Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 7:10:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/1/2019 4:24 PM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > I would say that one could have a Jupiter planet-sized network of > > Intel® Core™ processors + whatever distributed program running on it, > > and it will not be conscious.

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

A lifelong opportunity to invest in a wonderful eternity, and warnings to save us from the consequences of our own folly! > On 02-May-2019, at 10:54 AM, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > Islam is a religion based almost entirely on threats. > > Brent > >> On 5/1/2019 10:45

Re: for Cosmin

This reveals that you confuse the map with the territory. You don't get to excuse contradictions in your theory by saying, that's just how reality is. If you're saying the only thing exists is consciousness, that's an idea, a map. Then, there are consequences to that idea - as you flesh out your

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:54 AM 'Brent Meeker' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > > *Islam is a religion based almost entirely on threats.* > True, but in all fairness Christianity is also based on threats. It preaches that faith (believing in something when there is no good reason for

Re: for Cosmin

On Wed, May 1, 2019 at 5:57 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > the definition that I'm giving for "existence" is the > looking-back-at-itself of self-reference, through which self-reference > finds objects in itself and identifies with those

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

> On 1 May 2019, at 19:58, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 11:30:20 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 1 May 2019, at 10:56, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: >> >> >> >> By "heat" I just mean it as one studies it as a subject in a physics class, >> for

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 5/2/2019 8:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into account all what

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On 5/2/2019 11:39 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 5/2/2019 12:58 AM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 7:10:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 5/1/2019 4:24 PM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 19:27, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Is it even possible to physical implement your "machine" ? If so, can you > elaborate on it ? What is it about the "physical world" that would allow your > "machine" to be "physically" implemented ? That is a very

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 19:19, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities with > natural entities. That contradicts the monism related to the idea that consciousness is the fundamental things. With mechanism, the

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

Any finite execution trace can be replaced by a finite lookup map. So it is always finite. So up to N steps you can implements with a finite lookup table. Unless you have an infinite execution you have to have an infinite lookup table...but you can approximate the execution with a finite lookup

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into account all what is relevant. >>> But definitions don't call the definidum into

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On 5/2/2019 12:58 AM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 7:10:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 5/1/2019 4:24 PM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > I would say that one could have a Jupiter planet-sized network of > Intel® Core™ processors + whatever distributed

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 20:13, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/1/2019 10:19 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: >> No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities with >> natural entities. In an artificial entities the functional parts

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

> On 1 May 2019, at 21:41, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > Map lookup is a valid implementation for any program you can conceive, albeit > a very ineffective one… ? An implementation must be finite. For most programs, to implement them with a look up table would need an infinite look up table.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 18:39, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/1/2019 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> My point is that "qualia" don't exist independent of an environment, and an >>> evolutionary history. >> >> That is ambiguous. A human qualia needs a human history.

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

> On 1 May 2019, at 19:13, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > How is a computer conscious ? Magic ? Are you even aware of the Chinese Room > argument ? Of course. I even wrote a paper on it, but then Hofstadter and Dennett have been quicker than me. Searle made a gross level

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

> On 2 May 2019, at 13:59, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, May 2, 2019 at 1:54 AM 'Brent Meeker' > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > > > Islam is a religion based almost entirely on threats. > > True, but in all fairness Christianity is also based on threats. It preaches >

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

> On 1 May 2019, at 18:44, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/1/2019 2:15 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 29 Apr 2019, at 15:50, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> Semantics means meaning, and

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 10:52:50 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/2/2019 12:58 AM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, May 1, 2019 at 7:10:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 5/1/2019 4:24 PM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: >> > I would say that one could have a Jupiter

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 5/2/2019 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I guess you meant “clonable”; On the contrary, with mechanism matter is not clonable for all its aspect belonging below our substitution level, It's merely your supposition that the not clonable (I quoted your "coinable") is below the level at which

Re: Does all computation generate heat?

Considering how vast we have come to realise the Universe to be, do you honestly think our praise or our insults affect God in any way? Do you even realise how great the Creator of all this must be? Do you think God would need any appreciation from us? Rather, it is we who need to appreciate God!

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:37:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/2/2019 11:39 AM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Apparently *matter* is not "reducible" to just the physics a couple of > particles. > > > Then you're not a materialist. You think there is matter plus something > else,

Re: Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

On 5/2/2019 4:55 PM, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, May 2, 2019 at 5:37:26 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: On 5/2/2019 11:39 AM, cloud...@gmail.com wrote: Apparently *matter* is not "reducible" to just the physics a couple of particles. Then you're not a

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 6:03 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 29 Apr 2019, at 18:03, Telmo Menezes wrote: > > > > > > where S4Grz (the logic of []p & p) obeys to a logic of (temporal) > knowledge of an unnameable subject. The first consider the second as > mysterious, the second knows, but