Re: bruno list

On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote: Oriental standard of epistemology again. Wisdom, not knowledge. That is an authoritative argument. Like universal argument, they are also non valid. It doesn't make sense that you can make fire out of numbers. That is a statement withou

Re: bruno list

On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote: I don't see why it has to be infinite and I don't see what's wrong with non Turing. We will come back on this. Normally sane04 explains this. I have to go now, Meanwhile you might think on how to explain what you mean by "sensorimotive", w

Re: bruno list

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Aug 1, 8:07 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> 1. You agree that is possible to make something that behaves as if >> it's conscious but isn't conscious. > > N. I've been trying to tell you that there is no such thing as > behaving a

Re: bruno list

On 01 Aug 2011, at 21:20, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 1, 2:55 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: That happens with comp too, if you grasp the seventh UDA step. Our first person experience are distributed in a non computable way in the universal dovetailing. You have a good intuition, but you assu

Re: bruno list

On 01 Aug 2011, at 21:42, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 1, 2:33 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote: What would be the part of a burning log that you need to emulate to preserve it's fire? What you call fire is a relation between an observer and fire, an

Re: bruno list

On 02 Aug 2011, at 03:49, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 1, 4:31 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: I believe that babbage machine, if terminated, can run a program capable to see a larger spectrum than us. Why do you, or why should I believe that though? Well, it is a consequence of digital mechan

Re: bruno list

On Aug 1, 3:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > Oriental standard of epistemology again. Wisdom, not knowledge. > > That is an authoritative argument. Like universal argument, they are   > also non valid. By what authority are they always non valid?

Re: bruno list

On 01 Aug 2011, at 20:11, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 1, 1:55 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote: What machine attributes are not Turing emulable? I thought Church says that all real computations are Turing emulable. But for Church the "real computa

Re: bruno list

On Aug 1, 3:07 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > I don't see why it has to be infinite and I don't see what's wrong > > with non Turing. > > We will come back on this. Normally sane04 explains this. I have to go   > now, > > Meanwhile you might think

Re: bruno list

On 02 Aug 2011, at 17:57, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 1, 3:02 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 01 Aug 2011, at 01:12, Craig Weinberg wrote: Oriental standard of epistemology again. Wisdom, not knowledge. That is an authoritative argument. Like universal argument, they are also non valid. By

Re: bruno list

On Aug 2, 8:59 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > On Aug 1, 8:07 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > >> 1. You agree that is possible to make something that behaves as if > >> it's conscious but isn't conscious. > > > N. I've been tryin

Re: bruno list

Hi, There is a difference between intractability and non-computable. See Stephen Wolfram's article on this: http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/physics/85-undecidability/2/text.html The point is that there is a point where the best possible model or computational simu

Re: bruno list

On 8/2/2011 5:59 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: So you*are* conceding the first point, that it is possible to make something that behaves as if it's conscious without actually being conscious? We don't even need to talk about brain physics: for the purposes of the philosophical discussion it can

Re: bruno list

On 8/2/2011 11:06 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi, There is a difference between intractability and non-computable. See Stephen Wolfram's article on this: http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/physics/85-undecidability/2/text.html The point is that there is a point wher

Re: a difference between intractability and non-computable?

On 8/2/2011 2:38 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 11:06 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi, There is a difference between intractability and non-computable. See Stephen Wolfram's article on this: http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/physics/85-undecidability/2/text.html T

Re: bruno list

On Aug 2, 2:06 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: >      The point is that there is a point where the best possible model or > computational simulation of a system is the system itself. The fact that > it is impossible to create a model of a weather system that can predict > *all* of its future behavio

Re: a difference between intractability and non-computable?

On 8/2/2011 11:49 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 2:38 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 11:06 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi, There is a difference between intractability and non-computable. See Stephen Wolfram's article on this: http://www.stephenwolfram.com/publications/articles/p

Re: bruno list

On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 2, 2:06 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: The point is that there is a point where the best possible model or computational simulation of a system is the system itself. The fact that it is impossible to create a model of a weather system

Re: Simulated Brains

On 8/2/2011 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 2, 2:06 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: The point is that there is a point where the best possible model or computational simulation of a system is the system itself. The fact that it is impossible to

Re: Simulated Brains

On 8/2/2011 2:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 2, 2:06 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: The point is that there is a point where the best possible model or computational simulation of a system is the syste

Re: bruno list

On Aug 2, 4:04 pm, meekerdb wrote: > On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > So now you agree that a simulation of a brain at the molecular level > would suffice to produce consciousness (although of course it would be > much more efficient to actually use molecules instead of computational

Re: Simulated Brains

On Aug 2, 5:08 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: > On 8/2/2011 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: >      As to your post here. Craig's point is that the simulated brain, > even if simulated down to the molecular level, will only be a simulation > and 'think simulate thoughts'. If said simulated brain has a > co

Re: Simulated Brains

On 8/2/2011 5:26 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 2:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 2, 2:06 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: The point is that there is a point where the best possible model or computation

Re: Simulated Brains

On Aug 2, 5:26 pm, meekerdb wrote: > Craig's position seems to be more a blur than a point.  He has said that > only biological neurons can instantiate consciousness Consciousness is a qualitative estimation, all but useless for discussing the distinction between biological and non-biological in

Re: bruno list

On 8/2/2011 2:33 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 2, 4:04 pm, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: So now you agree that a simulation of a brain at the molecular level would suffice to produce consciousness (although of course it would be much more efficien

Re: Simulated Brains

On 8/2/2011 2:44 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 5:26 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 2:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 2, 2:06 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: The point is that there is a point

Re: Simulated Brains

On 8/2/2011 2:58 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I've been repeating this over and over but nobody seems to recognize it. Whether or not something is deemed to be 'acting like a conscious being' just means that something resembles yourself in it's physical appearance and behavior enough that you infer

Re: bruno list

On Aug 2, 5:58 pm, meekerdb wrote: > I understand what you're saying.  I just don't see any reason to believe it. You were summing up my position as including >>(although of course it would be it would be >> much more efficient to actually use molecules instead of computationally >> simulating

Re: bruno list

On 8/2/2011 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 2, 5:58 pm, meekerdb wrote: I understand what you're saying. I just don't see any reason to believe it. You were summing up my position as including (although of course it would be it would be much more efficient to actually u

Re: Simulated Brains

On 8/2/2011 6:08 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 2:44 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 5:26 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 2:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 2, 2:06 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote:

Re: Simulated Brains

On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > >No, my thought is that quantum coherence accounts for, among other > things, the way that sense data is continuously integrated into a whole. > This leads to a situation that Daniel C. Dennett calls the "Cartesian > Theater". Dennett's

Re: bruno list

On Aug 2, 6:51 pm, meekerdb wrote: > But that is not obvious and saying so isn't an argument. You don't have to accept it, but you shouldn't strawman it either. > > If you do a > > computational simulation through a similar material that the brain is > > made of, then you have something similar

Re: Simulated Brains

On 8/2/2011 8:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote: No, my thought is that quantum coherence accounts for, among other things, the way that sense data is continuously integrated into a whole. This lead

Re: Simulated Brains

On 8/2/2011 4:00 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 6:08 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 2:44 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 5:26 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 2:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On A

Re: Simulated Brains

On 8/2/2011 5:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote: No, my thought is that quantum coherence accounts for, among other things, the way that sense data is continuously integrated into a whole. This lead

RE: Simulated Brains

A computed theory of a hurricane is not a hurricane. A computed theory of cognition is not cognition. We don't want a simulation of the thing. We want an instance of the thing. -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf O

Re: bruno list

On 8/2/2011 8:27 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Aug 2, 6:51 pm, meekerdb wrote: But that is not obvious and saying so isn't an argument. You don't have to accept it, but you shouldn't strawman it either. If you do a computational simulation through a similar material that the br

Re: Simulated Brains

On Aug 2, 2011, at 10:54 PM, "Stephen P. King" wrote: On 8/2/2011 8:20 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Aug 2, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Stephen P. King > wrote: No, my thought is that quantum coherence accounts for, among other things, the way that sense data is continuously integrated

Re: Simulated Brains

On 8/3/2011 12:18 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 4:00 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 6:08 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 2:44 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 5:26 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/2011 2:08 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/2/2011 4:04 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/2/201

Re: Simulated Brains

On 8/2/2011 10:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: I'm just interested in how we would decide who won? If there is some test you can suggest or some theoretical development you anticipate it would be very relevant to the question of the philosophical zombie. Whatever, this conversation is going nowhe

Re: Simulated Brains

On Wed, Aug 3, 2011 at 1:14 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 8/2/2011 10:03 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > >> I'm just interested in how we would decide who won? If there is some test >>> you can suggest or some theoretical development you anticipate it would be >>> very relevant to the question of the ph

Re: Simulated Brains

What is your theory of identity? Would you agree that if a certain object has identical properties, roles, and relations that it is the same? Do you understand that within a program the properties, roles, and relations may be defined to perfectly match that of any other finite object?