Church Turing be dammed.

2012-05-28 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Here's a story I just wrote. I'll get it published in due course. Just posted it to the FoR list, thought you might appreciate the sentiments It's 100,000 BCE. You are a politically correct caveperson. You want dinner. The cooling body

I am the de-phlogistonator!

2012-06-25 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Hi, Hales, C. G. 2012 The modern phlogiston: why 'thinking machines' don't need computers TheConversation. The Conversation media Group. http://www.theconversation.edu.au/the-modern-phlogiston-why-thinking-machines-dont-need-computers-7881 Cheers Colin P.S. I am done with this issue.

RE: Tegmark and consciousness

2014-01-11 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1 [quant-ph] 6 Jan 2014 Consciousness as a State of Matter Max Tegmark, January 8, 2014 Hi Folk, Grrr! I confess that after 12 years of deep immersion in science's grapplings with consciousness, the blindspot I see operating is so obvious and so pervasive and

RE: Tegmark and consciousness

2014-01-12 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Sunday, 12 January 2014 5:54 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Tegmark and consciousness On 1/11/2014 8:12 PM, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: RE: arXiv: 1401.1219v1

Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Computer Science

2014-01-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25377 Neil Gershenfeldhttp://www.edge.org/memberbio/neil_gershenfeld Physicist, Director, MIT's Center for Bits and Atoms; Author, FAB Totally agree: He blames Turing and von Neumann So do I. We stopped doing real empirical work on the inorganic brain 60

RE: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Computational Metaphor

2014-01-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25336 Rodney A. Brookshttp://www.edge.org/memberbio/rodney_a_brooks Roboticist; Panasonic Professor of Robotics (emeritus) , MIT; Founder, Chairman CTO, Rethink Robotics; Author, Flesh and Machines While we're at it Lots of good stuff in these

RE: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Hard Problem

2014-01-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25289 Daniel C. Dennetthttp://www.edge.org/memberbio/daniel_c_dennett Philosopher; Austin B. Fletcher Professor of Philosophy, Co-Director, Center for Cognitive Studies, Tufts University; Author, Intuition Pumps And again Cheers Niloc am done -- You

RE: Edge.org: 2014 : WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Hard Problem

2014-01-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? The Hard Problem Ah, well, I would expect Dennett to say that! On 16 January 2014 16:19, Colin Geoffrey Hales cgha...@unimelb.edu.aumailto:cgha...@unimelb.edu.au wrote: http://www.edge.org/response-detail/25289 Daniel C. Dennetthttp://www.edge.org/memberbio

RE: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-04-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Colin's Wackier Version: Because the space they operate in, at the scale in which the decay operates, there are far more dimensions than 3. They decay deterministically in 3D and it appears, to us, to be random because of the collapse of the spatial dimensions to 3, where we humble observers

RE: Why do particles decay randomly?

2013-04-12 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou Sent: Friday, 12 April 2013 11:30 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Why do particles decay randomly? On Fri, Apr 12, 2013 at 5:35 AM,

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
LZ: Colin Hales wrote: I reached this position independently and you may think I'm nuts... I can't help what I see... is there something wrong with this way of thinking? I don't see what you think a non-ideal number is. This deficit of mine includes having trouble with ALL numbers. :-) For

Re: To observe is to......

2006-10-10 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] said: George and List: a very naive question (even more than my other posts) since I miss lots of posts that have been exuded on this list (since a decade or so of my incompletely reading it): Has it been ever formulated (and accepted on this list!) what we mean by the verb

Re: The difference between a 'chair' concept and a 'mathematical concept' ;)

2006-10-11 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
On Oct 11, 5:11 am, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: But it isn't possible to determine by inspection that they are conscious.Are you claiming it's impossible in principle, or just that we don't know how? It may be impossible in principle (i.e. 1-person experience is ex-hypothesi

Re: To observe is to......

2006-10-13 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
snip [Colin Hales] No, it's better visualised as 'being a not-mirror' :-) Imagine you embedded a mirror in your head, but you were only interested in everything the mirror was not. That is, the image in the mirror is manipulating the space intimately adjacent to the reflecting surface. Keep the

Re: To observe is to......

2006-10-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
[Colin] snip Indeed I would hold that our subjective experience (subjectivity)is our one and only intimate and complete connection to the underlying reality and it is the existence of it (subjectivity) 'at all' which is most telling/instructive of the true nature/structure of the underlying

Re: To observe is to......

2006-10-17 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [Colin] a) assume that there is an 'objective reality in the Bruno sense: a reality exists. _any_ sort of reality will do. b) draw a purely notional boundary around any portion of it at any spatiotemporal

Re: To observe is to......

2006-10-17 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Ok David, Let's start afresh and do this. At least give it a go. This is to be FUN. Not work. I know enough about EC. You know enough about COMP. The goal is to get to a more concrete formal understanding of the difference between reality and computation, physics, logic, maths and 'being'

Re: To observe is to......

2006-10-18 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
[Scene: Night-time. Fathers Ted and Dougal are in bed. Ted: Dougal, that's a great idea! Can you tell me more? Dougal: Whoa, Ted - I want out! I can't take the pressure.] ..However, purely on the understanding that I'm a mere COMP kibbitzer, and of course - This is to be FUN. Not

Re: Numbers, Machine and Father Ted

2006-10-19 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
David Nyman: Point taken. The EC 'axioms' may be better conceived as primitive computations (like the UD), not theorems. In terms of comp, is there any necessary distinction between a UD and a parallel distributed 'architecture'? I am not sure what the EC axioms are. The UD is both

Lost post

2006-10-21 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
I posted the next installment of EC yesterday from the google group. No sign of it anywhere, anyone? Colin --~--~-~--~~~---~--~~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email

Re: Lost post

2006-10-21 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
That'd be it am doing it again! :( I posted the next installment of EC yesterday from the google group. No sign of it anywhere, anyone? Colin Colin, did you post it using the Beta version? I've stopped using this because it lost two of my posts permanently (it said 'your post was

To observe is to......EC

2006-10-22 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Well father...moving right along with my bedtime story === STEP 4: Axioms= primitive signs = fluctuations. ( ) You can either think of EC as having no numbers at all. You can also imagine the same calculus implemented in number, but this

To observe is to......EC

2006-10-22 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
= STEP 5: The rolling proof NOTES: 1) There is only 1 proof in EC. (Symbolically it has been designated U(.) above) 2) It consists of 1 collection of basic EC primitives (axioms) 3) The current state of the proof is 'now' the thin slice of the

Re: To observe is to......EC

2006-10-28 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
=== STEP 7: Something from nothing. (the big bang) U(.) = (*) from previous STEP. = (()()()()()()()()()()...()()()()()) There is some need to deal with this issue because it leads to the mathematical drive of EC that we inside see as the

Re: To observe is to......EC

2006-11-06 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Hi, Having got deeper into the analysis, what I have found is that EC is literally an instantated lamba calculus by Church. So all I have to do is roughly axiomatise EC in Church's form and I'm done. So that is what I am doing. I'll be directly referring to church's original work. Once that is

Re: To observe is to......EC

2006-11-06 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
TEST: resend...some sort of bounce thing happened with the mailer Hi, Having got deeper into the analysis, what I have found is that EC is literally an instantated lamba calculus by Church. So all I have to do is roughly axiomatise EC in Church's form and I'm done. So that is what I am doing.

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-06 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Addition to my lost and found 1st post in this topic to Marc: I wonder how would you define besides 'universe' and 'computer' the IS ? * I agree that 'existence' is more than a definitional question. Any suggestion yet of an (insufficient?) definition? (Not Descartes' s I

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-07 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
It makes sense (I have to translate YOUR vocabujlaryh into mine, of course). It ramifies into SELF and Not-SELF and into the relational view of the totality. Also: it leads into my old beef that everything is consckious at its own level. What to include into 'everything' is of course a

Calculus 101

2006-11-08 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Hi, Being a clunky autodidact in these things, I have trouble finding my way thru the various mathematical genres. I was wondering if there is a name for the sort of calulus that has no left/right associative/precedence one that performs reductions that are built into the calculus itself.

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
See below See below, please John - Original Message - From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7 Addition to my lost

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
See below See below, please John - Original Message - From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7 Addition to my lost

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
see below.. See below, please John - Original Message - From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7 Addition to my lost

Re: Zuse Symposium: Is the universe a computer? Berlin Nov 6-7

2006-11-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
sorry about all the posts. something weird going on. see below.. See below, please John - Original Message - From: Colin Geoffrey Hales [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 12:58 AM Subject: Re: Zuse Symposium

Re: To observe is to......EC

2006-11-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
snip Are you saying that you disallow lambda expression having the shape: (LAMBDA (X) F) with no occurrence of X in F? The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon really hard to relate to. Put

Re: To observe is to......EC

2006-11-10 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Le 10-nov.-06, ࠰5:53, Colin Geoffrey Hales a 飲it : The brackets I have used to date are not the brackets of the lambda calculus. I think physically, not symbolically. I find the jargon really hard to relate to. I thought you were referring to Alonzo Church's original book on lambda

Re: To observe is to......EC

2006-11-11 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
As I stuff my head with the bird menagerie, and try to see if I need to breed a new bird, I find that EC is best thought of as a form of combinatorics (as you thought, Bruno!). Is there anyone out there who has any intuitions as to which bird(s) would correspond to 'coherence' or 'symmetry

Re: To observe is to......EC

2006-11-12 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
I'll take that as a 'no'. Meanwhile I have gone far enough that I think I want to take it elsewhere and publish something. I'll find a local logician and infect them with EC/lambda calc. It's oing to look basically the same: (()()()()) etc There is no end product computation. The act of

RE: Natural Order Belief

2006-11-16 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
I'm curious: how many people on this list are theists? Stathis Papaioannou I don't believe in any theistic garbage. As a scientist the truth or otherwise of the proposition X = There is a god and he did this sits forever perched on the verge of disproof through lack of evidence in the most

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-18 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
snip Since it makes no difference in any observable respect whether we are living in a computer simulation running on a bare substrate, as one that is incidently computated as part of a universal dovetailer, or an infinite chain of dovetailers, we really can make use of Laplace's ripost to

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-22 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Bruno wrote: In yet another post you say: When talking about minds, the self/other boundary need not occur on the biological boundary (skin). I would say that when dreaming, or hallucinating, the random firing we perceive as coming from our input centres (visual cortex for instance) is coming

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-23 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] au With reference to the other thread Re: Hypostases (was: Natural Order Belief) The other problem is how all of this logic connects to Everything. That is why I am trying to understand the 0-person. I think

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-23 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
On Fri, Nov 24, 2006 at 12:12:07PM +1100, Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: My paper proves zombies can't do science. You have all said that the UD is not conscious. This is another way of saying that any creatures within (computed by) a UD have no consciousness. The UD is therefore a zombie

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-23 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
I assume by the universe you mean ours. Understanding human consciousness properly means we will eventually be able to prescribe what level of consciousness applies to the rest of the universe that is 'not humans'. Including animals ...I predict 'not as much'rocks, fridges etc. I

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-23 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Fair enough, but this is a direct contradiction with the assumption of computationalism. This is a 'assume comp' playground only? I am up for not assuming anything.but if computationalism is actually false then it becomes a religion or a club or something. Not at all. I don't even

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-24 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Hi, Le Vendredi 24 Novembre 2006 22:54, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : Now that there is a definite role of consciousness (access to novelty), the statement 'functional equivalent' makes the original 'philosophical zombie' an oxymoron... But functionnal equivalence is a requisite

RE: UDA revisited

2006-11-24 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Stathis wrote: It still isn't clear to me whether you believe it is possible for a digital computer to be conscious or not. Digital computers of the type we currently have? In any/all combinations, including the whole internet? No... that they have the consciousness of the kind we have.

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-24 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hi Brent, Please see the post/replies to Quentin/LZ. I am trying to understand the context in which I can be wrong and how other people view the proposition. There can be a mixture of mistakes and poor

RE: UDA revisited

2006-11-24 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Colin Hales writes: So, I have my zombie scientist and my human scientist and I ask them to do science on exquisite novelty. What happens? The novelty is invisible to the zombie, who has the internal life of a dreamless sleep. The reason it is invisible is because there is no phenomenal

RE: UDA revisited

2006-11-24 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
You don't think paramecium behaviour could be modelled on a computer? Stathis Papaiaonnou A paramecium can behave like it's perceiving something. I haven't observed it myself but I have spoken to people who have and they say they have behaviours which betray some sort of awareness beyond the

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-24 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Colin: When you take away phenomenal consciousness what can't you do? Brent: I don't know, because I don't know what it is. What it is? ..is what changes radically when you close your eyes. ..is what you lose when you have a dreamless sleep. ..is what totally stops you doing science when it's

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-24 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Colin I am not talking about the creative process. I am talking about the perception of a natural world phenomena that has never before been encountered. There can be no a-priori scientific knowledge in such situations. It is as far from a metaphor as you can get. I mean literal

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-24 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Colin That is the invisibility I claim at the center of the zombie's difficulty. Brent But it will also present the same difficulty to the human scientist. An in fact it is easy to build a robot that detects and responds to radio waves that are completely invisible to a human scientist. Colin

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-24 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
The PHENOMENAL Colin What I have done is try to figure out a valid test for phenomenal consciousness. Brent What is the functional definition of phenomenal? Is there non-phenomenal consciousness? Colin Phenomena are things that happen in the universe. Those things are perceived by humans.

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-24 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
I understand that there is a difference between sensing and perception. Perception includes sensing and also interpreting the sensations in a model of the world. Which is why unusual appearances can literally be difficult to perceive. But you still have not said why a digital computer

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-25 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
If all you have is a bunch of numbers (or 4-20mA current loop signals or 1-5V signals) dancing away, and you have no a-priori knowledge of the external world, how are you to create any sort of model of the external world in the first place? You don't even know it is there. That is the world

Richard Dawkins..... Douglas Adams' Bulldog

2006-11-25 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Hereby named by yours truly in honour of Huxley's similar canine representation of Darwin. Richard Dawkins radio program: http://www.abc.net.au/rn/backgroundbriefing/default.htm see also... http://www.abc.net.au/rn/encounter/default.htm on the design argument. cheers Colin Hales

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-26 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Except that in time, as people realise what I just said above, the hypothesis has some emprical support: If the universe were made of appearances when we opened up a cranium we'd see them. We don't. Or appearances don't appear to be appearances to a third party. Precisely. Now ask

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-26 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Absolutely! But the humans have phenomenal consciousness in lieu of ESP, which the zombies do not. PC doesn't magically solve the problem.It just involves a more sophisticated form of guesswork. It can be fooled. We been here before and I'll say it again if I have to Yes! It can be

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-26 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: Scientific behaviour demanded of the zombie condition is a clearly identifiable behavioural benchmark where we can definitely claim that phenomenality is necessary...see below... It is all to easy to consider scientific behaviour without phenomenality

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-26 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: SNIP No confusion at all. The zombie is behaving. 'Wide awake' in the sense that it is fully functional. Well, adaptive behaviour -- dealing with novelty --- is functioning. Yes - but I'm not talking about merely functioning. I am talking about

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-26 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Le Dimanche 26 Novembre 2006 22:54, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : SNIP What point is there in bothering with it. The philosophical zombie is ASSUMED to be equivalent! This is failure before you even start! It's wrong and it's proven wrong because there is a conclusively logically

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-26 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
That's it. Half the laws of physics are going neglected merely because we won't accept phenomenal consciousness ITSELF as evidence of anything. We accept it as evidence of extremely complex neural activity - can you demonstrate it is not? You have missed the point again. a) We demand

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-26 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
The discussion has run its course. It has taught me a lot about the sorts of issues and mindsets involved. It has also given me the idea for the methodological-zombie-room, which I will now write up. Maybe it will depict the circumstances and role of phenomenality better than I have thus far.

RE: UDA revisited

2006-11-26 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Of course they are analogue devices, but their analogue nature makes no difference to the computation. If the ripple in the power supply of a TTL circuit were 4 volts then the computer's true analogue nature would intrude and it would malfunction. Stathis Papaioannou Of course you are

Re: UDA revisited

2006-11-27 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
If the mind is what the brain does, then what exactly is a coffee cup doing? It's not mind-ing. For that question is just as valid and has just as complex an answer... Of course not. .yet we do not ask it. Every object in the universe is like this. This is the mother of all

Re: The Totally Blind Zombie Homunculus Room

2006-11-28 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Le Mardi 28 Novembre 2006 21:47, Colin Geoffrey Hales a écrit : All your comments are shooting from hip without actually reading and thinking. They are all of the class colin has assumed X but what if it isn;t like that when the point is that the circumstances are needed to demonstrate

MIT debate (Making Marvins or Zombie Rooms?)

2006-11-29 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
I thought I'd pass this on from another group Maybe one of us who is local can go along? Damn I wish I was there... :-) -- Here is a debate this Thursday at MIT on a really big question: Creativity: the mind, machines, and mathematics A

RE: computer pain

2006-12-13 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Hi Stathis/Jamie et al. I've been busy else where in self-preservation mode deleting emails madly .frustrating, with so many threads left hanging...oh well...but I couldn't go past this particular dialog. I am having trouble that you actually believe the below to be the case! Lines of

RE: computer pain

2006-12-14 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Hi Stathis, RE: Zombie Room The zombie room is now in a paper on solipsism and is in review and I expect will be rejected in due course! :-) Over XMAS I hope to catch up on all my mail. It's proven to be a really useful cross-modal thought experiment because it renders a human 'methodologically

RE: computer pain

2006-12-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
So you are saying the special something which causes consciousness and which functionalism has ignored is the electric field around the neuron/astrocyte. But electric fields were well understood even a hundred years ago, weren't they? Why couldn't a neuron be simulated by something like a

Re: computer pain

2006-12-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Brent said: snip Of course they describe things - they aren't the things themselves. But the question is whether the description is complete. Is there anything about EM fields that is not described by QED? Absolutely HEAPS! Everything that they are made of and how the components inteact to

RE: computer pain

2006-12-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Stathis wrote: I can understand that, for example, a computer simulation of a storm is not a storm, because only a storm is a storm and will get you wet. But perhaps counterintuitively, a model of a brain can be closer to the real thing than a model of a storm. We don't normally see inside a

Re: computer pain

2006-12-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
So your theory is that the electromagnetic field has an ability to learn which is not reflected in QED - it's some hitherto unknown aspect of the field and it doesn't show up in the field violating Maxwell's equations or QED predictions? And further this aspect of the EM field is able to

Re: computer pain

2006-12-16 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
So the EM fields account for the experiences that accompany the brain processes. A kind of epiphenomena. So why don't my experiences change when I'm in an MRI? I haven't been through the detail - I hope to verify this in my simulations to come but... As far as I am aware MRI magnets

RE: computer pain

2006-12-16 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
I understand your conclusion, that a model of a brain won't be able to handle novelty like a real brain, but I am trying to understand the nuts and bolts of how the model is going to fail. For example, you can say that perpetual motion machines are impossible because they disobey the

RE: computer pain

2006-12-17 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
I'm not sure of the details of your experiments, but wouldn't the most direct way to prove what you are saying be to isolate just that physical process which cannot be modelled? For example, if it is EM fields, set up an appropriately brain-like configuration of EM fields, introduce some

RE: computer pain

2006-12-17 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Stathis said I'll let Colin answer, but it seems to me he must say that some aspect of brain physics deviates from what the equations tell us (and deviates in an unpredictable way, otherwise it would just mean that different equations are required) to be consistent. If not, then it

RE: computer pain

2006-12-17 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Stathis said SNIP and Colin has said that he does not believe that philosophical zombies can exist. Hence, he has to show not only that the computer model will lack the 1st person experience, but also lack the 3rd person observable behaviour of the real thing; and the latter can only be

RE: computer pain

2006-12-17 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Stahis said: snip If you present an object with identical sensory measurements but get different results in the chip, then that means what you took as sensory measurements was incomplete. For example, blind people might be able to sense the presense of someone who silently walks into the room

RE: computer pain

2006-12-17 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Colin, You have described a way in which our perception may be more than can be explained by the sense data. However, how does this explain the response to novelty? I can come up with a plan or theory to deal with a novel situation if it is simply described to me. I don't have to

RE: Atheism is wish fulfillment

2013-11-28 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Religion? There's a Tim Minchin video for that. It'll cure you. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0 or maybe http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZeWPScnolo cheers colin -Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of

Re: Numbers - matter

2006-04-01 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Bruno Marchal wrote: Le 01-avr.-06, ࠰0:46, 1Z a 飲it : Bruno Marchal wrote: And read perhaps the literature on the mind body problem: all materialist approaches has failed, and then the result I got explains what it should be so. I have my own analysis of

RE: A calculus of personal identity

2006-06-23 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Bruno writes snip I see what you mean and I agree with you, but now, you were again talking about third person description of the first person point of view (I will write 1-pov, 3-pov, ...). Yes. I find that the 1st person accounts to be pretty subjective, actually. They also lead to

Re: COMP Self-awareness

2006-07-26 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
mega snip (a) Phenomenal awareness (experience inclusive of a self model) And (b) Psychological awareness (knowledge inclusive of a self model) more snip Brent Meeker wrote: Maybe...with some more explication. You're saying that phenomenal awareness (a) is perception that includes a model of

Re: Bruno's argument

2006-07-27 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Well, I think I have a better understanding now of the ideas leading me to start this thread - thanks to Bruno, Quentin and the other contributors. Moreover, I am leaning towards fundamentally changing my views on the implementation problem: if computationalism is

Re: Bruno's argument

2006-07-28 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Thanks, Colin, I feel we also agree in your last sentence statement, however I could not decide whether abstraction is reductionist model forming or a generalization into wider horizons? Patterns - I feel - are IMO definitely reductive. Abstraction I would characterise as a mapping into a

Re: Are First Person prime?

2006-08-09 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Misc responses to 1Z [EMAIL PROTECTED] Colin Hales wrote: David Nyman: snip An _abstract_ computation/model X implemented symbolically on a of a portion of the structure (a COMPUTER) inside the structure (the UNIVERSE) will see the universe as NOT COMPUTER, not some function of

Re: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

2006-08-12 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Bruno Marchal wrote: If grandmother asks for recalling the main difference between Plato and Aristotle's theories of matter, I would just say that in Plato, the visible (observable, measurable) realm is taken as appearances or shadows related to a deeper unknown

Re: Dual-Aspect Science (a spawn of the roadmap)

2006-08-12 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
David Nyman [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Yes, and I despair (almost) of remedying this, even if I knew how. My own attempts at linguistic 'clarity' seemed destined only to muddy the waters further, especially as I'm really trying to translate from personal modes that are often more visual/ kinaesthetic

Re: Dual-Aspect Science

2006-08-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
David Nyman: Colin Hales wrote: There is no dualism here. The simplest solution is a monism of a posited structural primitive, say, S(.). The universe is a structure of organised S(.). One type and one type only. The structure itself is simply and necessarily a hierarchically organised

Re: Dual-Aspect Science

2006-08-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
David Nyman: Colin Geoffrey Hales wrote: Perspectival Ubiquity From the perspective of any one instance of S(.) within the structure, no matter how huge and complex it is, there is a 'perspective' view of any other point in the structure. That 'view' is the view that is 'as-if' you walked

Re: Dual-Aspect Science

2006-08-15 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
LZ: Colin Hales wrote: The underlying structure unifies the whole system. Of course you'll get some impact via the causality of the structurevia the deep structure right down into the very fabric of space. In a very real way the existence of 'mysterious observer dependence' is

Re: Dual-Aspect Science

2006-08-16 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Hi, A lot of the dialog below is a mismatch of ideas which indicates that I have underestimated the degree of difficulty to be expected in getting the idea of hierarchical structures across. Nevetheless.. I think you are assuming a separateness of structure that does not exist. It obviously

Re: Platonism vs Realism WAS: ROADMAP (well, not yet really...

2006-08-18 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
1Z wrote: Not even remotely. I fact, what I have said can be written as two valid syllogisms. Existence is availability for causal interaction Numbers are not available for causal interaction Numbers do not exist Platonism is the claim that numbers exist Numbers do not exist

Re: The anti-roadmap - an alternative 'Theology'

2006-08-23 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Peter Jones writes: Bruno Marchal wrote: I can agree. No physicist posit matter in a fundamental theory. All physical theories are theories of matter (mass/energy). True, but they are not theories of what matter *actually is*. Hence the need for a

Re: The anti-roadmap - an alternative 'Theology'

2006-08-24 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
As Brent Meeker has pointed out, physical theories are just models to make predictions about how the world works*. If physists get carried away and say this is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth then they are talking metaphysics, not physics. Stathis Papaioannou The

Re: evidence blindness

2006-08-26 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
the fact that intelligent behaviour is third person observable but consciousness is not. Stathis Papaioannou OK. Let me get this straight. Scientist A stares at something, say X, with consciousness. A sees X. Scientist A posits evidence of X from a third person viewpoint. Scientist A

RE: evidence blindness

2006-08-27 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
(a) I know I'm conscious (b) I know that you are intelligent, unless my senses are tricking me (c) I assume that you are conscious but I don't know this, even if I can be sure my senses are not tricking me, in the same way as I know (a) and (b). To give another example, we know that many

Re: evidence blindness

2006-08-27 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
culture and discipline blindness. Is seeing visible? What does it look like? Brent Meeker Seeing. Keep trying...you'll 'see it' It'll sink in eventually! It took a long time for me and I'm nowhere near as bright as all you folks. Colin Hales

Re: evidence blindness

2006-08-27 Thread Colin Geoffrey Hales
Colin, list, huge snip But, past a certain point, going over all these generalities stops advancing the point and makes me sound fuddy-duddy. It sounds like you have some further, and more-specific, ideas, which are the real energy source behind your argument. Best, Ben Udell Wow! Can

  1   2   >