is we don't need a philosopher to explain that level of 
> consciousness to us.  It's already at the level of engineering.  If 
> Strawson is going to provide any useful explanations of consciousness he 
> should study machine learning...it's getting close to engineering 
> consciousness at the next higher level.
>
> Brent
>

It won't be accomplished via certain types of engineering, like 
"information network" approaches (IIT 
[ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_information_theory ]) but 
potentially could with a "synthetic" approach that *combines networks with 
synthetic biology*. Something along these lines is the "fusion" idea 
proposed by

- Hedda Hassel Mørch
@heddamorch

https://twitter.com/heddamorch/status/1090899016064356352

https://philpapers.org/rec/MRCICI


- pt

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-28 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/28/2019 2:14 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:



On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness
is *Galen Strawson*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson

https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429


There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.)
freely available online.

The main word that is synonymous with /consciousness /is
/experience/.


Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat
have...and ability to detect and react to the environment based on
internal states.


Brent




Galen is a (type of) micropsychist.


But the point is we don't need a philosopher to explain that level of 
consciousness to us.  It's already at the level of engineering. If 
Strawson is going to provide any useful explanations of consciousness he 
should study machine learning...it's getting close to engineering 
consciousness at the next higher level.


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-28 Thread Philip Thrift


On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 3:48:04 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is *Galen 
> Strawson*. 
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
> https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
> https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429
>
> There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
> available online.
>
> The main word that is synonymous with *consciousness *is *experience*.
>
>
> Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
> ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.
>

> Brent
>



Galen is a (type of) micropsychist.

- pt
 

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-28 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/28/2019 1:17 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is 
*Galen Strawson*.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429

There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
available online.


The main word that is synonymous with /consciousness /is /experience/.


Which is something bacteria and plants and my thermostat have...and 
ability to detect and react to the environment based on internal states.


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-28 Thread Philip Thrift


The best current philosopher of (and writer about) consciousness is *Galen 
Strawson*.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galen_Strawson
https://sites.google.com/site/galenstrawson/
https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/philosophy/faculty/profile.php?id=gs24429

There is a lot of his material (PDFs, articles, videos, etc.) freely 
available online.

The main word that is synonymous with *consciousness *is *experience*.


- pt


On Thursday, February 28, 2019 at 2:14:58 PM UTC-6, Azutmai wrote:
>
> Brent . . . it might be helpful to equate the word ‘consciousness’ and 
> ‘awareness.’ If we are conscious or aware of something . . . then it 
> pertains to our viewpoint and lifestyle. Memory is a secondary feature to 
> allow the individual to retain over time . . . otherwise we would have to 
> learn the same thing over and over and over again . . . which we still 
> somewhat do anyway. Observe someone’s interests, passions, habits, etc . . 
> . and one can get a very good idea of their general level or state of 
> consciousness. It is consciousness where we all differ . . . one from the 
> other. We might all be the same . . . we might all be One . . . but 
> individual consciousness differentiates each of us from the other . . . no 
> matter how great or minute the differences are. 
>
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 4:24:45 PM UTC-8, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Two recent books: 
>> > 
>> > The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness 
>> > Arthur S. Reber 
>> > 
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ 
>> > 
>> > Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity 
>> > Paul Thagard 
>> > https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ 
>> > 
>> > via 
>> > When Did Consciousness Begin? 
>> > Paul Thagard 
>> > 
>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>>  
>> > 
>> > Thagard's 10 hypotheses: 
>> > 
>> > 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and 
>> eternal. 
>> > 
>> > 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion 
>> > years ago. 
>> > 
>> > 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion 
>> > years ago (Reber). 
>> > 
>> > 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million 
>> > years ago. 
>> > 
>> > 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>> > neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>> > 
>> > 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains 
>> > with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons 
>> > (zebrafish) around 560 million years ago. 
>> > 
>> > 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals 
>> > developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 
>> > 200 million years ago. [Thagard] 
>> > 
>> > 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years 
>> > ago. 
>> > 
>> > 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
>> > years ago (Julian Jaynes). 
>> > 
>> > 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
>> > (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
>>
>> A good exposition, but I wish he had taken some time to consider what is 
>> consciousness.  I think he recognizes that there are different kinds and 
>> levels of consciousness, but he doesn't make it clear what they are; how 
>> are they related to memory and communication and planning.  It seems 
>> clear to me that different kinds and levels of consciousness appeared at 
>> different times. 
>>
>> Brent 
>>
>

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-28 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/28/2019 10:35 AM, Azutmai wrote:


Brent . . . it might be helpful to equate the word ‘consciousness’ and 
‘awareness.’ If we are conscious or aware of something . . . then it 
pertains to our viewpoint and lifestyle.




I take awareness to be consciousness without reflection or evaluation; a 
minimal level of consciousness.


Memory is a secondary feature to allow the individual to retain over 
time . . . otherwise we would have to learn the same thing over and 
over and over again . . . which we still somewhat do anyway.




Without memory we couldn't even learn something the first time. Without 
even short term memory one is reduced to the level of aware=>react; the 
level at which my thermostat is conscious.


Observe someone’s interests, passions, habits, etc . . . and one can 
get a very good idea of their general level or state of consciousness.




One can only observe someone's actions.  The rest is inference from 
assuming they have an inner life similar to your own. That's a good bet 
with other humans, and even many animals.  But does it apply to an 
octopus?  To an artificially intelligent Mars rover?   If two Mars 
rovers use a single AI via an RF link are they two consicousness because 
they have two different viewpoints?  Or are they just one consciousness 
that uses two viewpoints to create a worldview?


Brent

It is consciousness where we all differ . . . one from the other. We 
might all be the same . . . we might all be One . . . but individual 
consciousness differentiates each of us from the other . . . no matter 
how great or minute the differences are.



On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 4:24:45 PM UTC-8, Brent wrote:



On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> Two recent books:
>
> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
> Arthur S. Reber
>
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ


>
> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
> Paul Thagard
>
https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ


>
> via
> When Did Consciousness Begin?
> Paul Thagard
>

https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin



>
> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>
> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious
and eternal.
>
> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7
billion
> years ago.
>
> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion
> years ago (Reber).
>
> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850
million
> years ago.
>
> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got
thousands of
> neurons, around 580 million years ago.
>
> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger
brains
> with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons
> (zebrafish) around 560 million years ago.
>
> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals
> developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons,
around
> 200 million years ago. [Thagard]
>
> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000
years
> ago.
>
> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced,
around 3000
> years ago (Julian Jaynes).
>
> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific
mistake
> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).

A good exposition, but I wish he had taken some time to consider
what is
consciousness.  I think he recognizes that there are different
kinds and
levels of consciousness, but he doesn't make it clear what they
are; how
are they related to memory and communication and planning.  It seems
clear to me that different kinds and levels of consciousness
appeared at
different times.

Brent

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

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-28 Thread Azutmai
 

Brent . . . it might be helpful to equate the word ‘consciousness’ and 
‘awareness.’ If we are conscious or aware of something . . . then it 
pertains to our viewpoint and lifestyle. Memory is a secondary feature to 
allow the individual to retain over time . . . otherwise we would have to 
learn the same thing over and over and over again . . . which we still 
somewhat do anyway. Observe someone’s interests, passions, habits, etc . . 
. and one can get a very good idea of their general level or state of 
consciousness. It is consciousness where we all differ . . . one from the 
other. We might all be the same . . . we might all be One . . . but 
individual consciousness differentiates each of us from the other . . . no 
matter how great or minute the differences are. 

On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 4:24:45 PM UTC-8, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > Two recent books: 
> > 
> > The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness 
> > Arthur S. Reber 
> > 
> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ 
> > 
> > Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity 
> > Paul Thagard 
> > https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ 
> > 
> > via 
> > When Did Consciousness Begin? 
> > Paul Thagard 
> > 
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>  
> > 
> > Thagard's 10 hypotheses: 
> > 
> > 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and 
> eternal. 
> > 
> > 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion 
> > years ago. 
> > 
> > 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion 
> > years ago (Reber). 
> > 
> > 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million 
> > years ago. 
> > 
> > 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
> > neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
> > 
> > 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains 
> > with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons 
> > (zebrafish) around 560 million years ago. 
> > 
> > 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals 
> > developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 
> > 200 million years ago. [Thagard] 
> > 
> > 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years 
> > ago. 
> > 
> > 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
> > years ago (Julian Jaynes). 
> > 
> > 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
> > (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
>
> A good exposition, but I wish he had taken some time to consider what is 
> consciousness.  I think he recognizes that there are different kinds and 
> levels of consciousness, but he doesn't make it clear what they are; how 
> are they related to memory and communication and planning.  It seems 
> clear to me that different kinds and levels of consciousness appeared at 
> different times. 
>
> Brent 
>

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-22 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 20 Feb 2019, at 00:00, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/17/2019 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 But the machine itself will not believe us, or understand this.
>>> Why not?  It can't prove what algorithm it is, but it can know that we 
>>> know...so why would it disbelieve us.
>> Tha machine becomes inconsistent if it assumes its consistency (cf Rogers’s 
>> sentence). The machine can assume a sort of consistency of its past belief, 
>> like PA can add the axioms that PA is consistent, (or that PA is 
>> inconsistent) without losing its consistency, but in that case it becomes a 
>> new machine, with a similar theology in shape, but a different 
>> content/meaning for the box. She has changed her own code (as we do every 
>> second instinctively).
> 
> I think this is misleading.  When you say it becomes inconsistent if it 
> assumes it's consistency, you mean that if it uses its consistency as an 
> axiom it can lead to proving "false".   But in fact everyone assumes that 
> their beliefs are consistent, they just don't take it as an axiom and neither 
> do they take it as an axiom that they are inconsistent.  If I'm creating an 
> AI I see no reason to have it make any assumption or inference about it's 
> consistency in the sense of Goedel.  It need only be consistent in the sense 
> of avoiding ex quod libet.

Yes. That is what I was explaining.

In fact the machine, PA say, can guess or infer abductively or inductively its 
own consistency, and add it as a new axiom leading to the “new” machine PA + 
con PA (which is different than PA, and indeed much more powerful in the range 
of its theorem, and this makes the length of many proof shorter (cf the 
speeding role of consciousness). If the machine is not cautious, it can lead to 
the theory PA’ = PA + con PA’ (that exists by the diagonal lemma or Kleene’s 
second recursion theorem), and that leads to an inconsistent theory. So there 
is an important nuance between “guessing or inferring one’s consistency, and 
assuming it as part of our belief, without any distinguishing label or 
interrogation mark. It is the same as the difference with the existence of the 
universe or just infinity. PA assumes (or derive from its assumption/axioms) 
the existence of each numbers, but not of the entirety or infinity of the 
natural numbers. Mechanism infer/guess the existence of a physical universe 
(and a doctor, physical computers), but not as part of the mechanist 
assumption, which would make that universe primitive. That again is a nuance 
brought by incompleteness, and plays an important rôle. If a machine 
asserts/assumes its own consistency, it can prove it (in one line like “see the 
assumption”), and get inconsistent by incompleteness. It becomes equivalent to 
a Rogerian sentences, that is, a sentence K such that PA proves (K <-> ~[]~K), 
but then PA proves [](K <-> ~[]~K) <-> [](K <-> f), like PA proves (with [] = 
beweisbar)

 [](K <-> []K) <-> [](K <-> t).   (Löbian sentence)
 [](K <-> ~[]K) <-> [](K <-> <>t)  (Gödelianl sentence)
 [](K <-> []~K) <-> [](K <-> []f). (Jeroslowian sentence)

The moral is that in psychology and theology, many truth go without saying and 
*only* without saying. They are called the Protagorean virtue in my longer 
exposition. 

You need only to recall that I use “understands”,” asserts", “proves", 
“believes” in a deductive sense, as opposed to semantic inductive inference, 
related to the fact that a machine has a body, or code, and can infer truth by 
experience (and not a reasoning, conscious or not conscious). That is reflected 
also in the difference between []p and []p & p, or []p & <>t, etc.

Bruno




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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-19 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/17/2019 2:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

But the machine itself will not believe us, or understand this.

Why not?  It can't prove what algorithm it is, but it can know that we 
know...so why would it disbelieve us.

Tha machine becomes inconsistent if it assumes its consistency (cf Rogers’s 
sentence). The machine can assume a sort of consistency of its past belief, 
like PA can add the axioms that PA is consistent, (or that PA is inconsistent) 
without losing its consistency, but in that case it becomes a new machine, with 
a similar theology in shape, but a different content/meaning for the box. She 
has changed her own code (as we do every second instinctively).


I think this is misleading.  When you say it becomes inconsistent if it 
assumes it's consistency, you mean that if it uses its consistency as an 
axiom it can lead to proving "false".   But in fact everyone assumes 
that their beliefs are consistent, they just don't take it as an axiom 
and neither do they take it as an axiom that they are inconsistent.  If 
I'm creating an AI I see no reason to have it make any assumption or 
inference about it's consistency in the sense of Goedel.  It need only 
be consistent in the sense of avoiding ex quod libet.


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-19 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 15 Feb 2019, at 19:50, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/14/2019 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 14 Feb 2019, at 06:44, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/12/2019 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 If we could knew which machine we are, we could define consciousness, or 
 at least our personal current consciousness, as it would be defined by the 
 combinator realising us. But that is impossible, and it defines only 
 mechanism and the choice we might make for our substitution level.
>>> But when we build AI's we will know which machine they are.
>>> 
>> In theory yes, and we can be sure of its theology if the machine is sensibly 
>> less complex than us.
> 
> I don't understand that.  "We" in the collective sense build lots of things 
> that no one of us understands (e.g. Boeing 747), but "we" understand it.


The point is that a machine cannot prove its own consistency, or define its own 
notion of truth/god, but she  *can* prove that IF she is consistent, then she 
cannot prove its own consistency. At that stage, its living or experience of 
its inability to prove its consistency can be abductively explained by the fact 
she *might* be consistent. Something similar happens with soundness, and all 
its limitation. 
The key here is that machine can prove their own conditional incompleteness, 
and experience things (by the qualitative difference brought by the difference 
of the logic of G ([]p) and S4Grz ([]p & p).

For the Boeing 747, even the 787!, machine understand it eventually, it is pure 
3p, even if it is 1p-plural, after assuming compuytationalism, but it is 
entirely explainable in 3p terms. Not so for the proper theology of the 
machine: the (G* minus G) points on things which have to be above them, when 
the box “[]” refers to their beliefs (as assumed by mechanism where “[]” 
describes their correct level of substitution). But all machine can do the 
theology of the simpler machine, and see “empirically” if that is confirmed, in 
the experiential (1p) way, and in some first person plural way (1p-plural, 
locally 3p).







> 
>> But the machine itself will not believe us, or understand this.
> 
> Why not?  It can't prove what algorithm it is, but it can know that we 
> know...so why would it disbelieve us.


Tha machine becomes inconsistent if it assumes its consistency (cf Rogers’s 
sentence). The machine can assume a sort of consistency of its past belief, 
like PA can add the axioms that PA is consistent, (or that PA is inconsistent) 
without losing its consistency, but in that case it becomes a new machine, with 
a similar theology in shape, but a different content/meaning for the box. She 
has changed her own code (as we do every second instinctively).




> 
>> Then in practice, the machine will transform itself very quickly,
> 
> Wild speculation.  We don't "transform ourselves very quickly”.

Of course we do. For example, you just change yourself into a new “Brent” with 
the axiom: I just read Bruno saying “Of course we do.” In a mail from 17 
February 2019. You kept your persona identity, because we have define the 
identity of the person through their inclusive memories. 

Bruno




> 
> Brent
> 
>> and we will also not known which machine she is, except that we will know 
>> some bound on its substitution level: by construction indeed. Once as much 
>> complex than us, even in that case, we will lost the information (except for 
>> the substitution level again).
>> 
>> All (sound) machine can develop the whole theology of a simpler machine, 
>> although not algorithmically in the first person modal logic. But the 
>> propositional theology is just G*, and provably so if we can prove that the 
>> machine is arithmetically sound (like we tend to believe for machine like PA 
>> and ZF).
>> 
>> Bruno
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> Brent
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>>> "Everything List" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-19 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 15 Feb 2019, at 20:37, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > I will do a personal confession: I have never believe in matter, 
> 
> Matter doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it will just continue doing 
> what it does.

Assuming it exists. But in that case you have to explain what is primary 
matter, and how it makes some computations (going through your mind state) in 
arithmetic more real than others. That assumption makes things more complex, 
and without any evidence for it. So it looks like making things only more 
complex without any evidence for it. Assuming matter makes it primitive, 
without reason.




> 
> > because I have never seen any evidence for it. 
> 
> That's OK, I don't think matter has ever seen any evidence for you either.

Nor for your consciousness, but you cannot eliminate it, as you say in your 
critics on Dennett (with which I agree).



> 
> > Matter is like God, 
> 
> Matter is nothing like God, one is amenable to the scientific method and one 
> is not, that is to say one is bullshit and one is not.

I should have written “Assumed Matter” or “Primitive Matter”. It is like a 
creator God, instead of “God made it”, you accept/assume its existence, which 
is equivalent to abandoning the idea of explains it from simpler principles. It 
is the common “Aristotle's mistake” of reifying a metaphysical notion, to avoid 
explains it. To say “because matter is” is not a progress from “because A God 
made it”. 




> 
> > in the sense of the greeks
> 
> Yes in the sense of the ancient Greeks, in other words in the sense of people 
> with less scientific literacy than a bright fourth grader.

No, in theology Wie have regressed a lot, after the theology-science has been 
stolen by Churches and Tempes to control and manipulate people. Most people are 
even ignorant of the work of the neopythagorean and the neoplatonist. They 
ignore that the science of physics, mathematics, and even mathematical logic 
are all born from that scientific theology of the ancient greeks. It is just 
that after 529 in Occident, and after1248 (Al Ghazali) in the Middle-East, the 
field has been made taboo or mocked by people who use dogma instead.



> Why oh why do you keep talking about those ignoramuses? 

Because in theology, to put it roughly, we have imposed inconsistent theories 
since long.




> 
> > which means that it is something that we have to explain,
> 
> And then we have to explain the explanation and then explain the explanation 
> of the explanation and then…

… and then we explains everything, including the necessary presence of some 
unexplainable experiences and realms, just from elementary addition and 
multiplication, without assuming anything more than Mechanism and accepting the 
standard definitions in the fields of epistemology and ancient theology.
Mechanism explains the conscious appearance and the sharable and non sharable 
part of the physical reality, without committing itself in strong ontological 
assumption. 

Bruno





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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-19 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 15 Feb 2019, at 19:53, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/14/2019 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Don’t hesitate to find some argument in favour of primitive materials, but 
>> in my opinion, this is highly speculative, and never used in physics.
> 
> But the non-material primitive is never used either. 

Assuming matter! But even a physicist will prefer to assume numbers, as he 
needs to record the results of its experiment and develop its theory, than to 
derive the notion of numbers from, say the strings (and not the string 
*theory*, which assumes some number or equivalent Turing-complete base.



> Insofar as I know, no scientist ever worries about what is primitive;

I agree. That is the case since 1500 years. Metaphysics/theology have been 
taken away from science. 

Instead of obeying to elementary Pltinian-like theology, whose recommend to 
never mention Its Name in any terrestrial effective matter, we do tolerate the 
blasphemy all the times. That explains why in the human science we are still in 
the superstition, idolatry, with a complacency to total lack of rigour. That 
explains (but not justifies) the Shoah, Rwanda, Wars, and the many lies we are 
given all the times in the human domain, the medical science included. Science 
has not yet begun, except somehow in between -500 (Pythagorus) and +500 
(Damascius, end of Plato’s Academy in Athen).

Science is neutral on metaphysics and theology, *especially* in scientific 
metaphysics/psychology/theology. You are right, I have never find a paper in 
physics which assumes ontological matter. Only in philosophy do many people do 
that assumption, which is not a problem if recognised as such, and not mixed 
with Digital Mechanism. But the empirical evidences sides more with Mechanism 
than Materialism.



> they only want to find a theory that is consilient, broad in scope, and 
> correct in predictions.

Yes, so let us do that with theology and metaphysics. 

Bruno




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

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


RE: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-19 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hi Philip,

I cannot answer in your text for reason of bad formatting. It looks hard to be 
sent too.

I comment here: when you say:

<<
Matter is everything that we can see, smell, touch, feel and even can't see.  
>>

I am OK with this definition. 

But when you add


<<
Everything is matter, there isn't anything that isn't matter.  
>>


That means you adopt Aristotle’s metaphysics, which is incompatible with the 
“Mechanist act of faith”.
Indeed, logic makes the Mechanist theory entitling that “seeing, smelling, 
touching, feeling” are phenomenological number attributes, and explains matter 
without making it primitive, which means really explain it, instead of 
populating at the outset.

If you believe that matter explains the numbers, you should provide the 
explanation, and of course, not assume the numbers, or anything 
Turing-equivalent, in the process. Existing theories in physics do assumes the 
numbers, and so cannot be used in this context.

Bruno

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-18 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Feb 18, 2019 at 10:14 AM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>> Matter doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it will just continue
>> doing what it does.
>
>
> *> Assuming it exists.*
>

You've said that many many times before but I still don't get your point.
Apparently I don't know what you mean by "exists", but don't give me a
definition or a explanation give me an example; How would a world where
matter "exists" be different from a world where it did not?


> *> But in that case you have to explain what is primary matter,*
>

I can do much better than give an explanation, I can very easily give an
example of matter. I don't know if matter is primary but I do know you
can't do better because it's the oldest thing so far discovered.


> > *and how it makes some computations*
>

Turing gave an explanation of how matter can make a calculation way back in
1936.


> > *It is the common “Aristotle's mistake”*
>

The Great Aristotelian Mistake is to keep talking about the ancient Greek
Bozos as if any of them are important or have said anything profound. I've
had enough ancestor worship on this list for a lifetime.


> > To say “because matter is”
>

If you disagree with that then please tell me how a world where matter is
not would be different from a world where matter is.


> > is not a progress from “because A God made it”.
>

Physicists say "I can demonstrate that matter behaves this way under these
conditions", theologians say "God wants X" but can not demonstrate what
they say is true.


> * > It is just that after 529 in Occident, and after 1248 (Al Ghazali) in
> the Middle-East, the field has been made taboo or mocked by people who use
> dogma instead.*
>

Are you actually saying that Christian Bozos in 529 and Islamic Bozos in
1248 knew more about the nature of reality than the physicists at CERN in
2019?! Can you really make that asertian with a straight face?

 John K Clark

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-18 Thread Bruno Marchal
I send again my answer, that I wrote yesterday. All in one post.

===
Hi Philip,

I cannot answer in your text for reason of bad formatting. It looks hard to be 
sent too.

I comment here: when you say:

<<
Matter is everything that we can see, smell, touch, feel and even can't see. 
>>

I am OK with this definition. 

But when you add


<<
Everything is matter, there isn't anything that isn't matter. 
>>


That means you adopt Aristotle’s metaphysics, which is incompatible with the 
“Mechanist act of faith”.
Indeed, logic makes the Mechanist theory entitling that “seeing, smelling, 
touching, feeling” are phenomenological number attributes, and explains matter 
without making it primitive, which means really explain it, instead of 
populating at the outset.

If you believe that matter explains the numbers, you should provide the 
explanation, and of course, not assume the numbers, or anything 
Turing-equivalent, in the process. Existing theories in physics do assumes the 
numbers, and so cannot be used in this context.

Bruno
=
Hi John,


> On 15 Feb 2019, at 20:37, John Clark  > wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> > I will do a personal confession: I have never believe in matter, 
> 
> Matter doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it will just continue doing 
> what it does.

Assuming it exists. But in that case you have to explain what is primary 
matter, and how it makes some computations (going through your mind state) in 
arithmetic more real than others. That assumption makes things more complex, 
and without any evidence for it. So it looks like making things only more 
complex without any evidence for it. Assuming matter makes it primitive, 
without reason.




> 
> > because I have never seen any evidence for it. 
> 
> That's OK, I don't think matter has ever seen any evidence for you either.

Nor for your consciousness, but you cannot eliminate it, as you say in your 
critics on Dennett (with which I agree).



> 
> > Matter is like God, 
> 
> Matter is nothing like God, one is amenable to the scientific method and one 
> is not, that is to say one is bullshit and one is not.

I should have written “Assumed Matter” or “Primitive Matter”. It is like a 
creator God, instead of “God made it”, you accept/assume its existence, which 
is equivalent to abandoning the idea of explains it from simpler principles. It 
is the common “Aristotle's mistake” of reifying a metaphysical notion, to avoid 
explains it. To say “because matter is” is not a progress from “because A God 
made it”. 




> 
> > in the sense of the greeks
> 
> Yes in the sense of the ancient Greeks, in other words in the sense of people 
> with less scientific literacy than a bright fourth grader. 

No, in theology Wie have regressed a lot, after the theology-science has been 
stolen by Churches and Tempes to control and manipulate people. Most people are 
even ignorant of the work of the neopythagorean and the neoplatonist. They 
ignore that the science of physics, mathematics, and even mathematical logic 
are all born from that scientific theology of the ancient greeks. It is just 
that after 529 in Occident, and after1248 (Al Ghazali) in the Middle-East, the 
field has been made taboo or mocked by people who use dogma instead.



> Why oh why do you keep talking about those ignoramuses? 

Because in theology, to put it roughly, we have imposed inconsistent theories 
since long.




> 
> > which means that it is something that we have to explain,
> 
> And then we have to explain the explanation and then explain the explanation 
> of the explanation and then…

… and then we explains everything, including the necessary presence of some 
unexplainable experiences and realms, just from elementary addition and 
multiplication, without assuming anything more than Mechanism and accepting the 
standard definitions in the fields of epistemology and ancient theology.
Mechanism explains the conscious appearance and the sharable and non sharable 
part of the physical reality, without committing itself in strong ontological 
assumption. 

Bruno
=
Hi Brent,


> On 15 Feb 2019, at 19:53, Brent Meeker  > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/14/2019 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Don’t hesitate to find some argument in favour of primitive materials, but 
>> in my opinion, this is highly speculative, and never used in physics.
> 
> But the non-material primitive is never used either. 

Assuming matter! But even a physicist will prefer to assume numbers, as he 
needs to record the results of its experiment and develop its theory, than to 
derive the notion of numbers from, say the strings (and not the string 
*theory*, which assumes some number or equivalent Turing-complete base.



> Insofar as I know, no scientist ever worries about what is primitive;

I agree. 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/14/2019 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 14 Feb 2019, at 06:44, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 2/12/2019 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

If we could knew which machine we are, we could define consciousness, or at 
least our personal current consciousness, as it would be defined by the 
combinator realising us. But that is impossible, and it defines only mechanism 
and the choice we might make for our substitution level.

But when we build AI's we will know which machine they are.


In theory yes, and we can be sure of its theology if the machine is sensibly 
less complex than us.


I don't understand that.  "We" in the collective sense build lots of 
things that no one of us understands (e.g. Boeing 747), but "we" 
understand it.



But the machine itself will not believe us, or understand this.


Why not?  It can't prove what algorithm it is, but it can know that we 
know...so why would it disbelieve us.



Then in practice, the machine will transform itself very quickly,


Wild speculation.  We don't "transform ourselves very quickly".

Brent


and we will also not known which machine she is, except that we will know some 
bound on its substitution level: by construction indeed. Once as much complex 
than us, even in that case, we will lost the information (except for the 
substitution level again).

All (sound) machine can develop the whole theology of a simpler machine, 
although not algorithmically in the first person modal logic. But the 
propositional theology is just G*, and provably so if we can prove that the 
machine is arithmetically sound (like we tend to believe for machine like PA 
and ZF).

Bruno




Brent

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


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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 1:37:54 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
> > I will do a personal confession: I have never believe in matter, 
>
>
> Matter doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it will just continue 
> doing what it does.
>
> > *because I have never seen any evidence for it. *
>
>
> That's OK, I don't think matter has ever seen any evidence for you either.
>
> > *Matter is like God, *
>
>
> Matter is nothing like God, one is amenable to the scientific method and 
> one is not, that is to say one is bullshit and one is not.
>
> > *in the sense of the greeks*
>
>
> Yes in the sense of the ancient Greeks, in other words in the sense of 
> people with less scientific literacy than a bright fourth grader. Why oh 
> why do you keep talking about those ignoramuses? 
>
> > which means that it is something that we have to explain,
>
>
> And then we have to explain the explanation and then explain the 
> explanation of the explanation and then...
>
>  John K Clark
>
>
>

Aristotle  (384–322 B.C.E.):
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle/
Epicurus (341–270 B.C.E.): 
  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epicurus/

Aristotle was a dunce compared to Epicurus. :)

- pt 

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Philip Thrift


On Friday, February 15, 2019 at 12:15:52 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 14 Feb 2019, at 09:43, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:17:57 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:31, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:24:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 00:34, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Two recent books:
>>>
>>> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
>>> Arthur S. Reber
>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
>>>
>>> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
>>> Paul Thagard
>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
>>>
>>> via
>>> When Did Consciousness Begin?
>>> Paul Thagard
>>>
>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I compare with the theology of the computationalist Universal Turing 
>>> machine’s theology.
>>>
>>> (So I do the blasphemy some times, and it is important that keep in mind 
>>> the necessary interrogation point). I have not look at the answer of 
>>> others, to test this later …).
>>>
>>> Consciousness is just the “instinctive” or “automated” 
>>> belief/anticipation concerning a possible reality.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>>>
>>> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and 
>>> eternal.
>>>
>>>
>>> Consciousness has always existed, because all universal machine/number 
>>> are conscious and “eternal” (out of time).
>>>
>>> Is God conscious? Open problem.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion 
>>> years ago. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This cannot be. But the event “13 billion years ago” and many variants 
>>> occurs "all the time” (or all the number-of-step of all universal 
>>> dovetailing) in the arithmetical reality.
>>>
>>> Those are important events in our history, but the consciousness which 
>>> does the history selection was there “before”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
>>> ago (Reber). 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Not really, but the consciousness of the universal machine get a 
>>> physical stable implementations, apparently relatively to us. We get many 
>>> universal entities capable of interacting with a solid notion of resources. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million 
>>> years ago. 
>>>
>>>
>>> In our histories, which “tautologically” are those semantical statifying 
>>> the logic of the material modes of self-reference, which seems the case 
>>> thanks to the quantum and Gödel (which enforces the distinction between []p 
>>> and []p & <>t in the provable part of the machine in arithmetic.
>>>
>>> Again, important events in our history, but consciousness was “there 
>>> before”.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>>> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> That’s about the time the soul of the machine falls, and they begin to 
>>> hallucinate and believe in what they were conscious of, and thus get 
>>> partially deluded. The universal machine get Löbian. Soon, they will even 
>>> begin to believe in the axiom of infinity, and calculus, if not Lagrangian 
>>> (grin).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains 
>>> with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
>>> around 560 million years ago. 
>>>
>>>
>>> It has been discovered that bees adds and multiplies little numbers, 
>>> when they need, to get pollen from mathematical human teacher! But I still 
>>> think that spider, especially the hunters, go much farer in their 
>>> conception of reality as a video illustrates well here. At 0.44 she 
>>> explores and get a surprise when “not seeing a spider where expected”, that 
>>> occurs two times, and the second times she run away!
>>>
>>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4pdf49bxw
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
>>> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
>>> years ago. [Thagard]
>>>
>>>
>>> Much larger brain enlarges the number of stupidity you can asserts, but 
>>> of course, the catastrophes are limited until … the universal (natural) 
>>> languages develops … 
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years 
>>> ago.
>>>
>>>
>>> “Homo sapiens” cannot be asserted by the homo if he is really sapiens … 
>>>
>>> Let us say that the peculiar human Intelligence, accompanied by human 
>>> stupidity, begin to develop.
>>>
>>> Intelligence and stupidity are two big friends, they never separate each 
>>> other.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 9. Consciousness began when human culture 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Feb 15, 2019 at 1:15 PM Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> I will do a personal confession: I have never believe in matter,


Matter doesn't care if you believe in it or not, it will just continue
doing what it does.

> *because I have never seen any evidence for it. *


That's OK, I don't think matter has ever seen any evidence for you either.

> *Matter is like God, *


Matter is nothing like God, one is amenable to the scientific method and
one is not, that is to say one is bullshit and one is not.

> *in the sense of the greeks*


Yes in the sense of the ancient Greeks, in other words in the sense of
people with less scientific literacy than a bright fourth grader. Why oh
why do you keep talking about those ignoramuses?

> which means that it is something that we have to explain,


And then we have to explain the explanation and then explain the
explanation of the explanation and then...

 John K Clark

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/14/2019 3:26 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Don’t hesitate to find some argument in favour of primitive materials, 
but in my opinion, this is highly speculative, and never used in physics.


But the non-material primitive is never used either.  Insofar as I know, 
no scientist ever worries about what is primitive; they only want to 
find a theory that is consilient, broad in scope, and correct in 
predictions.


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 14 Feb 2019, at 09:43, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:17:57 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:31, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:24:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> 
>>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 00:34, Philip Thrift > wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Two recent books:
>>> 
>>> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
>>> Arthur S. Reber
>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
>>> Paul Thagard
>>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> via
>>> When Did Consciousness Begin?
>>> Paul Thagard
>>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>>>  
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I compare with the theology of the computationalist Universal Turing 
>> machine’s theology.
>> 
>> (So I do the blasphemy some times, and it is important that keep in mind the 
>> necessary interrogation point). I have not look at the answer of others, to 
>> test this later …).
>> 
>> Consciousness is just the “instinctive” or “automated” belief/anticipation 
>> concerning a possible reality.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>>> 
>>> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
>> 
>> Consciousness has always existed, because all universal machine/number are 
>> conscious and “eternal” (out of time).
>> 
>> Is God conscious? Open problem.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
>>> ago. 
>> 
>> 
>> This cannot be. But the event “13 billion years ago” and many variants 
>> occurs "all the time” (or all the number-of-step of all universal 
>> dovetailing) in the arithmetical reality.
>> 
>> Those are important events in our history, but the consciousness which does 
>> the history selection was there “before”.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
>>> ago (Reber). 
>> 
>> 
>> Not really, but the consciousness of the universal machine get a physical 
>> stable implementations, apparently relatively to us. We get many universal 
>> entities capable of interacting with a solid notion of resources. 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
>>> ago. 
>> 
>> In our histories, which “tautologically” are those semantical statifying the 
>> logic of the material modes of self-reference, which seems the case thanks 
>> to the quantum and Gödel (which enforces the distinction between []p and []p 
>> & <>t in the provable part of the machine in arithmetic.
>> 
>> Again, important events in our history, but consciousness was “there before”.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>>> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>> 
>> 
>> That’s about the time the soul of the machine falls, and they begin to 
>> hallucinate and believe in what they were conscious of, and thus get 
>> partially deluded. The universal machine get Löbian. Soon, they will even 
>> begin to believe in the axiom of infinity, and calculus, if not Lagrangian 
>> (grin).
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
>>> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
>>> around 560 million years ago. 
>> 
>> It has been discovered that bees adds and multiplies little numbers, when 
>> they need, to get pollen from mathematical human teacher! But I still think 
>> that spider, especially the hunters, go much farer in their conception of 
>> reality as a video illustrates well here. At 0.44 she explores and get a 
>> surprise when “not seeing a spider where expected”, that occurs two times, 
>> and the second times she run away!
>> 
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4pdf49bxw 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
>>> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
>>> years ago. [Thagard]
>> 
>> Much larger brain enlarges the number of stupidity you can asserts, but of 
>> course, the catastrophes are limited until … the universal (natural) 
>> languages develops … 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> 
>>> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
>> 
>> “Homo sapiens” cannot be asserted by the homo if he is really sapiens … 
>> 
>> Let us say that the peculiar human Intelligence, accompanied by human 
>> stupidity, begin to develop.
>> 
>> 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-15 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 14 Feb 2019, at 06:44, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/12/2019 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> If we could knew which machine we are, we could define consciousness, or at 
>> least our personal current consciousness, as it would be defined by the 
>> combinator realising us. But that is impossible, and it defines only 
>> mechanism and the choice we might make for our substitution level.
> 
> But when we build AI's we will know which machine they are.
> 

In theory yes, and we can be sure of its theology if the machine is sensibly 
less complex than us. But the machine itself will not believe us, or understand 
this. Then in practice, the machine will transform itself very quickly, and we 
will also not known which machine she is, except that we will know some bound 
on its substitution level: by construction indeed. Once as much complex than 
us, even in that case, we will lost the information (except for the 
substitution level again).

All (sound) machine can develop the whole theology of a simpler machine, 
although not algorithmically in the first person modal logic. But the 
propositional theology is just G*, and provably so if we can prove that the 
machine is arithmetically sound (like we tend to believe for machine like PA 
and ZF).

Bruno



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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-14 Thread Philip Thrift


On Wednesday, February 13, 2019 at 10:17:57 PM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:31, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:24:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 00:34, Philip Thrift  wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Two recent books:
>>
>> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
>> Arthur S. Reber
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
>>
>> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
>> Paul Thagard
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
>>
>> via
>> When Did Consciousness Begin?
>> Paul Thagard
>>
>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I compare with the theology of the computationalist Universal Turing 
>> machine’s theology.
>>
>> (So I do the blasphemy some times, and it is important that keep in mind 
>> the necessary interrogation point). I have not look at the answer of 
>> others, to test this later …).
>>
>> Consciousness is just the “instinctive” or “automated” 
>> belief/anticipation concerning a possible reality.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>>
>> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
>>
>>
>> Consciousness has always existed, because all universal machine/number 
>> are conscious and “eternal” (out of time).
>>
>> Is God conscious? Open problem.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion 
>> years ago. 
>>
>>
>>
>> This cannot be. But the event “13 billion years ago” and many variants 
>> occurs "all the time” (or all the number-of-step of all universal 
>> dovetailing) in the arithmetical reality.
>>
>> Those are important events in our history, but the consciousness which 
>> does the history selection was there “before”.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
>> ago (Reber). 
>>
>>
>>
>> Not really, but the consciousness of the universal machine get a physical 
>> stable implementations, apparently relatively to us. We get many universal 
>> entities capable of interacting with a solid notion of resources. 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million 
>> years ago. 
>>
>>
>> In our histories, which “tautologically” are those semantical statifying 
>> the logic of the material modes of self-reference, which seems the case 
>> thanks to the quantum and Gödel (which enforces the distinction between []p 
>> and []p & <>t in the provable part of the machine in arithmetic.
>>
>> Again, important events in our history, but consciousness was “there 
>> before”.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>>
>>
>>
>> That’s about the time the soul of the machine falls, and they begin to 
>> hallucinate and believe in what they were conscious of, and thus get 
>> partially deluded. The universal machine get Löbian. Soon, they will even 
>> begin to believe in the axiom of infinity, and calculus, if not Lagrangian 
>> (grin).
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
>> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
>> around 560 million years ago. 
>>
>>
>> It has been discovered that bees adds and multiplies little numbers, when 
>> they need, to get pollen from mathematical human teacher! But I still think 
>> that spider, especially the hunters, go much farer in their conception of 
>> reality as a video illustrates well here. At 0.44 she explores and get a 
>> surprise when “not seeing a spider where expected”, that occurs two times, 
>> and the second times she run away!
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4pdf49bxw
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
>> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
>> years ago. [Thagard]
>>
>>
>> Much larger brain enlarges the number of stupidity you can asserts, but 
>> of course, the catastrophes are limited until … the universal (natural) 
>> languages develops … 
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years 
>> ago.
>>
>>
>> “Homo sapiens” cannot be asserted by the homo if he is really sapiens … 
>>
>> Let us say that the peculiar human Intelligence, accompanied by human 
>> stupidity, begin to develop.
>>
>> Intelligence and stupidity are two big friends, they never separate each 
>> other.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
>> years ago (Julian Jaynes).  
>>
>>
>> Birth of the little ego. Birth of cruelty and the human suffering.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
>> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
>>
>>
>> Negation of the 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-13 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/12/2019 5:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

If we could knew which machine we are, we could define consciousness, or at 
least our personal current consciousness, as it would be defined by the 
combinator realising us. But that is impossible, and it defines only mechanism 
and the choice we might make for our substitution level.


But when we build AI's we will know which machine they are.

Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-13 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:13, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/11/2019 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 01:24, Brent Meeker  wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
 
 Two recent books:
 
 The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
 Arthur S. Reber
 https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
 
 Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
 Paul Thagard
 https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
 
 via
 When Did Consciousness Begin?
 Paul Thagard
 https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
 
 Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
 
 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
 
 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
 ago.
 
 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
 ago (Reber).
 
 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
 ago.
 
 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
 neurons, around 580 million years ago.
 
 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
 about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
 around 560 million years ago.
 
 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
 much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
 years ago. [Thagard]
 
 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
 
 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
 years ago (Julian Jaynes).
 
 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
 (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).
>>> A good exposition, but I wish he had taken some time to consider what is 
>>> consciousness.  I think he recognizes that there are different kinds and 
>>> levels of consciousness, but he doesn't make it clear what they are; how 
>>> are they related to memory and communication and planning.  It seems clear 
>>> to me that different kinds and levels of consciousness appeared at 
>>> different times.
>> 
>> Are you OK that consciousness is, from the first person perspective, 
>> something which can be said to be
>> 
>> 1) true
> ?? Propositions are true (or false).


"Consciousness is true" from the first perspective is a manner to say that the 
proposition “I am conscious” is true for the first person I. 



>> 2) knowable
> I  think that distinguishes one level of consciousness: self-reflection, 
> perceiving that you are conscious. 

I would put the self-reflective level at the level of Löbianity. But it is the 
essence of consciousness of being a (not necessarily reflective) sort of 
knowledge. A worm knows when the acidity of its environment is bad for him, as 
it senses that immediately, but iit might know that it knows. Immediate 
knowledge requires the axiom t ([]p -> p). Self-awarenes asks for more, like 
the axiom “4” []p -> [][]p, which comes from believing in enough axiom of 
induction.




> But I doubt that spiders have self reflection. I suspect it appears in social 
> animals as an evolutionary adaptation, seeing yourself as others see you.

That is a complex question. The behaviour of spider shows that they do 
“induce”, which is not the case for insects, although there to, some new 
evidences added that some bees might induce too. It is of course hard to have 
any kind of certainties on this. When reading some news, I can even doubt that 
the human got it (but in the case of the human, it is more a problem of denying 
evidence for ideological, or greedy motivation).




> 
>> 2) non provable
> Proof is a relation between propositions mediated by rules of inference.

I identify a machine with its set of belief, or with its universal machine 
constitution. I limit myself to ideally correct machine, so what you say 
remains correct, but does not handicap the present (semi-axiomatic) definition 
of consciousness.





>> 3) indubitable
> Ok.

>> 4) non definable
> ?? When we talk about consciousness we rely on ostensive definition to 
> understand one another: "You know that feeling you get when you step on a 
> tack?”

Exactly. And an ostensive “definition" is required because consciousness, like 
truth, and like knowledge are not definable by the entity in question. But all 
Lôbian machine can define those things for simpler entities than they are. 
In my contest, a definition can use only “(“, “K”, “S”, “=“ and “)". (Or, s, 0, 
+, * “(“, “)” and the logical symbol).
All the terms aI am using are used in the sense of mathematical logic. 

If we could knew which machine we are, we could define consciousness, or at 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-13 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:31, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:24:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 00:34, Philip Thrift > 
>> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Two recent books:
>> 
>> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
>> Arthur S. Reber
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ 
>> 
>> 
>> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
>> Paul Thagard
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ 
>> 
>> 
>> via
>> When Did Consciousness Begin?
>> Paul Thagard
>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>>  
>> 
> 
> 
> I compare with the theology of the computationalist Universal Turing 
> machine’s theology.
> 
> (So I do the blasphemy some times, and it is important that keep in mind the 
> necessary interrogation point). I have not look at the answer of others, to 
> test this later …).
> 
> Consciousness is just the “instinctive” or “automated” belief/anticipation 
> concerning a possible reality.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>> 
>> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
> 
> Consciousness has always existed, because all universal machine/number are 
> conscious and “eternal” (out of time).
> 
> Is God conscious? Open problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
>> ago. 
> 
> 
> This cannot be. But the event “13 billion years ago” and many variants occurs 
> "all the time” (or all the number-of-step of all universal dovetailing) in 
> the arithmetical reality.
> 
> Those are important events in our history, but the consciousness which does 
> the history selection was there “before”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years ago 
>> (Reber). 
> 
> 
> Not really, but the consciousness of the universal machine get a physical 
> stable implementations, apparently relatively to us. We get many universal 
> entities capable of interacting with a solid notion of resources. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
>> ago. 
> 
> In our histories, which “tautologically” are those semantical statifying the 
> logic of the material modes of self-reference, which seems the case thanks to 
> the quantum and Gödel (which enforces the distinction between []p and []p & 
> <>t in the provable part of the machine in arithmetic.
> 
> Again, important events in our history, but consciousness was “there before”.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
> 
> 
> That’s about the time the soul of the machine falls, and they begin to 
> hallucinate and believe in what they were conscious of, and thus get 
> partially deluded. The universal machine get Löbian. Soon, they will even 
> begin to believe in the axiom of infinity, and calculus, if not Lagrangian 
> (grin).
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
>> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) around 
>> 560 million years ago. 
> 
> It has been discovered that bees adds and multiplies little numbers, when 
> they need, to get pollen from mathematical human teacher! But I still think 
> that spider, especially the hunters, go much farer in their conception of 
> reality as a video illustrates well here. At 0.44 she explores and get a 
> surprise when “not seeing a spider where expected”, that occurs two times, 
> and the second times she run away!
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4pdf49bxw 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed much 
>> larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million years 
>> ago. [Thagard]
> 
> Much larger brain enlarges the number of stupidity you can asserts, but of 
> course, the catastrophes are limited until … the universal (natural) 
> languages develops … 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
> 
> “Homo sapiens” cannot be asserted by the homo if he is really sapiens … 
> 
> Let us say that the peculiar human Intelligence, accompanied by human 
> stupidity, begin to develop.
> 
> Intelligence and stupidity are two big friends, they never separate each 
> other.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 years 
>> ago (Julian Jaynes).  
> 
> Birth of the little ego. Birth of cruelty and the human suffering.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-13 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 11 Feb 2019, at 19:47, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:56:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 11 Feb 2019, at 01:42, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> I do not hold to the idea of panpsychism
> 
> Nor do I.
> 
> 
> 
> Panpsychism 
> 
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/
> https://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/
> 
> is a spectrum going from micropsychism to cosmopsychism.

I certainly believe in psychisme, but I have serious doubt on “pan”, “micro”, 
“micro”, even more so if it invokes some primary stuff.



> 
> Sometimes people say they are not panpsychist, and then when you read what 
> they write you see they write like they are some type of panpsychist.

That is common in this fleld. You can find people arguing against mechanism, 
and then using mechanism all the time implicitly, notably.

Now, panpsychism is just slimly better than emiminativism, but it still makes 
trivial the mind-body problem, and explains neither the mind, nor matter, nor 
why there is something instead of nothing, which Mechanism does.

Bruno





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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-12 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 6:34 PM Philip Thrift  wrote:

> *10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake
> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). *
>

I generally like Daniel Dennett so I hope he really didn't say that because
it's just dumb. A illusion is a thing that is wrongly perceived but to
perceive something is to be conscious of it; so the statement isn't wrong,
no tautology is, but it is pretty stupid.

As for when consciousness began I think it started 5 minutes ago when I was
created complete with false memories of me being in the first grade and
phoney memories of me writing previous posts to this list when in reality
this is my very first post.

John K Clark

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread Philip Thrift


On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:56:12 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Feb 2019, at 01:42, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> I do not hold to the idea of panpsychism
>
>
> Nor do I.
>
>
>
Panpsychism 

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/panpsychism/
https://www.iep.utm.edu/panpsych/

is a spectrum going from *micropsychism* to *cosmopsychism*.

Sometimes people say they are not panpsychist, and then when you* read what 
they write* you see they write like they are some type of panpsychist.

- pt

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread Philip Thrift


On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 9:24:18 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Feb 2019, at 00:34, Philip Thrift > 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> Two recent books:
>
> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
> Arthur S. Reber
> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
>
> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
> Paul Thagard
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
>
> via
> When Did Consciousness Begin?
> Paul Thagard
>
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>
>
>
>
> I compare with the theology of the computationalist Universal Turing 
> machine’s theology.
>
> (So I do the blasphemy some times, and it is important that keep in mind 
> the necessary interrogation point). I have not look at the answer of 
> others, to test this later …).
>
> Consciousness is just the “instinctive” or “automated” belief/anticipation 
> concerning a possible reality.
>
>
>
>
> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>
> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
>
>
> Consciousness has always existed, because all universal machine/number are 
> conscious and “eternal” (out of time).
>
> Is God conscious? Open problem.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
> ago. 
>
>
>
> This cannot be. But the event “13 billion years ago” and many variants 
> occurs "all the time” (or all the number-of-step of all universal 
> dovetailing) in the arithmetical reality.
>
> Those are important events in our history, but the consciousness which 
> does the history selection was there “before”.
>
>
>
>
>
> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
> ago (Reber). 
>
>
>
> Not really, but the consciousness of the universal machine get a physical 
> stable implementations, apparently relatively to us. We get many universal 
> entities capable of interacting with a solid notion of resources. 
>
>
>
>
>
> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
> ago. 
>
>
> In our histories, which “tautologically” are those semantical statifying 
> the logic of the material modes of self-reference, which seems the case 
> thanks to the quantum and Gödel (which enforces the distinction between []p 
> and []p & <>t in the provable part of the machine in arithmetic.
>
> Again, important events in our history, but consciousness was “there 
> before”.
>
>
>
>
>
> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>
>
>
> That’s about the time the soul of the machine falls, and they begin to 
> hallucinate and believe in what they were conscious of, and thus get 
> partially deluded. The universal machine get Löbian. Soon, they will even 
> begin to believe in the axiom of infinity, and calculus, if not Lagrangian 
> (grin).
>
>
>
>
> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
> around 560 million years ago. 
>
>
> It has been discovered that bees adds and multiplies little numbers, when 
> they need, to get pollen from mathematical human teacher! But I still think 
> that spider, especially the hunters, go much farer in their conception of 
> reality as a video illustrates well here. At 0.44 she explores and get a 
> surprise when “not seeing a spider where expected”, that occurs two times, 
> and the second times she run away!
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4pdf49bxw
>
>
>
>
> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
> years ago. [Thagard]
>
>
> Much larger brain enlarges the number of stupidity you can asserts, but of 
> course, the catastrophes are limited until … the universal (natural) 
> languages develops … 
>
>
>
>
> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
>
>
> “Homo sapiens” cannot be asserted by the homo if he is really sapiens … 
>
> Let us say that the peculiar human Intelligence, accompanied by human 
> stupidity, begin to develop.
>
> Intelligence and stupidity are two big friends, they never separate each 
> other.
>
>
>
>
>
> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
> years ago (Julian Jaynes).  
>
>
> Birth of the little ego. Birth of cruelty and the human suffering.
>
>
>
>
> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
>
>
> Negation of the first person indubitable: you don’t exist. Dennett is 
> logically correct, as this follows from its ontological commitment in both 
> primary matter and Mechanism. 
>
> Of course, it is simpler to just omit such an ontological commitment.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
Dennett is (or was - Philip Goff suggested he might 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/11/2019 7:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 11 Feb 2019, at 01:24, Brent Meeker  wrote:



On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:


Two recent books:

The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
Arthur S. Reber
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ

Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
Paul Thagard
https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ

via
When Did Consciousness Begin?
Paul Thagard
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin

Thagard's 10 hypotheses:

1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.

2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years ago.

3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years ago 
(Reber).

4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years ago.

5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of neurons, 
around 580 million years ago.

6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with about 
a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) around 560 
million years ago.

7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed much 
larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million years ago. 
[Thagard]

8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.

9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 years 
ago (Julian Jaynes).

10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
(behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).

A good exposition, but I wish he had taken some time to consider what is 
consciousness.  I think he recognizes that there are different kinds and levels 
of consciousness, but he doesn't make it clear what they are; how are they 
related to memory and communication and planning.  It seems clear to me that 
different kinds and levels of consciousness appeared at different times.


Are you OK that consciousness is, from the first person perspective, something 
which can be said to be

1) true

?? Propositions are true (or false).

2) knowable
I  think that distinguishes one level of consciousness: self-reflection, 
perceiving that you are conscious.  But I doubt that spiders have self 
reflection. I suspect it appears in social animals as an evolutionary 
adaptation, seeing yourself as others see you.



2) non provable

Proof is a relation between propositions mediated by rules of inference.

3) indubitable

Ok.

4) non definable
?? When we talk about consciousness we rely on ostensive definition to 
understand one another: "You know that feeling you get when you step on 
a tack?"

5) anticipable

If yes, then all universal machine is confronted with this, although only 
Löbian machine can assert this, with precaution.

Consciousness is not much more than the first person belief in some reality.
It's a recognition that reality consists of "me and not-me".  But that 
is the most basic level.  There is also the hypothesis of other minds 
and of other's view of yourself.  There is consciousness of one's place 
and in time and history; which probably requires language.


Brent



It accelerates the learning of distinguishing prey and predators for the 
self-moving self-eating types of creatures.

There are many possible experience of consciousness, and even sorts of state of 
consciousness, from highly dissociative, with or without amnesia, to many 
mundane state, like each of us at all instant of our normal waking life. It 
makes easy to get new beliefs and to abandon ancient beliefs. When Löbian, it 
generates “fear” (the local expectation of local unsatisfiabilty condition).

Bruno






Brent

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


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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 11 Feb 2019, at 12:38, smitra  wrote:
> 
> Consciousness began when "I" became conscious. But here I take into account 
> that at the very beginning of "my" consciousness, "my" identity was almost 
> undefined, so "I" refers to pretty much all conscious processes.
> 
> The notion of a personal identity is not a fundamental concept, consciousness 
> exists independent of it. A subjective experience of a personal identity may 
> be contained in a conscious experience, but this isn't necessary, and it may 
> not correspond to a notion of identity based on physics.

OK.



> 
> When I was born and before I knew that I lived in the late 1900s, the 
> consciousness I experienced corresponded to a very large ensemble of babies, 
> some of them would find themselves up on Earth as it existed hundreds of 
> years ago, some in the far future. Before I knew that dinosaurs had ever 
> existed, I was also a creature very similar to us here on Earth on a planet 
> where dinosaurs had never existed.


Somehow.

In the universe where the dinosaurs did never existed, you are still in the 
ocean! (I am joking, as this has no meaning at all, if you think twice).

Yes personal identity is a bit of an illusion, and is independent of 
consciousness. But that illusion is hard to avoid once having a body, and is 
even needed to play the game of life, although it became an handicap and a 
source of suffering when taken too much seriously. It is difficult. The little 
ego can hide the higher self.

Bruno





> 
> Saibal
> 
> On 11-02-2019 00:34, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> Two recent books:
>> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
>> Arthur S. Reber
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
>> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
>> Paul Thagard
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
>> via
>> When Did Consciousness Begin?
>> Paul Thagard
>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and
>> eternal.
>> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion
>> years ago.
>> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion
>> years ago (Reber).
>> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million
>> years ago.
>> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of
>> neurons, around 580 million years ago.
>> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains
>> with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons
>> (zebrafish) around 560 million years ago.
>> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals
>> developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around
>> 200 million years ago. [Thagard]
>> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years
>> ago.
>> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000
>> years ago (Julian Jaynes).
>> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake
>> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).
>> - pt
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>> Groups "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
>> send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
>> [1].
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2].
>> Links:
>> --
>> [1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
>> [2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 11 Feb 2019, at 09:42, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Interest in the psychical (experience, consciousness) aspect in all 
> biological levels has sort of taken off recently, it seems.
> 
> cf.
> 
> Cosmopsychism, Micropsychism, and the Grounding Relation 
> 
> Philip Goff 
> 
> 
> Language is not experience/consciousness of course, but I think there is some 
> sort of connection between the existence of protolanguages (of lower level 
> animals) and protoconsciousnesses.


The presence of a language isa symptom of Turing universality, or simpler. I 
tend to believe in bacteria’s consciousness only because of molecular genetics, 
which shows them to be small natural computer. We can program them, actually. 
But that consciousness is in arithmetic, and simple universal machine are only 
their differentiating starting point, in their histories.

Now, an eukaryotic cell seems to be a descendent of small colony of bacteria 
(and virus possibly), and a pluricellualr is a a colony of clone of bacteria, + 
bacteria.

Bacteria still rules life on this planet, and that is for long!

Bruno




> 
> 
> - pt
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 6:42:20 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> I do not hold to the idea of panpsychism and the existence of God is 
> something that can be dismissed with no loss of understanding of reality. It 
> is harder to know about consciousness in living things. I hesitate in some 
> ways to think that prokaryotes are conscious in the way we are, just greatly 
> diminished. My dogs are conscious beings I am pretty convinced, but I think 
> their mental landscape is smaller than that of a human. So somewhere in that 
> spectrum consciousness may emerge. Plants may have some form of 
> consciousness, and they do signal and appear to have some level of awareness 
> of their surroundings. 
> 
> Consciousness is in a way a sort of bootstrap process where a being generates 
> an internal representation of themselves and themselves in this world. It is 
> then a sort of virtual process, and one where there being encodes a 
> representation of themselves within themselves. I think it has some form of 
> truncated self-reference such as Gödel's theorem. It might serve to give an 
> estimate on say Chaitin's halting probability so the being is able to take a 
> risk. This may be extended in part to all sort of complex self-adaptive 
> systems, in particular biological organisms. 
> 
> LC
> 
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 5:34:01 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> Two recent books:
> 
> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
> Arthur S. Reber
> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ 
> 
> 
> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
> Paul Thagard
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ 
> 
> 
> via
> When Did Consciousness Begin?
> Paul Thagard
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>  
> 
> 
> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
> 
> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
> 
> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
> ago. 
> 
> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years ago 
> (Reber). 
> 
> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
> ago. 
> 
> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
> 
> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) around 
> 560 million years ago. 
> 
> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed much 
> larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million years 
> ago. [Thagard]
> 
> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
> 
> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 years 
> ago (Julian Jaynes).  
> 
> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
> 
> - pt
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 11 Feb 2019, at 08:05, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/10/2019 10:47 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
>> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 04:24:40PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
>>> 
>>> On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000
 years ago (Julian Jaynes).
>> The date more usually given is 40,000 years bp. There was an explosion
>> of advanced culture that occurred at that time. Steven Pinker promotes
>> this idea ("the brain's big bang") IIRC.
>> 
>> 
> As I recall, Jaynes put it at the beginning of trade between tribes.  Because 
> when you're bargaining you have to keep your thoughts to yourself and learn 
> to lie.

Jayne idea might make sense for the human self-consciousness, but consciousness 
per se is more large and primitive. 

Now, even this I doubt a little bit. Self-consciousness seems to me to be 
needed to begin the trades, but of course, it is debatable.

Bruno



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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 11 Feb 2019, at 01:42, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> I do not hold to the idea of panpsychism

Nor do I.



> and the existence of God is something that can be dismissed with no loss of 
> understanding of reality.


Of course, you mean the first Aristotelian God. The second is Primary Matter, 
or some substance. 

With Mechanism, none of them is available. But we keep a universal dreamer, and 
its possible awakening. The price? It get also very deeply very easily, and can 
almost itself in very long complex histories.





> It is harder to know about consciousness in living things. I hesitate in some 
> ways to think that prokaryotes are conscious in the way we are, just greatly 
> diminished.

The prokaryotes up to most some jellyfish and plants might live the simple pure 
innocent consciousness of Robinson Arithmetic.

With spider, cuttlefish and higher animals, the slope toward Löbianity seems to 
be there, but language and big neocortex accelerate this tremendously, and even 
that is nothing compared to the human made universal machine (seen in 
geological time …).









> My dogs are conscious beings I am pretty convinced, but I think their mental 
> landscape is smaller than that of a human.

I am not sure of that. Dogs are a bit idolaters toward the boss or the master, 
but they have much less prejudices than the human, and as such there are more 
open minded. Now, it is hard to motivate them for digging more on the 
reflexion, but some dogs are more wise than many humans. Our consciousness are 
hard to compare. Some dogs loves cannabis, also, and I am ready to bet they 
make a very similar experience than the humans. They have just not a brain to 
articulate their feeling and to exploit their potential “Löbianity”, and maybe 
they are lucky for that, I don’t know.




> So somewhere in that spectrum consciousness may emerge. Plants may have some 
> form of consciousness, and they do signal and appear to have some level of 
> awareness of their surroundings. 

Yes, the trees seem to communicate in the forest. There is also a problem of 
time scaling. I suspect some plants to be conscious but with a different time 
scale. I think the opposite for little animals (a day for a butterfly might 
seems much longer from the first person perspective of an insect).



> 
> Consciousness is in a way a sort of bootstrap process where a being generates 
> an internal representation of themselves and themselves in this world.

Yes. It is basically what the second recursion theorem explains (and that 
happens “all the time” in the arithmetical reality.




> It is then a sort of virtual process, and one where there being encodes a 
> representation of themselves within themselves. I think it has some form of 
> truncated self-reference such as Gödel's theorem.


Yes. Consciousness is very near the notion of consistency. It entails the 
impossibility of being proved, and it generates the sense, as consistency is 
basically equivalent with “being satisfied (made true) in some reality”. But 
consciousness is not equivalent with consistency, except in God eyes. The 
subtleties of incompleteness provides the tools to avoid the “theological 
traps”, by keeping the difference between G and G* into account, and same for 
the other modes.




> It might serve to give an estimate on say Chaitin's halting probability so 
> the being is able to take a risk.


Chatin’s probability is too much rough for this, and is probably more related 
to the big-bang and to cosmology than to consciousness. Consciousness needs 
only Post Number (the halting Oracle, offered by the first person 
indeterminacy). Chaitin’s number is the ultra-compressed version of Post 
numbers 0,abcd… where each a, b … is 0 or 1 according to phi_i converges or 
not, in an enumeration of the zero-art programs of some Turing universal 
“language”.





> This may be extended in part to all sort of complex self-adaptive systems, in 
> particular biological organisms. 

With Post number, no doubt. Oblgatory so for classical indexical 
computationalism.

Bruno




> 
> LC
> 
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 5:34:01 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
> 
> 
> Two recent books:
> 
> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
> Arthur S. Reber
> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ 
> 
> 
> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
> Paul Thagard
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ 
> 
> 
> via
> When Did Consciousness Begin?
> Paul Thagard
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>  
> 
> 
> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
> 
> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is 

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread Bruno Marchal


> On 11 Feb 2019, at 01:24, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> Two recent books:
>> 
>> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
>> Arthur S. Reber
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
>> 
>> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
>> Paul Thagard
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
>> 
>> via
>> When Did Consciousness Begin?
>> Paul Thagard
>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>> 
>> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>> 
>> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
>> 
>> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
>> ago.
>> 
>> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years ago 
>> (Reber).
>> 
>> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
>> ago.
>> 
>> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>> neurons, around 580 million years ago.
>> 
>> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
>> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) around 
>> 560 million years ago.
>> 
>> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed much 
>> larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million years 
>> ago. [Thagard]
>> 
>> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
>> 
>> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 years 
>> ago (Julian Jaynes).
>> 
>> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
>> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).
> 
> A good exposition, but I wish he had taken some time to consider what is 
> consciousness.  I think he recognizes that there are different kinds and 
> levels of consciousness, but he doesn't make it clear what they are; how are 
> they related to memory and communication and planning.  It seems clear to me 
> that different kinds and levels of consciousness appeared at different times.


Are you OK that consciousness is, from the first person perspective, something 
which can be said to be

1) true
2) knowable
2) non provable
3) indubitable
4) non definable
5) anticipable

If yes, then all universal machine is confronted with this, although only 
Löbian machine can assert this, with precaution.

Consciousness is not much more than the first person belief in some reality. It 
accelerates the learning of distinguishing prey and predators for the 
self-moving self-eating types of creatures.

There are many possible experience of consciousness, and even sorts of state of 
consciousness, from highly dissociative, with or without amnesia, to many 
mundane state, like each of us at all instant of our normal waking life. It 
makes easy to get new beliefs and to abandon ancient beliefs. When Löbian, it 
generates “fear” (the local expectation of local unsatisfiabilty condition).

Bruno





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

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread Bruno Marchal

> On 11 Feb 2019, at 00:34, Philip Thrift  wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> Two recent books:
> 
> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
> Arthur S. Reber
> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
> 
> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
> Paul Thagard
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
> 
> via
> When Did Consciousness Begin?
> Paul Thagard
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin



I compare with the theology of the computationalist Universal Turing machine’s 
theology.

(So I do the blasphemy some times, and it is important that keep in mind the 
necessary interrogation point). I have not look at the answer of others, to 
test this later …).

Consciousness is just the “instinctive” or “automated” belief/anticipation 
concerning a possible reality.



> 
> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
> 
> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.

Consciousness has always existed, because all universal machine/number are 
conscious and “eternal” (out of time).

Is God conscious? Open problem.





> 
> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
> ago. 


This cannot be. But the event “13 billion years ago” and many variants occurs 
"all the time” (or all the number-of-step of all universal dovetailing) in the 
arithmetical reality.

Those are important events in our history, but the consciousness which does the 
history selection was there “before”.




> 
> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years ago 
> (Reber). 


Not really, but the consciousness of the universal machine get a physical 
stable implementations, apparently relatively to us. We get many universal 
entities capable of interacting with a solid notion of resources. 




> 
> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
> ago. 

In our histories, which “tautologically” are those semantical statifying the 
logic of the material modes of self-reference, which seems the case thanks to 
the quantum and Gödel (which enforces the distinction between []p and []p & <>t 
in the provable part of the machine in arithmetic.

Again, important events in our history, but consciousness was “there before”.




> 
> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 


That’s about the time the soul of the machine falls, and they begin to 
hallucinate and believe in what they were conscious of, and thus get partially 
deluded. The universal machine get Löbian. Soon, they will even begin to 
believe in the axiom of infinity, and calculus, if not Lagrangian (grin).



> 
> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) around 
> 560 million years ago. 

It has been discovered that bees adds and multiplies little numbers, when they 
need, to get pollen from mathematical human teacher! But I still think that 
spider, especially the hunters, go much farer in their conception of reality as 
a video illustrates well here. At 0.44 she explores and get a surprise when 
“not seeing a spider where expected”, that occurs two times, and the second 
times she run away!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ij4pdf49bxw



> 
> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed much 
> larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million years 
> ago. [Thagard]

Much larger brain enlarges the number of stupidity you can asserts, but of 
course, the catastrophes are limited until … the universal (natural) languages 
develops … 



> 
> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.

“Homo sapiens” cannot be asserted by the homo if he is really sapiens … 

Let us say that the peculiar human Intelligence, accompanied by human 
stupidity, begin to develop.

Intelligence and stupidity are two big friends, they never separate each other.




> 
> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 years 
> ago (Julian Jaynes).  

Birth of the little ego. Birth of cruelty and the human suffering.



> 
> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 

Negation of the first person indubitable: you don’t exist. Dennett is logically 
correct, as this follows from its ontological commitment in both primary matter 
and Mechanism. 

Of course, it is simpler to just omit such an ontological commitment.

Bruno




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

Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread smitra
Consciousness began when "I" became conscious. But here I take into 
account that at the very beginning of "my" consciousness, "my" identity 
was almost undefined, so "I" refers to pretty much all conscious 
processes.


The notion of a personal identity is not a fundamental concept, 
consciousness exists independent of it. A subjective experience of a 
personal identity may be contained in a conscious experience, but this 
isn't necessary, and it may not correspond to a notion of identity based 
on physics.


When I was born and before I knew that I lived in the late 1900s, the 
consciousness I experienced corresponded to a very large ensemble of 
babies, some of them would find themselves up on Earth as it existed 
hundreds of years ago, some in the far future. Before I knew that 
dinosaurs had ever existed, I was also a creature very similar to us 
here on Earth on a planet where dinosaurs had never existed.


Saibal

On 11-02-2019 00:34, Philip Thrift wrote:

Two recent books:

The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
Arthur S. Reber
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ

Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
Paul Thagard
https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ

via
When Did Consciousness Begin?
Paul Thagard
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin

Thagard's 10 hypotheses:

1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and
eternal.

2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion
years ago.

3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion
years ago (Reber).

4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million
years ago.

5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of
neurons, around 580 million years ago.

6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains
with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons
(zebrafish) around 560 million years ago.

7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals
developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around
200 million years ago. [Thagard]

8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years
ago.

9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000
years ago (Julian Jaynes).

10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake
(behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).

- pt

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Everything List" group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[1].
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout [2].


Links:
--
[1] https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list
[2] https://groups.google.com/d/optout


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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread Philip Thrift


As I've mentioned before, I think there is some relation between 
(proto)consciousness and (proto)language.

Spoken-language ability (hominid) could have appeared perhaps 60,000 years 
ago.
But written-language ability appears perhaps 6,000 years ago.

Writing (beyond speaking) ability is significant, I think.

- pt

On Monday, February 11, 2019 at 12:46:18 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 04:24:40PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: 
> > 
> > 
> > On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: 
> > > 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
> > > years ago (Julian Jaynes). 
>
> The date more usually given is 40,000 years bp. There was an explosion 
> of advanced culture that occurred at that time. Steven Pinker promotes 
> this idea ("the brain's big bang") IIRC. 
>
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-11 Thread Philip Thrift


Interest in the psychical (experience, consciousness) aspect in all 
biological levels has sort of taken off recently, it seems.

cf.

Cosmopsychism, Micropsychism, and the Grounding Relation 

Philip Goff 



Language is not experience/consciousness of course, but I think there is 
some sort of connection between the existence of protolanguages (of lower 
level animals) and protoconsciousnesses.


- pt



On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 6:42:20 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> I do not hold to the idea of panpsychism and the existence of God is 
> something that can be dismissed with no loss of understanding of reality. 
> It is harder to know about consciousness in living things. I hesitate in 
> some ways to think that prokaryotes are conscious in the way we are, just 
> greatly diminished. My dogs are conscious beings I am pretty convinced, but 
> I think their mental landscape is smaller than that of a human. So 
> somewhere in that spectrum consciousness may emerge. Plants may have some 
> form of consciousness, and they do signal and appear to have some level of 
> awareness of their surroundings. 
>
> Consciousness is in a way a sort of bootstrap process where a being 
> generates an internal representation of themselves and themselves in this 
> world. It is then a sort of virtual process, and one where there being 
> encodes a representation of themselves within themselves. I think it has 
> some form of truncated self-reference such as Gödel's theorem. It might 
> serve to give an estimate on say Chaitin's halting probability so the being 
> is able to take a risk. This may be extended in part to all sort of complex 
> self-adaptive systems, in particular biological organisms. 
>
> LC
>
> On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 5:34:01 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> Two recent books:
>>
>> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
>> Arthur S. Reber
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
>>
>> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
>> Paul Thagard
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
>>
>> via
>> When Did Consciousness Begin?
>> Paul Thagard
>>
>> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>>
>> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>>
>> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
>>
>> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion 
>> years ago. 
>>
>> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
>> ago (Reber). 
>>
>> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million 
>> years ago. 
>>
>> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
>> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>>
>> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
>> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
>> around 560 million years ago. 
>>
>> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
>> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
>> years ago. [Thagard]
>>
>> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years 
>> ago.
>>
>> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
>> years ago (Julian Jaynes).  
>>
>> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
>> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
>>
>> - pt
>>
>>

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/10/2019 10:47 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 04:24:40PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:


On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:

9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000
years ago (Julian Jaynes).

The date more usually given is 40,000 years bp. There was an explosion
of advanced culture that occurred at that time. Steven Pinker promotes
this idea ("the brain's big bang") IIRC.


As I recall, Jaynes put it at the beginning of trade between tribes.  
Because when you're bargaining you have to keep your thoughts to 
yourself and learn to lie.


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Russell Standish
On Sun, Feb 10, 2019 at 04:24:40PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote:
> 
> 
> On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:
> > 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000
> > years ago (Julian Jaynes).

The date more usually given is 40,000 years bp. There was an explosion
of advanced culture that occurred at that time. Steven Pinker promotes
this idea ("the brain's big bang") IIRC.


-- 


Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpco...@hpcoders.com.au
Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au


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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/10/2019 4:42 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
I do not hold to the idea of panpsychism and the existence of God is 
something that can be dismissed with no loss of understanding of 
reality. It is harder to know about consciousness in living things. I 
hesitate in some ways to think that prokaryotes are conscious in the 
way we are, just greatly diminished. My dogs are conscious beings I am 
pretty convinced, but I think their mental landscape is smaller than 
that of a human. So somewhere in that spectrum consciousness may 
emerge. Plants may have some form of consciousness, and they do signal 
and appear to have some level of awareness of their surroundings.


I find the case of octopuses to be especially interesting because they are:

 (1) Quite smart.  They engage in play.  They recognize individual 
humans. They are curious.


(2) They are very different.  An octopus has about 500 million neurons, 
compared to 700 million in your dog.  But in the octopus 2/3 of the 
neurons are in the arms, which show a lot autonomous responses even when 
cut off.


(3) They are not social (although cuttlefish are).  They are short 
lived.  After a female matures she mates and lays a clutch of eggs which 
she then guards without eating until they hatch, and then she dies.


They evolved about 100 mya, probably in a kind of predator/prey arms 
race.  They obviously have a sense of spatial relations similar to 
ours.  They don't have color vision, but they manage to do color camouflage.


Brent

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Lawrence Crowell
I do not hold to the idea of panpsychism and the existence of God is 
something that can be dismissed with no loss of understanding of reality. 
It is harder to know about consciousness in living things. I hesitate in 
some ways to think that prokaryotes are conscious in the way we are, just 
greatly diminished. My dogs are conscious beings I am pretty convinced, but 
I think their mental landscape is smaller than that of a human. So 
somewhere in that spectrum consciousness may emerge. Plants may have some 
form of consciousness, and they do signal and appear to have some level of 
awareness of their surroundings. 

Consciousness is in a way a sort of bootstrap process where a being 
generates an internal representation of themselves and themselves in this 
world. It is then a sort of virtual process, and one where there being 
encodes a representation of themselves within themselves. I think it has 
some form of truncated self-reference such as Gödel's theorem. It might 
serve to give an estimate on say Chaitin's halting probability so the being 
is able to take a risk. This may be extended in part to all sort of complex 
self-adaptive systems, in particular biological organisms. 

LC

On Sunday, February 10, 2019 at 5:34:01 PM UTC-6, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> Two recent books:
>
> The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
> Arthur S. Reber
> https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ
>
> Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
> Paul Thagard
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ
>
> via
> When Did Consciousness Begin?
> Paul Thagard
>
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin
>
> Thagard's 10 hypotheses:
>
> 1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.
>
> 2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion years 
> ago. 
>
> 3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion years 
> ago (Reber). 
>
> 4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million years 
> ago. 
>
> 5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
> neurons, around 580 million years ago. 
>
> 6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains with 
> about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons (zebrafish) 
> around 560 million years ago. 
>
> 7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals developed 
> much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 200 million 
> years ago. [Thagard]
>
> 8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years ago.
>
> 9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
> years ago (Julian Jaynes).  
>
> 10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
> (behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett). 
>
> - pt
>
>

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


Re: When Did Consciousness Begin?

2019-02-10 Thread Brent Meeker




On 2/10/2019 3:34 PM, Philip Thrift wrote:



Two recent books:

The First Minds: Caterpillars, Karyotes, and Consciousness
Arthur S. Reber
https://books.google.com/books/about/The_First_Minds.html?id=RBLEugEACAAJ

Brain-Mind: From Neurons to Consciousness and Creativity
Paul Thagard
https://books.google.com/books/about/Brain_Mind.html?id=jJjHvAEACAAJ

via
When Did Consciousness Begin?
Paul Thagard
https://www.psychologytoday.com/intl/blog/hot-thought/201901/when-did-consciousness-begin

Thagard's 10 hypotheses:

1. Consciousness has always existed, because God is conscious and eternal.

2. Consciousness began when the universe formed, around 13.7 billion 
years ago.


3. Consciousness began with single-celled life, around 3.7 billion 
years ago (Reber).


4. Consciousness began with multicellular plants, around 850 million 
years ago.


5. Consciousness began when animals such as jellyfish got thousands of 
neurons, around 580 million years ago.


6. Consciousness began when insects and fish developed larger brains 
with about a million neurons (honeybees) or 10 million neurons 
(zebrafish) around 560 million years ago.


7. Consciousness began when animals such as birds and mammals 
developed much larger brains with hundreds of millions neurons, around 
200 million years ago. [Thagard]


8. Consciousness began with humans, homo sapiens, around 200,000 years 
ago.


9. Consciousness began when human culture became advanced, around 3000 
years ago (Julian Jaynes).


10. Consciousness does not exist, as it is just a scientific mistake 
(behaviorism} or a “user illusion” (Daniel Dennett).


A good exposition, but I wish he had taken some time to consider what is 
consciousness.  I think he recognizes that there are different kinds and 
levels of consciousness, but he doesn't make it clear what they are; how 
are they related to memory and communication and planning.  It seems 
clear to me that different kinds and levels of consciousness appeared at 
different times.


Brent

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