On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:08 AM 'Cosmin Visan' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> *This is not the reason why AI is not conscious.*
>
The "I" in AI stands for intelligence not consciousness, do you believe a
AI can be intelligent? And by "intelligent" I mean whatever you meant
when,
On 4/21/2019 7:35 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 4/21/2019 6:31 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
*Here's something odd. At 9:45 in Susskind's Lecture 2 on GR, he
says the metric tensor is a Kronecker delta
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:34:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/21/2019 7:35 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/21/2019 6:31 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *Here's something odd. At 9:45 in
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:34:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/21/2019 7:35 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
On 4/24/2019 4:11 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:34:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 4/21/2019 7:35 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at 8:07:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 4/21/2019 6:31 PM, agrays...@gmail.com
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 16:46:33 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:08 AM 'Cosmin Visan' <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> > *This is not the reason why AI is not conscious.*
>>
>
> The "I" in AI stands for intelligence not consciousness, do you believe a
>
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:03 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> For this you don't even need idealism. You can just take the brain as a
> black box ready to receive the proper input in order to generate the proper
> qualia. You will most likely not
Le mer. 24 avr. 2019 à 15:57, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit :
>
>
> On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 16:46:33 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:08 AM 'Cosmin Visan' <
>> everyth...@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> > *This is not
> On 22 Apr 2019, at 06:41, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> 1) Causality can still exist even if time is an illusion. For example in
> block-time, time is an indexical - all times can be said to exist at once -
> but that in no way diminishes the role of causality in describing the
> dynamics and
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:51:06 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>
> With mechanism, there is no choice: physics must be explained in term of
> number’s dream statistics. The logic of this gives a quantum logic, mincing
> nature confirming Mechanism (and its immaterialism).
>
>
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:29:36 AM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 23 Apr 2019, at 13:39, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 4:00:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal
> On 22 Apr 2019, at 21:38, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail nothing
> more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to experience
> reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force us to deny
> the
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 13:39, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 4:00:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> On 20 Apr 2019, at 23:14, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday, April 19, 2019 at 2:53:00 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>> On 19
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 11:16 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> I don't see why it would matter. If you obtain consciousness, that
> consciousness will have free will, so will take over the whatever
> subcomponents that you might use, so those
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:57 AM 'Cosmin Visan' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
*> If you obtain consciousness, that consciousness will have free will, so*
> [...]
Free Will?! In the entire history of philosophy or law nothing has
generated more fuzzy thinking than "free will", it's
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 11:06:10 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 13:39, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, April 23, 2019 at 4:00:26 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 20 Apr 2019, at 23:14, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Friday,
On 4/24/2019 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Until we get evidence for some matter (like observing a discrepancy
between the physics extracted from arithmetic)
Which is unlikely because no physics is extracted from arithmetic.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to
On 4/24/2019 4:44 AM, smitra wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNiiLfB8s0s
A thoroughly dishonest presentation.?? Pross selective misrepresents
quotes from people who are all arguing for the physical basis of life.??
He quotes Morowitz on the impossibility of randomly realizing an
On 4/24/2019 6:36 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:46:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 4/24/2019 4:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-6,
agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:04:43 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/24/2019 4:11 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:34:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/21/2019 7:35 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sunday, April 21, 2019 at
On 4/24/2019 4:17 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:34:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
On 4/21/2019 7:35 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday, April 21,
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:46:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/24/2019 4:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:34:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
It's simple. You say: "Santa Claus has legs and arms like humans, therefore
Santa Claus must exists."
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 18:50:03 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
> Could you share your *serious* thinking on our santa claus belief to us
> unserious people ?
>
>
--
You received this
But it happens all the time. How do you think you move your body if not by
top-down influence in levels from consciousness ?
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 20:06:07 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>
>
> Why has no-one ever observed the components of the brain breaking physical
> laws? It should happen all
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:17:14 PM UTC-5, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 5:11:13 PM UTC-6, agrays...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 3:34:28 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On 4/21/2019 7:35 PM,
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 8:59:52 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/24/2019 6:36 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 6:46:49 PM UTC-6, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 4/24/2019 4:17 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Salam.
Science can only try to answer the HOW, but for the WHY questions, we need
to turn to the scriptures.
In my study of the factual accuracy of The Quran, I have been pleasantly
surprised with insights into questions such as these. Though you may not
find clear answers, you may find new ways
Are you aware of the Grey Walter experiments that imply your brain
thinks of moving before your consciouness.?? Of course I know the brain
and Grey Walter and his experiment don't existand neither do you.
Brent
On 4/24/2019 9:42 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
But it happens
This is like saying: If you replace part of the computer screen with
drawings made on a piece of paper, what does this indicate ? Well... it
indicates that on the part replaced with the piece of paper, nothing will
happen anymore.
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 01:41:14 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>
>
For this you don't even need idealism. You can just take the brain as a
black box ready to receive the proper input in order to generate the proper
qualia. You will most likely not detect infrared light and others, simply
because the black box is not made to detect them.
And there is another
So ultimately they are not "artificial", but natural, grown through
biological processes, not assembled in a factory. Then they are natural and
are not made of atoms, but are made by invisible natural processes that are
also responsible for the workings of consciousness. I think this fact must
This is the whole point:
The neuronal cells being replaced in the brain can't be made of anything.
The replacements (synthetic neurons) have to be made of atoms/molecules
such that they that replicate the actual chemical processing abilities of
the cells they are replacing.
- pt
On
They ("synthetic neurons") are assembled in laboratories/factories.
New neuron-like cells allow investigation into synthesis of vital cellular
components
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180122164702.htm
- pt
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:54:01 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan
There might be some room for wiggling, but ultimately red must be red.
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 11:47:52 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>
>
> A piece of paper wouldn’t work as a computer screen replacement. Replacing
> an LCD screen for an LED screen would work; replacing a spinning hard drive
>
Le mer. 24 avr. 2019 à 09:03, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> a écrit :
> For this you don't even need idealism. You can just take the brain as a
> black box ready to receive the proper input in order to generate the proper
> qualia. You will most likely not
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 4:46 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> This is like saying: If you replace part of the computer screen with
> drawings made on a piece of paper, what does this indicate ? Well... it
> indicates that on the part replaced with
I don't know. These are problems to be solved. But notice that
consciousness doesn't need "fruits" per se, but it needs whatever reality
is behind the appearance of "fruits". Why it needs that I don't know.
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 11:10:06 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> All of
I think that if we want to have any shot at understanding reality we need
to be serious in our thinking. "Assembled in factories" sounds like you
just take atom by atom and put them together, which clearly is not what
happens. People start with already living cells and just modify them a
On Wed, 24 Apr 2019 at 7:14 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> There might be some room for wiggling, but ultimately red must be red.
>
> On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 11:47:52 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>>
>>
>> A piece of paper wouldn’t work as a
This might be of interest:
http://signsandscience.blogspot.com/2018/08/the-creation-emergence-of-species.html
> On 24-Apr-2019, at 2:16 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List
> wrote:
>
> I don't know. These are problems to be solved. But notice that consciousness
> doesn't need "fruits"
On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 4:09:37 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>
> I think that if we want to have any shot at understanding reality we need
> to be serious in our thinking. "Assembled in factories" sounds like you
> just take atom by atom and put them together, which clearly is not
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNiiLfB8s0s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkGb12xBKlM
On 24-04-2019 09:54, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
So ultimately they are not "artificial", but natural, grown through
biological processes, not assembled in a factory. Then they are
natural and
On Mon, 22 Apr 2019 at 6:28 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> > *Only if you never did some serious thinking you can consider AI can be
> conscious. *
>
What sort of serious thinking did you engage in that enabled you to
conclude any of your fellow human beings
On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:54 AM 'Cosmin Visan' <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
*> So ultimately they are not "artificial", but natural, grown through
> biological processes, not assembled in a factory. Then they are natural and
> are not made of atoms, but are made by invisible
This is not the reason why AI is not conscious. The reason is that AI
doesn't even exist, is just an idea in consciousness. Consciousness which
of course is not made out of atoms. We are not made out of atoms. "Atoms"
are just ideas in consciousness.
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 15:50:12 UTC+3,
I don't see why it would matter. If you obtain consciousness, that
consciousness will have free will, so will take over the whatever
subcomponents that you might use, so those subcomponents will stop obeying
the "physical laws" that we know from simple systems.
On Wednesday, 24 April 2019
46 matches
Mail list logo
