Re: If DA is correct then Bostrom's super humans are NOT

On 12/27/2011 9:04 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 1:20 AM, meekerdb > wrote: "I'm an environmentalist and my solution is (a) efficiency" I'm all for efficiency, only a fool would not be, but it's not a solution to global warming or the energy

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 28 December 2011 06:14, meekerdb wrote: >> Consequently, it would have to be the case that any "physical >> computer" (e.g. our brains), proposed as a supervenience base for >> experience, would itself first require to be constructed out of >> "epistemological properties" before it could begin

Re: Zombies

On Dec 28, 1:22 am, meekerdb wrote: > On 12/27/2011 6:53 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ViJH5nHpn_c > > > We don't need awareness to behave like we are aware. > > How are you interpreting this?  That the people were not aware of Brown's > message, or that > they we

Re: An analogy for Qualia

On Dec 28, 12:03 am, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > "A simulated flame will do anything your simulation proscribes. That's > > > why it's not real." > > A simulated flame will do things that you can not predict and will surprise > you even if you are

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 12/28/2011 5:39 AM, David Nyman wrote: Consequently, it would have to be the case that any "physical >> computer" (e.g. our brains), proposed as a supervenience base for >> experience, would itself first require to be constructed out of >> "epistemological properties" before it could begin

Re: An analogy for Qualia

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 Craig Weinberg wrote: "So will hallucinations, dreams, and delusions surprise you. That > doesn't make them real. > it seems to me you're throwing around the word "real" with reckless abandon. Are you saying that hallucinations, dreams, and delusions don't exist? I for one

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 28 December 2011 17:01, meekerdb wrote: > But as Peter D. Jones points out primitive matter isn't inconsequential. >  It's consequent is realization.  Being material is the property of existing > in contrast to those things that don't exist.  Of course this is not a > popular view on an "Every

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 12/28/2011 10:03 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 28 December 2011 17:01, meekerdb wrote: But as Peter D. Jones points out primitive matter isn't inconsequential. It's consequent is realization. Being material is the property of existing in contrast to those things that don't exist. Of course

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 28 December 2011 18:17, meekerdb wrote: >> Once one fixes seriously on computation as the >> supervenience basis for "epistemological properties" (ignoring >> crypto-eliminativist sophistries about "mere seeming") is one any >> longer in a position to appeal to the content of experience as the

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 28 Dec 2011, at 14:39, David Nyman wrote: On 28 December 2011 06:14, meekerdb wrote: Consequently, it would have to be the case that any "physical computer" (e.g. our brains), proposed as a supervenience base for experience, would itself first require to be constructed out of "epistemolog

Re: An analogy for Qualia

On Dec 28, 12:39 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 Craig Weinberg wrote: > > "So will hallucinations, dreams, and delusions surprise you. That > > > doesn't make them real. > > it seems to me you're throwing around the word "real" with reckless > abandon. Are you saying that hallucina

Self-driving cars

I have attended a class Introduction to AI http://www.ai-class.com and there are two interesting videos from it about self-driving cars: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_BJUBpuvFE Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqDvbguZsAA I have no idea if this are Lobian machines or not (such

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 12/28/2011 11:13 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 28 December 2011 18:17, meekerdb wrote: Once one fixes seriously on computation as the supervenience basis for "epistemological properties" (ignoring crypto-eliminativist sophistries about "mere seeming") is one any longer in a position to appeal t

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On 28 December 2011 19:43, Bruno Marchal wrote: > What UDA1-7 and MGA do at once, is to show that the notion of primitive > matter is spurious in the comp frame, but also (mainly perhaps) that physics > is branch of number theory/computer science (more precisely: of machine's > theology). The phy

Re: Self-driving cars

On 12/28/2011 12:29 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: I have attended a class Introduction to AI http://www.ai-class.com and there are two interesting videos from it about self-driving cars: Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_BJUBpuvFE Part 2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kqDvbguZsAA I have no

Re: Movie Graph Argument

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:23:43PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > >But SUP-COMP is not identical to SUP-PHYS, which is also not identical > >to SUP-PRIMITIVE-PHYS. > > > > The philosopher of mind uses just (weak) supervenience in the sense > of (weak) SUP-PRIMITIVE-PHYS. Some conflate SUP-PRIM

Re: Movie Graph Argument: A Refutation

On Tue, Dec 27, 2011 at 12:10:29PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > But I still fail to see what you mean by swapping two consciousness. > In this case we have that the consciousness of [Tommy and Samantha] > supervenes (weakly) on the physical activity in the classroom (to > change them, we have t

Re: If DA is correct then Bostrom's super humans are NOT

On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:02 AM, meekerdb wrote: > If you improve the efficiency of space heating by a factor of five, I > don't think people will turn their thermostats up to 110F. > We don't need to worry about space heating, global warming remember? But if you suddenly had a simple and cheap