On 26 Apr 2012, at 22:17, graytiger wrote:
On 14 mrt, 17:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
'The concept of an afterlife is a perfectly reasonable thing to be
able
to imagine'
It is not. There is no strongly justified argument to suppose that
aynthing 'mind' like can stay in existence when the brai
On Apr 24, 7:54 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Apr 24, 4:21 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 20, 8:36 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > > > What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is?
>
> > > > Some
On Apr 24, 6:19 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> It is a standard use of language to say that people are responsible in
> varying degrees for their actions. I don't understand why you claim
> that your binary determinism is 'standard language' in some way. When
> we talk about someone being guilty o
On Apr 23, 3:49 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Apr 22, 10:57 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > If you're bloody-minded enough you can claim here isn't really an
> > obvious connection between clouds and rain either.
>
> Sure, it's a matter of degree. If I squeeze an orange, it follows very
>
On Apr 24, 8:07 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
context was a "War of the Worldviews" presentation, where she was
> s She likes to be provocative anyhow. I still
> don't see how calling it a mirage or illusion gets around the hard
> problem at all. A mirage to whom?
More to the point, in order to see
On Apr 27, 12:53 am, meekerdb wrote:
> A small injection will convince you that they are feelings.
Why? If I buy you dinner with a credit card, are you convinced that
credit cards are dinner?
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List"
On Apr 25, 10:21 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> I'm not saying that consciousness is not mysterious and certainly not
> non-existent (I think people who say that do it just do it to be
> provocative). But it is a problem when a mysterious thing is explained
> in terms of another mysterious th
On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following:
>
> > ...
>
> >> As I've posted before, when we know how look at a brain and infer what
> >> it's thinking and we know how to build a brain
On Apr 26, 8:31 pm, John Clark wrote:
> I never said there is no choosing, we choose things all the time. Unlike
> the noise "free will" the word "choose" actually means something; if at a
> particular time I can see that there are 2 actions (X or Y) I can take and
> I don't know which one to
On Apr 27, 9:11 am, 1Z wrote:
> On Apr 24, 7:54 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 4:21 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 20, 8:36 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Apr 5, 1:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > > > > What d
On 26 Apr 2012, at 23:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 26, 1:52 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 Apr 2012, at 16:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 25, 11:44 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
This means only that you have a reductionist conception of machine.
I think that reductionism is mechanis
On Apr 27, 10:00 am, 1Z wrote:
> That's a rather shallow dismissal of compatibiism. We absolve
> people of guilt if they are compelled by an agency,
> but causaiton
> is not the same as compulsion.
Only if there is free will. Without free will, of course compulsion is
the same as causation.
>
On Apr 27, 10:11 am, 1Z wrote:
> On Apr 23, 3:49 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Apr 22, 10:57 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> > > If you're bloody-minded enough you can claim here isn't really an
> > > obvious connection between clouds and rain either.
>
> > Sure, it's a matter of degree. I
On 27 Apr 2012, at 05:00, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/26/2012 7:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
because people don't like the idea of dying. But that doesn't
prove a
> thing.
It proves my point - that it is a perfectly reasonable thing to be
able to imagine.
People think they can imagine things
On Apr 27, 10:15 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> More to the point, in order to see a false appearance, one has to be
> able to see an appearance.
Right. You have to have a presentation to re-present something
(anything) else with.
Craig
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
On 27 Apr 2012, at 05:02, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/26/2012 7:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Apr 26, 4:34 pm, graytiger wrote:
'I'm talking about the existence of feeling as a phenomenon in the
universe. It makes no sense logically. '
Why not? Feelings cause brain and body states that could be
On Apr 27, 4:02 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Apr 27, 9:11 am, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 24, 7:54 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > On Apr 24, 4:21 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > On Apr 21, 8:37 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > > > On Apr 20, 8:36 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On
On Apr 27, 4:08 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Apr 27, 10:00 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> > That's a rather shallow dismissal of compatibiism. We absolve
> > people of guilt if they are compelled by an agency,
> > but causaiton
> > is not the same as compulsion.
>
> Only if there is free will. Without fre
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> It's standard use of language that if something is not determined it is
> random.
>
> I have never heard of that in my life.
YOU HAVEN'T??!!! Good God man it's time you got out more and get educated,
or at least allow yourself 5 minutes to sit do
On Apr 25, 3:49 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > Determined means it's not random and random means it's not
> > determined.
>
> Why? Random is determined randomly.
Nothing is not a thing and randomness is not a kind of determinism.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following:
...
As I've posted before, when we know how look at a brain and infer what
it's thinking and we know how to build a br
On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> >> On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
>
> >>> On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following:
> >>> ...
> As I've posted before, when we know ho
On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdbwrote:
On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 24.04.2012 22:22 meekerdb said the following:
...
As I've posted before, when we know how
On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> >> On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
> > On 24.04.2012 22:
On 4/27/2012 11:07 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdbwrote:
On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/25/2012 11:45 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 24.04.2012 22:2
A link from my discussion on Linkedin
http://www.mindconstruct.com/
"MIND|CONSTRUCT is developing a 'strong-AI engine', a so called AI-mind,
that can be used in (human-like) robotics, healthcare, aerospace
sciences and every other area where 'conscious' man-machine interaction
is of any impor
On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 11:07 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> >> On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote:
> > On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb
On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:
We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came
> from. We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'.
And the EV is supposed to be analgous to qualia? But that paralell
doens;t work. The EV is dismissable
because there was never prim
On Apr 27, 11:49 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> > Only if there is free will. Without free will, of course compulsion is
> > the same as causation.
>
> Nope. We can define compulsion in terms of conscious choice by
> an agent. THat distiuishes it from blind determinism, even if it
> is deteministic itself.
Wh
Hmmm. An organization consisting of a CEO, an accountant, and a finance guy that needs
lots of money to develop human level AI.
Brent
On 4/27/2012 11:32 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
A link from my discussion on Linkedin
http://www.mindconstruct.com/
"MIND|CONSTRUCT is developing a 'strong-AI e
On 4/27/2012 11:57 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2012 11:07 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdbwrote:
On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2012 7:29 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 25, 10:25 pm, meekerdb
On Apr 27, 8:41 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Apr 27, 11:49 am, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Only if there is free will. Without free will, of course compulsion is
> > > the same as causation.
>
> > Nope. We can define compulsion in terms of conscious choice by
> > an agent. THat distiuishes it from
On 4/27/2012 12:00 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:
We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came
from. We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'.
And the EV is supposed to be analgous to qualia? But that paralell
doens;t work. The EV is dismis
On Apr 27, 11:38 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > What do you say the efficient cause of feeling is?
>
> > > > > > > Some priori brain state.
>
> > > > > > What could make a brain state cause a feeling?
>
> > > > > A psychophsical law or identity.
>
> > > > An omnipotence law could cause omnipoten
On Apr 27, 9:16 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 12:00 PM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> > We never explained where the elan vital was or where it came
> >> from. We just came up with a different kind of 'explanation'.
> > And the EV is supposed to be analgous
On Apr 27, 9:14 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 11:57 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> >> On 4/27/2012 11:07 AM, 1Z wrote:
>
> >>> On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote:
> > On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb
On Apr 27, 11:55 am, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >> It's standard use of language that if something is not determined it is
> > random.
>
> > I have never heard of that in my life.
>
> YOU HAVEN'T??!!! Good God man it's time you got out more and get educat
On Apr 27, 12:01 pm, 1Z wrote:
> On Apr 25, 3:49 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > Determined means it's not random and random means it's not
> > > determined.
>
> > Why? Random is determined randomly.
>
> Nothing is not a thing and randomness is not a kind of determinism.
Nothing and randomness
On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> To say that nothing is no-thing
> (the thing that is the absence of things) is completely valid,
No, it is nonsense.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send
On Apr 27, 5:02 pm, 1Z wrote:
> On Apr 27, 9:51 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > To say that nothing is no-thing
> > (the thing that is the absence of things) is completely valid,
>
> No, it is nonsense.
Just as non-sense is a kind of sense (the sense that something fails
to make sense in any wa
On 4/27/2012 1:46 PM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 9:14 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2012 11:57 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 7:13 pm, meekerdbwrote:
On 4/27/2012 11:07 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:50 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 4/27/2012 10:42 AM, 1Z wrote:
On Apr 27, 6:13 pm, meekerdb
On 27 April 2012 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
> And the EV is supposed to be analgous to qualia? But that paralell
> doens;t work. The EV is dismissable
> because there was never prima facie evidence for it.
>
>
> Then why was it widely believed to exist?...because somethings were alive
> and other see
David, IZ, Brent:
do you have some fairly acceptable (for whom?) ID about that darn 'vita'?
That would ease the problem to accept or reject EV. Some people 'ride' the
Terrestrial Biosphere churning of C-based molecules (some add: M&R =
metabolism and repair) but there may be more to it. And if ther
Evgenii:
are you sure we 'know' the base-line of AI? is (human) mentality discovered
in all its details? is it possible to program ALL details into a machine?
We seem to be restricted to our insufficient knowledge of the "so far". All
we can artificialize is that sofarness of (human) intelligence.
On 4/27/2012 5:26 PM, David Nyman wrote:
On 27 April 2012 21:16, meekerdb wrote:
And the EV is supposed to be analgous to qualia? But that paralell
doens;t work. The EV is dismissable
because there was never prima facie evidence for it.
Then why was it widely believed to exist?...because som
On 4/27/2012 5:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:
David, IZ, Brent:
do you have some fairly acceptable (for whom?) ID
"Intelligent Design"??
about that darn 'vita'?
That would ease the problem to accept or reject EV. Some people 'ride' the Terrestrial
Biosphere churning of C-based molecules (some add:
Mine are since noon today EST
Richard
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegrou
John,
I am personally pretty skeptical about the project. Yet, in the
discussion on Linkedin, the answers from Hans Peter Willems (CEO) are
interesting. Let us see.
Evgenii
On 28.04.2012 02:49 John Mikes said the following:
Evgenii:
are you sure we 'know' the base-line of AI? is (human) men
48 matches
Mail list logo
