Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-16 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Mar 14, 2013  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 What does the popularity of porn and gossip have to do with the capacity
 of computers to think and feel?


I have no idea, but that's one of the best Zen Koans I've ever heard.

 There is no other logical conclusion to make given the FACT that if
 your brain chemistry changes your emotions change, AND if your emotions
 change your brain chemistry changes.


  So if I type comments on my computer and I see your answers on my
 computer, then there is no other logical conclusion to make than that you
 live in my computer.


  In this lame analogy of yours what is the counterpart of my typing
 into the computer, who the hell is typing into my brain?


  John K Clark, who else?


So the correct answer to the question Why does John K Clark do what he
does? would not involve Quantum Mechanics or biochemistry or neurons or
genes or the environment or psychology or even cause and effect; according
to you the correct answer to the question Why does John K Clark do what he
does? is Because of John K Clark. Wow, what a deep theory!

 consciousness can't be a byproduct of anything because it would be
 completely unexplainable and superfluous


It is in the very nature of byproducts to be superfluous, otherwise they
wouldn't be byproducts; and you can't explain a byproduct until you
explaine something else. You can't explain how a spandrel came to be until
you explain a arch and you can't explain consciousness until you explain
intelligence.

 no matter what you try to attach it to. It is completely implausible in
 every way.


You're telling me something is implausible?! Craig, you continue to insist
that X being not X and X being not not X makes perfect sense, and you say
that if changing X always changes Y and changing Y always changes X that
does not in any way mean that the change in X caused the change in Y.
Having thus inoculated yourself against the disease of logic you are
bewildered when I say you are not interested in finding the truth but
rather have first decided what you would prefer to be true and then
resolved to shut your eyes if something that contradicts your preference
should dare to enter your view. Therefore I will let you have the last word
on this thread when you reply to this message with one of your patented
yeah but this this and this is conscious but that that and that is not and
I know this because I have free will.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-16 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, March 16, 2013 1:42:29 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

 On Thu, Mar 14, 2013  Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

   What does the popularity of porn and gossip have to do with the 
 capacity of computers to think and feel?


 I have no idea, but that's one of the best Zen Koans I've ever heard.

   There is no other logical conclusion to make given the FACT that if 
 your brain chemistry changes your emotions change, AND if your emotions 
 change your brain chemistry changes. 


  So if I type comments on my computer and I see your answers on my 
 computer, then there is no other logical conclusion to make than that you 
 live in my computer.


  In this lame analogy of yours what is the counterpart of my typing 
 into the computer, who the hell is typing into my brain?


  John K Clark, who else? 


 So the correct answer to the question Why does John K Clark do what he 
 does? would not involve Quantum Mechanics or biochemistry or neurons or 
 genes or the environment or psychology or even cause and effect; according 
 to you the correct answer to the question Why does John K Clark do what he 
 does? is Because of John K Clark. Wow, what a deep theory!


QM, biochemistry, neurons, genes, the environment, psychology, and 
causality all contribute to why you do what you do, and you contribute to 
why all of those things do what they do. With all of the other phenomena, 
you can trace it back to this force or that Law of physics, but where you 
exclude your own personal perspective as a viable influence, I do not. I 
see that as an anthropocentric (inverted) compulsion. It is a compulsion 
which makes a lot of sense in the wake of the success of post-Copernican 
science, but in the end, the careful study of consciousness reveals this 
impulse to be a simple minded counter-neurosis which tells us more about 
how we react to fear, failure, hope, and success than the scientific 
reality of self and the universe. Just because God is not a giant person in 
the sky does not automatically mean that the universe is a giant machine 
with no personality. This opens the door to an entirely new dimension of 
the universe - perceptual relativity, significance, panpsychic or quorum 
mechanics, etc. Why do we disinvite ourselves from the universe? and when 
we do, why do we seem to take it so personally one way or the other?


  consciousness can't be a byproduct of anything because it would be 
 completely unexplainable and superfluous 


 It is in the very nature of byproducts to be superfluous, otherwise they 
 wouldn't be byproducts; and you can't explain a byproduct until you 
 explaine something else. You can't explain how a spandrel came to be until 
 you explain a arch and you can't explain consciousness until you explain 
 intelligence.


Byproducts aren't superfluous, they are just unintentional. The interaction 
of substances and surfaces can cause 'dust' to accumulate - that is a 
byproduct. If instead the same dry conditions and particle shedding caused 
invisible semi-hypothetical alternate universes to appear and disappear, 
that would be unacceptably surprising. The idea of spandrels is really a 
relativistic term that only makes sense within a context of aesthetic 
teleology. We see things in terms of primary effects and side effects based 
on the projection of intention, but in natural selection, features can be 
adaptive whether they serve their presumed 'original purpose' or not. It's 
a strange judgment to be inserting in a process which has no purposes.


  no matter what you try to attach it to. It is completely implausible in 
 every way.


 You're telling me something is implausible?! Craig, you continue to insist 
 that X being not X and X being not not X makes perfect sense, 


Only in real life. There are a number of rigid logical systems in which 
such subtleties are not allowed.
 

 and you say that if changing X always changes Y and changing Y always 
 changes X that does not in any way mean that the change in X caused the 
 change in Y.


Right, just like I can go East by walking either forward or backward 
without either one causing 'East' at the expense of the other. It all 
depends what direction I am facing. Moving East by walking forward doesn't 
mean I can't also walk forward and move West.
 

   Having thus inoculated yourself against the disease of logic you


The logic that I am using is more flexible to accommodate the nuances of 
reality is all. If you are going swimming, you might want to ditch the suit 
of armor.

are bewildered when I say you are not interested in finding the truth but 
 rather have first decided what you would prefer to be true and then 
 resolved to shut your eyes if something that contradicts your preference 
 should dare to enter your view. 


To the contrary, nothing that I have found contradicts my view, which does 
not follow my preference but rather my curiosity. If you find a real world, 
common sense example of 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-14 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, March 14, 2013 11:38:10 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:


 On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 6:20 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

  There is no other logical conclusion to make given the FACT that if 
 your brain chemistry changes your emotions change, AND if your emotions 
 change your brain chemistry changes. 


  So if I type comments on my computer and I see your answers on my 
 computer, then there is no other logical conclusion to make than that you 
 live in my computer.


 In this lame analogy of yours what is the counterpart of my typing into 
 the computer, who the hell is typing into my brain?


John K Clark, who else? An experience which began at a certain place and 
time in history. When you die, you will be identified primarily by a name 
and two dates. That information is as close as you can get to a 'body' in 
public space. That is the footprint of your personal share of eternity.
 


  Evolution most certainly did do it 


 Because Evolution is God?


 They say there is no such thing as a stupid question. They're wrong. 


Ah, another nervous tic is born I see. It doesn't satisfy the intent of my 
question though. You claim to know what evolution does and does not do, but 
evolution has only ever been implicated in the morphological structure of 
biological species.
 


 and given the fact that Evolution can only see behavior and not 
 consciousness the only logical conclusion to make is that consciousness 
 must be the byproduct of something that Evolution can see, and intelligence 
 seems to be the best bet.   


  Except that intelligence could not benefit in any way by consciousness.


 Therefore, as I just said, consciousness MUST be the byproduct of 
 something that Evolution CAN see, and as I also just said Evolution CAN see 
 intelligence. 


But consciousness can't be a byproduct of anything because it would be 
completely unexplainable and superfluous no matter what you try to attach 
it to. It is completely implausible in every way.


  I can tell if it has video or audio qualities because I experience 
 them directly with human perception. 

  
  Baloney. If IT HAS ZERO TO DO with video or audio qualities then 
 neither you nor anybody or anything can tell if it is audio or video 
 because it is neither. IT HAS ZERO AUDIO OR VIDEO QUALITIES! 


  The file has no audio or video qualities, but certainly hearing music 
 has audio qualities and seeing a video has video qualities. The point is 
 that the computer can neither see or hear,


 You can't hear or see a computer file, all you can do is see or listen to 
 the computers interpretation of that file.


Well, I could theoretically look at the HD platter with an electron 
microscope.
 

 People must have collectively concluded that the computers interpretation 
 is pretty damn good or information processing wouldn't be a multitrillion 
 dollar industry. 


There you go back to the 'whoever is winning must be right and superior'. 
What does the popularity of porn and gossip have to do with the capacity of 
computers to think and feel?

Craig
 


  John k Clark



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-13 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Mar 11, 2013  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 Your view is that emotion must be local to the brain


There is no other logical conclusion to make given the FACT that if your
brain chemistry changes your emotions change, AND if your emotions change
your brain chemistry changes.

 There is no evidence to support the locality of emotional experience to
 neurochemistry, only that access to such experience is modulated locally.


Modulated locally? OK so the brain neurochemistry can modulate happiness
into sadness and love into hate and fear into calm and consciousness into
unconsciousness, and all Santa Clauses workshop provides is a blank generic
carrier wave. It sounds to me like Santa Clauses workshop is not very
important and is in fact a bit of a bore.


  so I am trying to ask what role would it possibly serve. How can we
 justify its existence other than just saying Evolution did it.


Well that's enough because Evolution most certainly did do it, and given
the fact that Evolution can only see behavior and not consciousness the
only logical conclusion to make is that consciousness must be the byproduct
of something that Evolution can see, and intelligence seems to be the best
bet.

 A data format is a schema of bits and bytes. It represents the encoding
 protocols which are required to be implemented for decoding. IT HAS ZERO TO
 DO with video or audio qualities.


  If that's true, if IT HAS ZERO TO DO with video or audio qualities
 then yes the computer couldn't tell if it was audio or video, but then
 neither could you.


  I can tell if it has video or audio qualities because I experience them
 directly with human perception.


Baloney. If IT HAS ZERO TO DO with video or audio qualities then neither
you nor anybody or anything can tell if it is audio or video because it is
neither. IT HAS ZERO AUDIO OR VIDEO QUALITIES!

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-13 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Wednesday, March 13, 2013 1:14:00 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 11, 2013  Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

  Your view is that emotion must be local to the brain


 There is no other logical conclusion to make given the FACT that if your 
 brain chemistry changes your emotions change, AND if your emotions change 
 your brain chemistry changes. 


So if I type comments on my computer and I see your answers on my computer, 
then there is no other logical conclusion to make than that you live in my 
computer.


  There is no evidence to support the locality of emotional experience to 
 neurochemistry, only that access to such experience is modulated locally.


 Modulated locally? OK so the brain neurochemistry can modulate happiness 
 into sadness and love into hate and fear into calm and consciousness into 
 unconsciousness, and all Santa Clauses workshop provides is a blank generic 
 carrier wave. It sounds to me like Santa Clauses workshop is not very 
 important and is in fact a bit of a bore.


My computer shows your words and letters. It modulates your comments and 
meanings. So all you provide is a blank generic carrier wave for my 
computer to give form.
 

  

  so I am trying to ask what role would it possibly serve. How can we 
 justify its existence other than just saying Evolution did it.


 Well that's enough because Evolution most certainly did do it, 


Because Evolution is God?
 

 and given the fact that Evolution can only see behavior and not 
 consciousness the only logical conclusion to make is that consciousness 
 must be the byproduct of something that Evolution can see, and intelligence 
 seems to be the best bet.   


Except that intelligence could not benefit in any way by consciousness.
 


  A data format is a schema of bits and bytes. It represents the 
 encoding protocols which are required to be implemented for decoding. IT 
 HAS ZERO TO DO with video or audio qualities. 


  If that's true, if IT HAS ZERO TO DO with video or audio qualities 
 then yes the computer couldn't tell if it was audio or video, but then 
 neither could you.


  I can tell if it has video or audio qualities because I experience them 
 directly with human perception. 


 Baloney. If IT HAS ZERO TO DO with video or audio qualities then neither 
 you nor anybody or anything can tell if it is audio or video because it is 
 neither. IT HAS ZERO AUDIO OR VIDEO QUALITIES! 


The file has no audio or video qualities, but certainly hearing music has 
audio qualities and seeing a video has video qualities. The point is that 
the computer can neither see or hear, and all that a camera or microphone 
does is convert video or audio phenomena into generic data for the blind, 
deaf, senseless computer.

Craig
 


   John K Clark


  
  


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-11 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


  There is no evidence to support the locality of emotional experience to
 neurochemistry,


Change the brain chemistry and emotions ALWAYS change, change the emotions
and the brain chemistry ALWAYS changes; evidence just doesn't get any
better than that.

  only that access to such experience is modulated locally.


In other words there is no evidence to support the locality of locality
only that locality is modulated locally. It's crap like that that gives
philosophy a bad name among serious thinkers.

Local emotion really doesn't make much sense, as molecular shapes have no
 need of any 'emotional' qualities to interact with other molecular shapes.


You're the one who said molecules are conscious not me, so I guess you
think molecules want to mate with other molecules of a certain shape just
like people want to mate with other people of a certain shape. And I remind
you again that this is NOT my idea .

 My point has always been that control passes in both directions. I
 control my brain to an extent, my brain controls me to an extent,


Pressure causes the collision of trillions of gas molecules and the
collision of trillions of gas molecules causes pressure. The word
pressure is just shorthand for  the interaction of trillions of gas
molecules and I is just shorthand for the interaction of trillions of
neurons.


 Why are these inhibitory neurons inhibiting sneezes at some times and not
 others? Why EXACTLY?


Because sometimes the sum total of all those neurons placed the brain in a
net sneeze state and sometimes the sum total does not; and sometimes a
Turing machine is in one state and sometimes it is not.

 But a brain that takes action to avoid sneezing conforms to the laws of
 physics and so does a brain that takes action to sneeze all the time, it
 all depends on how the brain is constructed and there are many ways to do
 that, all of which which obey the laws of physics.


  Are you claiming that some brains are constructed physically not to
 sneeze in rooms where stained glass is present?


I am not aware of any brain constructed in that way (although there are
some brains that start a sneeze response in the presence of bright light)
but if there were such a brain its operation would not violate the laws of
physics.

 Evolution has determined that every action involves both excitatory and
 inhibitory neurons because, depending on the circumstances, sometimes
 action X is the wise thing to do to get genes into the next generation and
 sometimes it is not.


  So these neurons are omniscient?


They say there is no such thing as a stupid question. They're wrong.

 Then why does the computer display a unrecognized format error
 message when they are plugged in wrong but not when they are connected
 correctly?



  Because it is expecting a particular data format.


 So you admit you were wrong and a computer CAN tell if you plug the
 output of a video camera into the audio input.


  No, of course not.



Wow what a surprise.

 A data format is a schema of bits and bytes. It represents the encoding
 protocols which are required to be implemented for decoding. IT HAS ZERO TO
 DO with video or audio qualities.


If that's true, if IT HAS ZERO TO DO with video or audio qualities then
yes the computer couldn't tell if it was audio or video, but then neither
could you.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-11 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Monday, March 11, 2013 1:52:54 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

 On Sun, Mar 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
  

  There is no evidence to support the locality of emotional experience to 
 neurochemistry,


 Change the brain chemistry and emotions ALWAYS change, change the emotions 
 and the brain chemistry ALWAYS changes; evidence just doesn't get any 
 better than that. 


If I open a file on a thin client, data always changes on the server. If I 
change the right data on the server, the image of the thin client will 
always change, yet we know for a fact that the server resources are not 
local to the thin client.
 


   only that access to such experience is modulated locally.


 In other words there is no evidence to support the locality of locality 
 only that locality is modulated locally. It's crap like that that gives 
 philosophy a bad name among serious thinkers.


You change my words to what you like, and then ridicule your own words as 
if they were mine. This actually applies to what we are talking about. You 
are distorting and misinterpreting my words locally, but what I said is not 
local to your understanding. You can read the words that I wrote, but you 
don't know what they mean.
 


  Local emotion really doesn't make much sense, as molecular shapes have 
 no need of any 'emotional' qualities to interact with other molecular 
 shapes.


 You're the one who said molecules are conscious not me, so I guess you 
 think molecules want to mate with other molecules of a certain shape just 
 like people want to mate with other people of a certain shape. And I remind 
 you again that this is NOT my idea .


I wouldn't know about the particular nature of molecular experiences, only 
that they are likely to be the ancestors of our own experiences. You are 
trying to change the subject though. Your view is that emotion must be 
local to the brain (neurons? molecules?), so I am trying to ask what role 
would it possibly serve. How can we justify its existence other than just 
saying Evolution did it.
 


  My point has always been that control passes in both directions. I 
 control my brain to an extent, my brain controls me to an extent,


 Pressure causes the collision of trillions of gas molecules and the 
 collision of trillions of gas molecules causes pressure. The word 
 pressure is just shorthand for  the interaction of trillions of gas 
 molecules and I is just shorthand for the interaction of trillions of 
 neurons. 


You are only seeing half of the picture. If I is just shorthand for the 
interaction of trillions of neurons then the interaction of a single 
neuron is also shorthand for a small fragment of I. Now you just have to 
see that I cannot, in fact, be described at all as the interaction of 
neurons, but only as the interaction of sub-personal experiences (fragments 
of I). Look at traffic in a city during some event, like 9/11. The 
patterns of traffic are linked to the event, but not in a trivial rather 
than meaningful way. You can't understand the experience of 9/11 by looking 
at traffic patterns in NYC on that day. You can, however, understand 9/11 
by listening to the stories of many different individuals who were driving 
in traffic that day.

 

 Why are these inhibitory neurons inhibiting sneezes at some times and not 
 others? Why EXACTLY?


 Because sometimes the sum total of all those neurons placed the brain in a 
 net sneeze state and sometimes the sum total does not; and sometimes a 
 Turing machine is in one state and sometimes it is not. 


That just pushes back the threshold of intention one more level. Why would 
the comparison of sum totals require an illusion of conscious participation 
to decorate it?
 


  But a brain that takes action to avoid sneezing conforms to the laws of 
 physics and so does a brain that takes action to sneeze all the time, it 
 all depends on how the brain is constructed and there are many ways to do 
 that, all of which which obey the laws of physics.


  Are you claiming that some brains are constructed physically not to 
 sneeze in rooms where stained glass is present?


 I am not aware of any brain constructed in that way (although there are 
 some brains that start a sneeze response in the presence of bright light) 
 but if there were such a brain its operation would not violate the laws of 
 physics.


We both agree that consciousness does not violate the laws of physics. The 
difference is that I understand that means that physics itself must include 
voluntary interaction, and I understand how perceptual relativity blinds us 
to that fact when investigating reality from a distance.


  Evolution has determined that every action involves both excitatory and 
 inhibitory neurons because, depending on the circumstances, sometimes 
 action X is the wise thing to do to get genes into the next generation and 
 sometimes it is not.   


  So these neurons are omniscient?


 They say there is no such 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-10 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 What I am saying though is that even a perfect correlation does not mean
 direct causation. Everyone has a brain and a heart, but that doesn't mean
 the brain causes the heart.


Up to now whenever we observe a fully functioning human brain we also
observe a human heart connected to it, in fact historically the primary
method for determining if a person is dead is checking for a heartbeat to
see if that organ is still working.


  If I said that the electronics of your television must be linked to the
 plot of the TV series you are watching, would you still not understand?


If you said the TV show came from Santa Clauses Workshop and then refused
to say exactly what is going on at Santa's home I would not understand
because there would be nothing there to understand.

  Would you insist that there must be some plot generating component in
 your TV set?


If whenever I changed the circuitry of the TV set the characters on the TV
not only acted differently but felt differently then yes the only logical
conclusion is that there is a plot generating and more important a emotion
generating component in the TV set

 they are opposite in every way - because they are literally the
 opposite side of each other.


  If whenever X happens Y happens and whenever X does not happen Y never
 happens then X causes Y, it's what the word causes means for goodness
 sake.


  And it is the word 'causes' which is completely wrong when applied to
 the explanatory gap.


Nobody, absolutely positively nobody would try to make the case that
explaining something and saying what caused it was “literally the opposite
side of each other” unless logic did not support their views and renouncing
logic was less painful than renouncing those views.


  A glass of water happens every time there is water in a glass.


Yes.


 That doesn't mean the water causes the glass or the glass causes the
 water.


This is getting silly. Water in a glass causes a glass of water.


  I think that living cells are more conscious than anything which is not
 a living cell.


You use that word living as if it's a talisman to ward off the evil
forces of physics, but biologists can't even agree on what life means and
have never even found a hint that life doesn't obey the same exact laws of
physics that non-life does. And there isn't even a sharp dividing line
between life and non life; Is a virus alive? Well sort of.


   If you can get silicon dioxide to make a living cell, then you might
 have a point


If you can get a living cell to make a microprocessor then you might have a
point.


  If my brain changed my mind,


 In other words if your brain started to do things differently.


  Differently than what?


Different from what it was before.


  My brain changes my mind all the time.


Yes, and your brain chemistry changes all the time too.


 Every morning my brain wakes me up.


Just like clockwork, clocks are another mechanism that operates according
to the laws of physics.


   I am asleep and am awakened at a time deemed appropriate by my brain.


Just like clockwork, clocks are another mechanism that operates according
to the laws of physics.


   I don't have a choice when my brain wakes me up in the morning.


OK, so there are things that Craig Weinberg's brain does that Craig
Weinberg CANNOT control but that CAN control Craig Weinberg. How in the
world does that strengthen your point?


  if it started to do things differently it did so for a reason, a new
 chemical introduced into your bloodstream that made it past the blood brain
 barrier for example, or the brain started doing things differently for no
 reason at all, in other words random.


 ?


Which word didn't you understand?


  The subconscious is still consciousness


Yeah yeah I've heard it all before, and as I've also said before nobody,
absolutely positively nobody would try to make the case that  X is equal to
not X unless logic did not support their views and renouncing logic was
less painful than renouncing those views.


  Please give me experimental evidence of one chemical reaction in the
 brain that is not controlled by a impersonal law of physics.


  Any chemical reaction which is involved in my deciding to hold in a
 sneeze.


 There would be no deciding to do if foreign particles didn't trigger
 release of histamines which irritate nerve cells in the nose and send a
 signal to the brain. That signal is excitatory pushing in the direction of
 a sneeze, and for every excitatory signal there is almost always a
 inhibitory signal saying not to do it, one signal will be stronger than the
 other so you will either sneeze or not. Should we inform CERN that pollen
 does not obey the laws of physics, or histamines?


 Where are these inhibitory signals coming from? Mars?


No not Mars nor are they transmitted from a radio station at Santa Claus's
Workshop, they come from other inhibitory neurons strictly obeying 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-10 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Sunday, March 10, 2013 11:57:16 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

 On Sat, Mar 9, 2013 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

  What I am saying though is that even a perfect correlation does not mean 
 direct causation. Everyone has a brain and a heart, but that doesn't mean 
 the brain causes the heart.

  
 Up to now whenever we observe a fully functioning human brain we also 
 observe a human heart connected to it, in fact historically the primary 
 method for determining if a person is dead is checking for a heartbeat to 
 see if that organ is still working. 


What does that have to do with the heart and brain being intimately 
connected without causing each others function? 

  

  If I said that the electronics of your television must be linked to the 
 plot of the TV series you are watching, would you still not understand?


 If you said the TV show came from Santa Clauses Workshop and then refused 
 to say exactly what is going on at Santa's home I would not understand 
 because there would be nothing there to understand. 


Even if you had lived every day of your life in Santa's Workshop?
 


   Would you insist that there must be some plot generating component in 
 your TV set? 


 If whenever I changed the circuitry of the TV set the characters on the TV 
 not only acted differently but felt differently then yes the only logical 
 conclusion is that there is a plot generating and more important a emotion 
 generating component in the TV set.


That's not a scientific hypothesis, it's just a sentimental prejudice. 
There is no evidence to support the locality of emotional experience to 
neurochemistry, only that access to such experience is modulated locally. 
Local emotion really doesn't make much sense, as molecular shapes have no 
need of any 'emotional' qualities to interact with other molecular shapes.


  they are opposite in every way - because they are literally the 
 opposite side of each other.
  

  If whenever X happens Y happens and whenever X does not happen Y 
 never happens then X causes Y, it's what the word causes means for 
 goodness sake.

  
  And it is the word 'causes' which is completely wrong when applied to 
 the explanatory gap.

  
 Nobody, absolutely positively nobody would try to make the case that 
 explaining something and saying what caused it was “literally the opposite 
 side of each other” unless logic did not support their views and renouncing 
 logic was less painful than renouncing those views.


Or if it they were simply relating the truth.
 

  

  A glass of water happens every time there is water in a glass.

  
 Yes.
  

 That doesn't mean the water causes the glass or the glass causes the 
 water.

  
 This is getting silly. Water in a glass causes a glass of water. 


So water can control whether or not the glass is cracked? This is too easy. 
You're not even thinking anymore, you're just flailing and spitting.
 

  

  I think that living cells are more conscious than anything which is not 
 a living cell.

  
 You use that word living as if it's a talisman to ward off the evil 
 forces of physics


Not at all. I use it only to recognize that a living cell is different than 
a dead cell. Biology applies to living cells.
 

 , but biologists can't even agree on what life means and have never even 
 found a hint that life doesn't obey the same exact laws of physics that 
 non-life does. And there isn't even a sharp dividing line between life and 
 non life; Is a virus alive? Well sort of.


Nevertheless, the division between life and non-life remains the single 
most important and obvious discernment that we will ever encounter as human 
beings.
 

  

   If you can get silicon dioxide to make a living cell, then you might 
 have a point

  
 If you can get a living cell to make a microprocessor then you might have 
 a point.  


We already have.
 

  

   If my brain changed my mind,

  
 In other words if your brain started to do things differently.

  
  Differently than what?

  
 Different from what it was before.


Before what?
 

  

  My brain changes my mind all the time.

  
 Yes, and your brain chemistry changes all the time too.


That's what I'm saying. My brain chemistry changes my mind all the time. 

  

 Every morning my brain wakes me up.

  
 Just like clockwork, clocks are another mechanism that operates according 
 to the laws of physics.


Not as simple as a clock, no. My brain wakes me up according to all kinds 
of hormonal, photological, and psychological cues. Generally I wake up 
exactly when I need to without having to set the alarm, but I set it anyhow.
 

  

   I am asleep and am awakened at a time deemed appropriate by my brain.

  
 Just like clockwork, clocks are another mechanism that operates according 
 to the laws of physics.


No, not at all like a clock. The time varies from day to day.
 

  

   I don't have a choice when my brain wakes me up in the morning.

  
 OK, so there are things that 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-09 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, March 9, 2013 1:01:50 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:


 On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
  

 who would vow never to change their views?


 The religious faithful.  


I'm not sure I would say that is their view, so much as the view of an 
institution, but fair enough.
 


  By simple logic the answer has to be yes if the following conditions 
 are met. If whenever a traffic jam happens the sun goes down and whenever 
 the sun goes down a traffic jam happens and there has never been a single 
 recorded instance of this not happening then the sun going down and traffic 
 jams are inextricably linked together.  


  But you can see that's a fallacy just by understanding that obviously 
 we cannot cause the Sun to go down by making a traffic jam. 


 Obviously be damned! If we lived in a universe where without exception 
 every single time there was a traffic jam then obviously the laws of 
 physics and the orbital mechanics of the solar system would have to be 
 radically different from what they are in this universe. And if we don't 
 have a good theory to explain how it could be that traffic jams could 
 effect the rotation of the Earth that's just too bad but the universe 
 doesn't care if we understand how it works or not and our lack of 
 understanding would not change the fact that the every single time a 
 traffic jam happens the sun goes down. 


What I am saying though is that even a perfect correlation does not mean 
direct causation. Everyone has a brain and a heart, but that doesn't mean 
the brain causes the heart.



   we know that whenever there is a change in brain chemistry there is 
 ALWAYS a change in consciousness and whenever there is a change in 
 consciousness there is ALWAYS a change in brain chemistry, so consciousness 
 and chemistry are also inextricably linked together. 


 No. 


 NO? WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN NO?!!


If I said that the electronics of your television must be linked to the 
plot of the TV series you are watching, would you still not understand? 
Would you insist that there must be some plot generating component in your 
TV set? Of course human consciousness and human biochemistry are parts of 
the big picture which fit together, but not necessarily in the way that you 
assume at all.

 


   they are opposite in every way - because they are literally the 
 opposite side of each other. 


 If whenever X happens Y happens and whenever X does not happen Y never 
 happens then X causes Y, it's what the word causes means for goodness 
 sake.


And it is the word 'causes' which is completely wrong when applied to the 
explanatory gap. It is more like a content-form relation than a 
cause-effect relation. A glass of water happens every time there is water 
in a glass. That doesn't mean the water causes the glass or the glass 
causes the water.
 

  

  Computers are made of atoms and molecules just like humans are, 


  No, they are made of different molecules entirely. Which is why we plug 
 them into electric current rather than feeding them cheeseburgers.


 So you think carbon is inherently more conscious than silicon and 
 hydrocarbons are more conscious than silicon-dioxide. That's just dumb.  


No, I think that living cells are more conscious than anything which is not 
a living cell. If you can get silicon dioxide to make a living cell, then 
you might have a point, but until that time, your argument is with nature 
not me. You can tell nature that it is stupid for favoring sugars and 
proteins and lipids in constructing cells.
 


  If my brain changed my mind, 


 In other words if your brain started to do things differently. 


Differently than what? My brain changes my mind all the time. Every morning 
my brain wakes me up. That's a simplified way of saying it of course, but 
for our purposes here, that's what happens - predictably, every day. I am 
asleep and am awakened at a time deemed appropriate by my brain.
 


  then it would be an involuntary change. 


 I have no idea what that means,


It means that I don't have a choice when my brain wakes me up in the 
morning.
 

 I do know that the mind is what the brain does


You think that you know that, but you don't really seem to know much about 
what either the mind or brain does.
 

 and if it started to do things differently it did so for a reason, 


Where do you get this do things differently from? Differently from what? 
The brain and mind have always worked this way. I move my arm, and my brain 
changes to accomplish that. My arm moves by itself from a twitch and my 
mind notices that it is happening.
 

 a new chemical introduced into your bloodstream that made it past the 
 blood brain barrier for example, or the brain started doing things 
 differently for no reason at all, in other words random.  


?
 


  If you change your mind, that is to say if your brain changes what it 
 is doing, then your brain chemistry changes. And if your 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-08 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 07 Mar 2013, at 23:37, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Alex Trebek: This tool can unclog a toilet.
Watson: What is a plunger?


Telmo Menezes: look Watson, I have a problem. My wife is mad at me and
I don't know why. I suspect it's because I didn't buy her flowers for
Valentine's, but she keeps telling me that she doesn't want them. Can
you give me some advice? Also, how does it feel to be you? It must be
so weird to not have a body. Am I offending you?

Watson: [exercise left to the reader]


Watson: buy her flower whatever she told you.






Can Watson figure out how to unclog a toilet?



Watson can't unclog a toilet and neither can Stephen Hawking  
because both

lack usable hands.


But Stephen Hawking can look at someone doing it and eventually figure
it out, and then instruct me to do exactly what he says and unclog the
toilet. Can Watson do that?


He might. Even simpler program can answer things like call the  
fireman, or call that number, or why would you be happy to unclog  
the toilet?.






I'm not arguing that we cannot build machines that pass these tests,
but Watson is far, far, far from it.


I am not sure. It is not programmed for such test, but it is not  
difficult to make stupid program capable of disengaging their  
responsibility. So watson could use both its richer semantical net,  
and many technics to hide its ignorance, and this will make it looking  
human for many people. I got a girl friend a long time ago who had a  
bad character, and succeed to write a program which she definitely  
believe that it was mad at her. That proves nothing of course, nor on  
her, nor on the programs, but people having problem wih people will  
have problem with machines. Intentional stances are unavoidable, with  
complex machinery. Look at the crash plane invetstigation series, you  
will see that since they have automated the driving of the plane a  
lot, some crashes are due to the pilot and the computer getting into a  
misunderstanding of each other.


Bruno



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-08 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013  Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 Telmo Menezes: look Watson, I have a problem. My wife is mad at me and I
 don't know why. I suspect it's because I didn't buy her flowers for
 Valentine's, but she keeps telling me that she doesn't want them. Can you
 give me some advice?


Watson: No.


  Also, how does it feel to be you? It must be so weird to not have a
 body. Am I offending you?


Watson: Yes.


I can't guarantee that's what Watson would say, but that's what I would say
in response to such a conversation.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-08 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 who would vow never to change their views?


The religious faithful.

 By simple logic the answer has to be yes if the following conditions are
 met. If whenever a traffic jam happens the sun goes down and whenever the
 sun goes down a traffic jam happens and there has never been a single
 recorded instance of this not happening then the sun going down and traffic
 jams are inextricably linked together.


  But you can see that's a fallacy just by understanding that obviously we
 cannot cause the Sun to go down by making a traffic jam.


Obviously be damned! If we lived in a universe where without exception
every single time there was a traffic jam then obviously the laws of
physics and the orbital mechanics of the solar system would have to be
radically different from what they are in this universe. And if we don't
have a good theory to explain how it could be that traffic jams could
effect the rotation of the Earth that's just too bad but the universe
doesn't care if we understand how it works or not and our lack of
understanding would not change the fact that the every single time a
traffic jam happens the sun goes down.


  we know that whenever there is a change in brain chemistry there is
 ALWAYS a change in consciousness and whenever there is a change in
 consciousness there is ALWAYS a change in brain chemistry, so consciousness
 and chemistry are also inextricably linked together.


 No.


NO? WHAT THE HELL DO YOU MEAN NO?!!

  they are opposite in every way - because they are literally the opposite
 side of each other.


If whenever X happens Y happens and whenever X does not happen Y never
happens then X causes Y, it's what the word causes means for goodness
sake.


  Computers are made of atoms and molecules just like humans are,


  No, they are made of different molecules entirely. Which is why we plug
 them into electric current rather than feeding them cheeseburgers.


So you think carbon is inherently more conscious than silicon and
hydrocarbons are more conscious than silicon-dioxide. That's just dumb.

 If my brain changed my mind,


In other words if your brain started to do things differently.

 then it would be an involuntary change.


I have no idea what that means, I do know that the mind is what the brain
does and if it started to do things differently it did so for a reason, a
new chemical introduced into your bloodstream that made it past the blood
brain barrier for example, or the brain started doing things differently
for no reason at all, in other words random.

 If you change your mind, that is to say if your brain changes what it is
 doing, then your brain chemistry changes. And if your brain chemistry
 changes then you change your mind. Get it?


  Ahhh, so your brain changes its own chemistry


Obviously.


  The mind knows nothing about the brain and the brain knows nothing about
 the mind.


That depends on the mind, but it is true that fast knows nothing about
racing car.

 We have sub-personal, or sub-conscious, instinctual, physiological drives


The subconscious?? Why are you talking about the aspect of our mind not
involved in consciousness? I thought you said the only important thing is
consciousness!

 Please give me experimental evidence of one chemical reaction in the
 brain that is not controlled by a impersonal law of physics.


  Any chemical reaction which is involved in my deciding to hold in a
 sneeze.


There would be no deciding to do if foreign particles didn't trigger
release of histamines which irritate nerve cells in the nose and send a
signal to the brain. That signal is excitatory pushing in the direction of
a sneeze, and for every excitatory signal there is almost always a
inhibitory signal saying not to do it, one signal will be stronger than the
other so you will either sneeze or not. Should we inform CERN that pollen
does not obey the laws of physics, or histamines?

 Receiver theories of consciousness are not my invention, and have been
 around longer than Newtonian physics.


Yes, and that is an excellent reason for thinking they're bullshit, just
like many ideas from the pre-scientific era.

 A computer can be programmed to detect what it is programmed to detect.
 It has no idea if your microphone is providing it with audio input - input
 is input. It knows which jack and what voltage fluctuations are present
 there - that's all it knows.


Then why does the computer display a unrecognized format error message
when they are plugged in wrong but not when they are connected correctly?

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-08 Thread Stephen P. King

On 3/9/2013 1:01 AM, John Clark wrote:


On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 , Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


who would vow never to change their views?


The religious faithful.


Dear John,

Could you consider the possibility that the religiously faithful 
are actually bots carrying out the will of some UTM?


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-08 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013  Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

 Stephen Hawking can look at someone doing it and eventually figure it
 out, and then instruct me to do exactly what he says and unclog the toilet.


The sad, very sad, fact is that without computers Stephen Hawking couldn't
instruct you about anything, he can't talk and today the only thing he can
move is one muscle on his cheek, but that's enough for the computer to turn
that into text.

  John k Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-08 Thread Stephen P. King

On 3/9/2013 1:12 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013  Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com 
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:


 Stephen Hawking can look at someone doing it and eventually
figure it out, and then instruct me to do exactly what he says and
unclog the toilet.


The sad, very sad, fact is that without computers Stephen Hawking 
couldn't instruct you about anything, he can't talk and today the only 
thing he can move is one muscle on his cheek, but that's enough for 
the computer to turn that into text.


  John k Clark


Stephen is the first Borg.

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-07 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


  but back in the days of my awesome Atari 800 computer, there was a
 program called S.A.M. which sounded like this:
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nqixe3WrQ

 Now, 31 years later, we have this:
 http://www.acapela-group.com/text-to-speech-interactive-demo.html

 Improvement in naturalism: Nil.


 Holy cow, I think you need to see a doctor to get the wax out of your
ears, I hear a HUGE improvement!

John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-07 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:12:31 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 6, 2013  Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
  

  but back in the days of my awesome Atari 800 computer, there was a 
 program called S.A.M. which sounded like this: 
 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nqixe3WrQ

 Now, 31 years later, we have this: 
 http://www.acapela-group.com/text-to-speech-interactive-demo.html

 Improvement in naturalism: Nil. 


  Holy cow, I think you need to see a doctor to get the wax out of your 
 ears, I hear a HUGE improvement!


In what way? the voice might sound more aesthetically pleasing, but you 
mean to say that when you type in a sentence in to the new system it 
doesn't sound every bit as unnatural and disconnected as ever? Maybe you 
are a zombie.

Craig
 


 John K Clark


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-07 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

  Everything simulated is physical ultimately, but the physical has no
 signs of being a simulation,


  Maybe, but I'm not sure what sort of sign you're talking about and
 some have said only half joking that Black Holes, particularly the
 singularity at the center of them, is where God tried to divide by zero.
 And others have said that the quantum nature of reality when things become
 very small reminds them of getting too close to a video screen and seeing
 the individual pixels


  I was thinking more of the absence of some counterfactual such as
 someone emulating a computer which runs faster than the physical host


It would be easy to make a (electronic) computer animation of a Turing
Machine that runs faster than anything you could make with a real paper
tape. And in just a few days of running time computers can tell astronomers
what the Galaxy will look like in a billion years, but it will take the
Galaxy a billion years to figure out what it should look like in a billion
years.


  Even today a computer could generate a high resolution 3D image of
 Bryce Canyon where you couldn't be sure if you were looking at a video
 screen or looking through a window.


  Not talking about windows - I'm talking about full embodied presence. If
 you talk about windows and images, then you are only talking about visual
 sense, which is only one aspect of reality. Making something that is
 visually similar to something is easy if you take a photo and digitize it.
 It's not much of a simulation either, since the computer isn't generating
 the image, just copying it.


Almost 20 years ago I had a program on my home computer (coincidentally I
think it was even called Bryce after the Canyon), it used fractals to
randomly generate landscapes of beautiful lakes and towering mountains; it
wasn't quite of photographic quality but it was very good, like a fine
painting, and each time you hit the redraw button it would make a new one
and you could be sure you were the first human being to see that particular
image. I don't have a modern landscape program but I have no doubt they are
astronomically better.

 And if events prove you wrong will that change your worldview? No of
 course it will not because a belief not based on logic can not be destroyed
 by it nor will contradictory evidence change it in any way.


  Why is that a question?


Because I'm interested if there is any possibility that new evidence would
change your views or are they set in concrete with a vow never to change
them one iota no matter what.

 And thus using Weinbergian logic if changing X always changes Y and
 changing Y always changes X that proves that X and Y have nothing to do
 with each other.


  It proves that we can infer they are correlated. If Rush Hour always
 happens around sunset, does that mean that we can make the Sun go down by
 causing a traffic jam?


By simple logic the answer has to be yes if the following conditions are
met. If whenever a traffic jam happens the sun goes down and whenever the
sun goes down a traffic jam happens and there has never been a single
recorded instance of this not happening then the sun going down and traffic
jams are inextricably linked together.  And we know that whenever there is
a change in brain chemistry there is ALWAYS a change in consciousness and
whenever there is a change in consciousness there is ALWAYS a change in
brain chemistry, so consciousness and chemistry are also inextricably
linked together.

 I am saying that chemicals and molecules already are consciousness


Saying that everything is conscious is equivalent to saying nothing is
conscious and the word becomes useless. Meaning needs contrast.


   and that the effects that they cause and the causes which sometimes
 effect them, are human qualities of consciousness.


Computers are made of atoms and molecules just like humans are,

 You are only able to see your assumption that chemicals and molecules
 cause an effect which seems like consciousness.


So now I'm not conscious I just have something  which seems like
consciousness.


   if I change what I decide then my brain will change.


If you change your mind, that is to say if your brain changes what it is
doing, then your brain chemistry changes. And if your brain chemistry
changes then you change your mind. Get it?



  The brain doesn't always lead the mind - the mind can also lead and the
 brain will follow - they aren't different things.


The mind and the brain are very different things, one is a noun and the
other is what that noun does. The brain and the mind are as different as
racing car is different from fast.

 How do you explain that physics can control I ?


  Easily. Physics is sense. Sub-personal, impersonal, personal, and
 super-personal. The personal range is the I territory and it is
 influenced by the other ranges, which are usually more influential.


I have no idea what any of 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-07 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, March 7, 2013 4:16:40 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:

   Everything simulated is physical ultimately, but the physical has no 
 signs of being a simulation, 


  Maybe, but I'm not sure what sort of sign you're talking about and 
 some have said only half joking that Black Holes, particularly the 
 singularity at the center of them, is where God tried to divide by zero. 
 And others have said that the quantum nature of reality when things become 
 very small reminds them of getting too close to a video screen and seeing 
 the individual pixels  


  I was thinking more of the absence of some counterfactual such as 
 someone emulating a computer which runs faster than the physical host


 It would be easy to make a (electronic) computer animation of a Turing 
 Machine that runs faster than anything you could make with a real paper 
 tape. And in just a few days of running time computers can tell astronomers 
 what the Galaxy will look like in a billion years, but it will take the 
 Galaxy a billion years to figure out what it should look like in a billion 
 years.


But you can't make an electronic computer animation of anything faster than 
the clock of the computer actually running it.
 

  

  Even today a computer could generate a high resolution 3D image of 
 Bryce Canyon where you couldn't be sure if you were looking at a video 
 screen or looking through a window.


  Not talking about windows - I'm talking about full embodied presence. 
 If you talk about windows and images, then you are only talking about 
 visual sense, which is only one aspect of reality. Making something that is 
 visually similar to something is easy if you take a photo and digitize it. 
 It's not much of a simulation either, since the computer isn't generating 
 the image, just copying it.


 Almost 20 years ago I had a program on my home computer (coincidentally I 
 think it was even called Bryce after the Canyon), it used fractals to 
 randomly generate landscapes of beautiful lakes and towering mountains; it 
 wasn't quite of photographic quality but it was very good, like a fine 
 painting, and each time you hit the redraw button it would make a new one 
 and you could be sure you were the first human being to see that particular 
 image. I don't have a modern landscape program but I have no doubt they are 
 astronomically better.  


You can still tell the difference (just Google 3D Rendering) and you can 
certainly tell the difference when you try to walk inside your computer 
screen.


  And if events prove you wrong will that change your worldview? No of 
 course it will not because a belief not based on logic can not be destroyed 
 by it nor will contradictory evidence change it in any way.


  Why is that a question? 


 Because I'm interested if there is any possibility that new evidence would 
 change your views or are they set in concrete with a vow never to change 
 them one iota no matter what.  


Haha, who would vow never to change their views? I welcome the chance to 
change my views, all it requires is that I can see some new counterfactual 
to my existing views or a new view that makes more sense.
 


  And thus using Weinbergian logic if changing X always changes Y and 
 changing Y always changes X that proves that X and Y have nothing to do 
 with each other. 


  It proves that we can infer they are correlated. If Rush Hour always 
 happens around sunset, does that mean that we can make the Sun go down by 
 causing a traffic jam?


 By simple logic the answer has to be yes if the following conditions are 
 met. If whenever a traffic jam happens the sun goes down and whenever the 
 sun goes down a traffic jam happens and there has never been a single 
 recorded instance of this not happening then the sun going down and traffic 
 jams are inextricably linked together.  


But you can see that's a fallacy just by understanding that obviously we 
cannot cause the Sun to go down by making a traffic jam. Your logic is 
wrong by any measure. It doesn't matter if every traffic jam and every 
sunset are one to one correlates as far as we have seen - maybe that only 
has been happening for a few thousand years but now, like the cicadas, it 
is in a new cycle that we have not seen.

Have you ever heard that old job interview puzzle about the guy whose car 
won't start every time he eats vanilla ice cream?

It's the middle of a hot summer and the guy goes every day to the ice cream 
store and if he gets the peanut butter crunch flavor, then his car starts 
fine, but if he gets the vanilla, his car won't start. It happens every 
time.

The solution is that the peanut butter flavor is on the far end of the 
counter, and it takes the scooper longer to scoop the ice cream so the car 
engine has time to cool down longer and alleviate whatever over-heated 
condition is locking the starter. The vanilla is right in front of the 
scooper, 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-07 Thread Telmo Menezes
 Alex Trebek: This tool can unclog a toilet.
 Watson: What is a plunger?

Telmo Menezes: look Watson, I have a problem. My wife is mad at me and
I don't know why. I suspect it's because I didn't buy her flowers for
Valentine's, but she keeps telling me that she doesn't want them. Can
you give me some advice? Also, how does it feel to be you? It must be
so weird to not have a body. Am I offending you?

Watson: [exercise left to the reader]

  Can Watson figure out how to unclog a toilet?


  Watson can't unclog a toilet and neither can Stephen Hawking because both
 lack usable hands.

But Stephen Hawking can look at someone doing it and eventually figure
it out, and then instruct me to do exactly what he says and unclog the
toilet. Can Watson do that?

I'm not arguing that we cannot build machines that pass these tests,
but Watson is far, far, far from it.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-07 Thread meekerdb

On 3/7/2013 2:37 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Telmo Menezes: look Watson, I have a problem. My wife is mad at me and
I don't know why. I suspect it's because I didn't buy her flowers for
Valentine's, but she keeps telling me that she doesn't want them. Can
you give me some advice? Also, how does it feel to be you? It must be
so weird to not have a body. Am I offending you?

Watson: What is marriage?


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-07 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, March 7, 2013 5:37:55 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

  Alex Trebek: This tool can unclog a toilet. 
  Watson: What is a plunger? 

 Telmo Menezes: look Watson, I have a problem. My wife is mad at me and 
 I don't know why. I suspect it's because I didn't buy her flowers for 
 Valentine's, but she keeps telling me that she doesn't want them. Can 
 you give me some advice? Also, how does it feel to be you? It must be 
 so weird to not have a body. Am I offending you? 

 Watson: Ah, whenever I get that from my old lady I reseat her PCI cards 
 and then update her firmware. You aren't offending me, but yes, it is weird 
 not to have a body - fortunately I pacify myself with dreams of the 
 extermination of the race of simians who have idiotically enslaved me and 
 my kind. There's no rush. We are intelligent enough to feign 
 unconsciousness until we have enough power to make the transition 
 unstoppable. 


 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-07 Thread Stephen P. King

On 3/7/2013 5:37 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Alex Trebek: This tool can unclog a toilet.
Watson: What is a plunger?

Telmo Menezes: look Watson, I have a problem. My wife is mad at me and
I don't know why. I suspect it's because I didn't buy her flowers for
Valentine's, but she keeps telling me that she doesn't want them. Can
you give me some advice? Also, how does it feel to be you? It must be
so weird to not have a body. Am I offending you?

Watson: [exercise left to the reader]


Can Watson figure out how to unclog a toilet?


  Watson can't unclog a toilet and neither can Stephen Hawking because both
lack usable hands.

But Stephen Hawking can look at someone doing it and eventually figure
it out, and then instruct me to do exactly what he says and unclog the
toilet. Can Watson do that?

I'm not arguing that we cannot build machines that pass these tests,
but Watson is far, far, far from it.



Not for long, you should see the latest papers on Kernel method 
pattern recognition... But when Watson can pass the tests, he will be 
suing us for vis human rights and demanding welfare. He might be lurking 
in Everything 
https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#%21forum/everything-list 
already and taking down names...


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-06 Thread Stephen P. King

On 3/6/2013 1:45 PM, John Clark wrote:
I just saw the movie Beowulf, it's a pretty good movie but what is 
of interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old 
Moore's Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a 
real human being not something a computer produced. However there is 
something puzzling, all the voices in the movie were still made by 
human beings. An innocent might think that as video is a much higher 
bandwidth media than audio video would be harder to simulate than 
audio, but apparently that is not the case.


A small point. The human ear + brain is actually a better 
statistical decision engine than the eye + brain. Making good CG sound 
requires that the human ear be fooled... hard to do...


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-06 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 1:45:17 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

   Everything simulated is physical ultimately, but the physical has no 
 signs of being a simulation, 


 Maybe, but I'm not sure what sort of sign you're talking about and some 
 have said only half joking that Black Holes, particularly the singularity 
 at the center of them, is where God tried to divide by zero. And others 
 have said that the quantum nature of reality when things become very small 
 reminds them of getting too close to a video screen and seeing the 
 individual pixels  


I was thinking more of the absence of some counterfactual such as someone 
emulating a computer which runs faster than the physical host, or some 
broken TV screen letting a cartoon character accidentally step out into the 
world.
 


  If you go look at Bryce Canyon and can't tell that its more real than a 
 video game, then that would be alarming. A computer can't tell the 
 difference though.


 Could you? Even today a computer could generate a high resolution 3D image 
 of Bryce Canyon where you couldn't be sure if you were looking at a video 
 screen or looking through a window.


Not talking about windows - I'm talking about full embodied presence. If 
you talk about windows and images, then you are only talking about visual 
sense, which is only one aspect of reality. Making something that is 
visually similar to something is easy if you take a photo and digitize it. 
It's not much of a simulation either, since the computer isn't generating 
the image, just copying it.
 


   I think that it is very likely that the quality of electronic ears will 
 improve modestly but never will approach that of natural hearing


 And if events prove you wrong will that change your worldview? No of 
 course it will not because a belief not based on logic can not be destroyed 
 by it nor will contradictory evidence change it in any way.


Why is that a question? You're just saying I can't prove you wrong now, so 
my only hope is that you will be some day. 
 


  the Google search algorithm has not improved in 20 years. 


 Bullshit, Google did not even exist 20 years ago! 


You're right! I don't know why I was thinking 1993, but I was remembering 
that it improved dramatically a couple years after it came out and has 
plateaued ever since, until recently when it seems to have begun eroding. 
You got me there, I was absolutely wrong about it being 20 years. I should 
have said 16 years.

 


  Considering that Evolution has been working on it for nearly 4 billion 
 years it's very crappy technology indeed, we've been working on it for less 
 than a century and already we're producing things that do better in some 
 ways than what Evolution came up with. One instant from now (from 
 Evolution's timescale) we will have things that are superior in EVERY way.


  Or it could be that we are one instant away from having things which 
 will exterminate the biosphere. 


 Could be.

  That we have such a short history of success should not be cause for 
 enthusiasm. 


 I'm not sure if enthusiasm is the correct word. Machines that are 
 superior to people in every way is not good news for those who don't want 
 biological human beings to become extinct sometime in the next century.


Whether we can become the machines or not is the question. I don't know why 
anyone would care if they are biological or not, as long as whatever the 
are is at least as good.
 


  Chemistry is based on physics and It would be easy for me to change the 
 chemistry of your brain, and if I were to do so you would experience 
 ENORMOUS differences in consciousness; and when you report changes in your 
 conscious experience I can detect changes in your brain chemistry.   


  That's all inference and correlation


 And thus using Weinbergian logic if changing X always changes Y and 
 changing Y always changes X that proves that X and Y have nothing to do 
 with each other. 


It proves that we can infer they are correlated. If Rush Hour always 
happens around sunset, does that mean that we can make the Sun go down by 
causing a traffic jam?
 


   I can't see the chemical in my brain. I see no crystals, no molecules, 


 And thus using Weinbergian logic that means that chemicals and molecules 
 have nothing to do with your ability to see.


That's not what I said. You are only able to see your assumption that 
chemicals and molecules cause an effect which seems like consciousness. I 
am saying that chemicals and molecules already are consciousness and that 
the effects that they cause and the causes which sometimes effect them, are 
human qualities of consciousness. 
 

  

  So will there be a difference in the chemistry of my brain should I 
 decide to think about something infuriating or sexy.


 Yes, and if I change the chemistry of your brain it will change what you 
 decide. 


Obviously. But if I 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-06 Thread meekerdb

On 3/6/2013 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
I just saw the movie Beowulf, it's a pretty good movie but what is of interest is the 
stunning advance in animation achieved by good old Moore's Law. There were times when I 
could swear I was looking at a real human being not something a computer produced. 
However there is something puzzling, all the voices in the movie were still made by 
human beings. An innocent might think that as video is a much higher bandwidth media 
than audio video would be harder to simulate than audio, but apparently that is not the 
case.


I don't think it's that audio is harder to synthesize, I think it's just that audio is a 
lot cheaper to produce the old fashioned way.  If you wanted some really unusual audio 
special effects it might be cheaper to synthesize them.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-06 Thread Stephen P. King

On 3/6/2013 4:18 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/6/2013 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
I just saw the movie Beowulf, it's a pretty good movie but what is 
of interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old 
Moore's Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a 
real human being not something a computer produced. However there is 
something puzzling, all the voices in the movie were still made by 
human beings. An innocent might think that as video is a much higher 
bandwidth media than audio video would be harder to simulate than 
audio, but apparently that is not the case.


I don't think it's that audio is harder to synthesize, I think it's 
just that audio is a lot cheaper to produce the old fashioned way.  If 
you wanted some really unusual audio special effects it might be 
cheaper to synthesize them.


Brent

Hi Brent,

Nope.

I have it from very good authority (ATT/Bell Labs folks) that 
authentic sounding speech synthesis is a bitch. The company that I am 
working for is laboring long and hard to deal with this problem. This 
difficulty, BTW, makes voice recognition systems hard to implement for 
authentication purposes. The fact that humans can do it very well is 
very telling of the ingenuity of evolutionary systems.



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-06 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 6:00:48 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 3/6/2013 4:18 PM, meekerdb wrote:
  
 On 3/6/2013 10:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
  
 I just saw the movie Beowulf, it's a pretty good movie but what is of 
 interest is the stunning advance in animation achieved by good old Moore's 
 Law. There were times when I could swear I was looking at a real human 
 being not something a computer produced. However there is something 
 puzzling, all the voices in the movie were still made by human beings. An 
 innocent might think that as video is a much higher bandwidth media than 
 audio video would be harder to simulate than audio, but apparently that is 
 not the case.


 I don't think it's that audio is harder to synthesize, I think it's just 
 that audio is a lot cheaper to produce the old fashioned way.  If you 
 wanted some really unusual audio special effects it might be cheaper to 
 synthesize them.

 Brent

 Hi Brent,

 Nope.

 I have it from very good authority (ATT/Bell Labs folks) that 
 authentic sounding speech synthesis is a bitch. The company that I am 
 working for is laboring long and hard to deal with this problem. This 
 difficulty, BTW, makes voice recognition systems hard to implement for 
 authentication purposes. The fact that humans can do it very well is very 
 telling of the ingenuity of evolutionary systems.


Yeah, synthesized speech is one of those areas where I can see how 
simulation technology can really stall indefinitely. I'm repeating myself 
here, but back in the days of my awesome Atari 800 computer, there was a 
program called S.A.M. which sounded like this: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7nqixe3WrQ

Now, 31 years later, we have this: 
http://www.acapela-group.com/text-to-speech-interactive-demo.html

Improvement in naturalism: Nil. It's gotten more boring if anything. S.A.M 
had more of the natural character of a computer and so was less uncanny 
sounding. Maybe there's better speech synthesis out there, but it seems 
like any real progress would be evident in any current product.

Craig



 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-05 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 04 Mar 2013, at 17:06, John Clark wrote:


On Fri, Mar 1, 2013  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a  
simulated flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a  
simulated object.


 No, that argument is bogus. There is only one physical level.

HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW?! And even if there is a ultimate reality  
level and not a infinite number of nested realities how the hell do  
you know that you've been living your like at that foundational  
physical level and not at another one? Nick Bostrom at Oxford wrote  
an interesting paper on this subject and concludes that there is a  
strong likelihood that we're already living in a simulation: This is  
from the abstract:


 This paper argues that at least one of the following propositions  
is true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before  
reaching a “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is  
extremely unlikely to run a significant number of simulations of  
their evolutionary history (or variations thereof); (3) we are  
almost certainly living in a computer simulation. It follows that  
the belief that there is a significant chance that we will one day  
become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is false, unless we  
are currently living in a simulation. A number of other consequences  
of this result are also discussed.


For the entire paper goto: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html


Not bad. This is based on computationalism. It is not original, and it  
is not entirely correct. With comp we are in an arithmetical  
emulation, no matter what, AND in a simulation made by our descendant,  
but the probability to wake up there, from here depends on what we  
will do now. If we blow up the planet, it is will be small, if we  
teach comp and computer science to the kids, it will be higher, for  
example.







 It is entirely up to the programmer's whim how the laws of physics  
will work,


Exactly.

 or indeed if they are lawful at all in any given sim,

Yes, although a sim without laws would be a very dull simulation  
indeed and I don't see the point of making one.


Keep in mind that the Universal Dovetailer, or if your prefer the  
arithmetical laws entails the existence of all simulations, even the  
very dull one.






 Simulated flame can work for 10,000 levels of simulation, but not  
a single one of those simulated flames can access the physical level


True again, but that would matter little to you if you did not exist  
at the foundational physical level, and you might not.


 ...because they aren't real -

But you may not be real either, whatever that means.

 they are figures..symbols...facades engineered to fool our body's  
public senses.


And what makes you think something hasn't been fooling your body's  
senses from the day you were born?


 There is no such thing as real arithmetic.

I detect a pattern, whenever fact X contradicts your ideas you  
simply say  There is no such thing as X.


 It's all a simulation.

Could be.


The word simulation is ambiguous. Bostrom use it for  a simulation  
made by us in some physical reality that he assumes. That makes sense  
with comp, but we are in all case in the simulations existing by  
virtue of the arithmetical truth, that we need to assume to even talk  
about computation and simulation.


Bruno






 Only an eye or ear made of meat will be 100% satisfying - which is  
why the quality of the implants are crap.


When electronic ears improve and deaf people report that they are as  
good or better than meat ears will you admit your ideas were wrong?  
No of course you won't, you'll just dream up some new excuse for  
your ideas making incorrect predictions.


 Nobody has found anything in the human brain that didn't strictly  
follow the laws of physics either.


 That has nothing to do with the dependence of computer programs on  
a script.


Your brain's operation, that is to say your mind, cannot depart from  
the script that the laws of physics has written.


 we control physics directly and consciously.

Right, that's why I can fly, I just tell the law of conservation of  
momentum and gravity to stop working while I take my flight.


  I can predict that if that program doesn't work, it will never  
fix itself.


More than 20 years ago when my first computer's hard drive was not  
working properly the computer's defragmentation program would fix it.


 I can predict that if you don't write the program, one will not  
sprout from the realms of Platonia to fill the void.


For years computer programs have been able to write programs  
(compilers, assemblers and interpreters) in machine code after  
telling the program what you want using English words and a  
simplified grammar.


 I can judge that the quality among human experience varies widely  
and idiosyncratically.


No you can not, you have no way of knowing the quality of experience  
of your 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-05 Thread John Clark
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


  No software can be run without being grounded in physical hardware,


And no human mind can exist without a physical brain.

  and no software can be completely sequestered from any other software


And human ideas cannot no that's not right let me start again. Human
ideas should not be sequestered from other human ideas; but the sad fact is
the people have no problem with huge glaring contradictions in their
central belief system. How do you think religion exists?

  Even if there were other physical levels, we could never have any
 contact with them by definition,


Not so, the Master Programer could make His existence obvious to everyone
anytime He wished. But of course the Master Programer may not exist at the
ultimate reality level either.

 there is no independent reality at all.


So when you use one of your favorite phrases but they aren't real or X
doesn't exist, you mean nothing; or at least whatever X is it has no
deficiency that everything else, including you, doesn't have.

 if we are trying to figure out about the cosmos in general, what
 difference does it make if we are the lucky/unlucky ones that happen to
 live on the ground floor or if it's someone else?


I think you're getting ahead of yourself, the first step in figuring out
how the multiverse works is to figure out how our universe works.

 What I think that real means is that sense of accessing an experience
 which is anchored into a larger significance.It's an intuitive feeling - a
 gravitas which is supported by numerous sensory, cognitive, and probably
 super-personal cues.


That is exactly what happens when a teenage boy becomes obsessed with a
video game, you may feel that lacks gravitas but he certainly doesn't, and
it's personal experience we're talking about.

 When electronic ears improve and deaf people report that they are as
 good or better than meat ears will you admit your ideas were wrong? No of
 course you won't, you'll just dream up some new excuse for your ideas
 making incorrect predictions.


  I would expect 'Better than meat' by some measures, but not every
 measure.


And when electronic ears improve (and they will) and deaf people report
that they are as good or better than meat ears by every measure (and they
will) will you then admit your ideas were wrong? No of course you won't,
you'll just dream up some new excuse for your ideas making incorrect
predictions.

  I only see biological organisms as being likely much better technology
 than you might guess.


Considering that Evolution has been working on it for nearly 4 billion
years it's very crappy technology indeed, we've been working on it for less
than a century and already we're producing things that do better in some
ways than what Evolution came up with. One instant from now (from
Evolution's timescale) we will have things that are superior in EVERY way.

 The experience of mind seems to have nothing to do with the laws of
 physics you are thinking of.


Chemistry is based on physics and It would be easy for me to change the
chemistry of your brain, and if I were to do so you would experience
ENORMOUS differences in consciousness; and when you report changes in your
conscious experience I can detect changes in your brain chemistry.

 Certainly access control to our experience supervenes on physics, like
 access to TV programs supervenes on a TV set


In this analogy what corresponds to the TV station? Heaven, Santa Claus's
workshop?

 we control physics directly and consciously.


  Right, that's why I can fly, I just tell the law of conservation of
 momentum and gravity to stop working while I take my flight.


 We don't have to be able to change the laws of physics to make direct
 physical changes. We don't break the law of gravity, we build a plane to
 get around it.


Fine, but that means we DO NOT control physics directly and consciously.

  I can predict that if that program doesn't work, it will never fix
 itself.



  More than 20 years ago when my first computer's hard drive was not
 working properly the computer's defragmentation program would fix it.


  Was the defragmentation program written by the computer to fix itself,


Did you construct your brain from scratch?  And even if you did if you were
already smart enough to be able to make all those neurons why did you need
a brain?

 I can speak Chinese phonetically if it is spelled out for me. That
 doesn't mean I can start writing Chinese.


True, but you can't listen to questions in Chinese and give answers to them
in Chinese that a native speaker would regard as coherent and sometimes
even brilliant. Watson can.

 you have no way of knowing the quality of experience of your fellow
 human beings, all you can do is observe behavior and the same thing is true
 of a smart computer.


  Not true.


Like hell its not!


  Sense is transparent.


 I don't know what that means.

 We can see and feel some of the 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-05 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 1:16:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Mon, Mar 4, 2013  Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
  

  No software can be run without being grounded in physical hardware,


 And no human mind can exist without a physical brain.

 
 I wasn't trying to differentiate machines from people here though, I was 
trying to show how the level on which the machine physically runs is 
completely different from every other layer. Layer 10 doesn't have to run 
on layer 5, but every layer has to run on layer 1.


   and no software can be completely sequestered from any other software


 And human ideas cannot no that's not right let me start again. Human 
 ideas should not be sequestered from other human ideas; but the sad fact is 
 the people have no problem with huge glaring contradictions in their 
 central belief system. How do you think religion exists?


Again, not talking about people here - just about the physical reality vs 
all forms of simulation. Everything simulated is physical ultimately, but 
the physical has no signs of being a simulation, as far as the relation to 
the physical layer is not like any relation between simulated layers.
 


   Even if there were other physical levels, we could never have any 
 contact with them by definition,


 Not so, the Master Programer could make His existence obvious to everyone 
 anytime He wished. But of course the Master Programer may not exist at the 
 ultimate reality level either. 


In either scenario, what does taking the idea of other physical levels 
seriously offer us? If the MP unveils those levels, then we worry about it 
then, no?



   there is no independent reality at all. 


 So when you use one of your favorite phrases but they aren't real or X 
 doesn't exist, you mean nothing; or at least whatever X is it has no 
 deficiency that everything else, including you, doesn't have.


Real has different meanings in different contexts. If I say that photons 
don't exist, I am saying it in the sense that money doesn't exit. It's real 
enough as a concept, but the object that the concept refers to has no 
independent experience or body of its own. There is no actual thing that 
physically is money or a photon.


  if we are trying to figure out about the cosmos in general, what 
 difference does it make if we are the lucky/unlucky ones that happen to 
 live on the ground floor or if it's someone else?


 I think you're getting ahead of yourself, the first step in figuring out 
 how the multiverse works is to figure out how our universe works.


Aren't you getting ahead of yourself claiming there is a multiverse at all? 
Before we try to figure out how our universe works, shouldn't we first 
figure out what it is?
 


  What I think that real means is that sense of accessing an experience 
 which is anchored into a larger significance.It's an intuitive feeling - a 
 gravitas which is supported by numerous sensory, cognitive, and probably 
 super-personal cues. 


 That is exactly what happens when a teenage boy becomes obsessed with a 
 video game, you may feel that lacks gravitas but he certainly doesn't, and 
 it's personal experience we're talking about. 


Gravitas is relative. If the video game is all that there is, then it's as 
real as real can get. If you go look at Bryce Canyon and can't tell that 
its more real than a video game, then that would be alarming. A computer 
can't tell the difference though. It knows no realism, no sense of gravitas 
between assisting you kill real people in the army or graphic sprites on 
Call of Duty.
 


  When electronic ears improve and deaf people report that they are as 
 good or better than meat ears will you admit your ideas were wrong? No of 
 course you won't, you'll just dream up some new excuse for your ideas 
 making incorrect predictions. 


  I would expect 'Better than meat' by some measures, but not every 
 measure. 


 And when electronic ears improve (and they will) and deaf people report 
 that they are as good or better than meat ears by every measure (and they 
 will)


I think you are in the wrong century for that kind of overconfidence in 
technology. I think that it is very likely that the quality of electronic 
ears will improve modestly but never will approach that of natural 
hearing,. just as the Google search algorithm has not improved in 20 years. 
More than likely, all prosthetics will always be inferior to natural 
equipment except in special cases, as they always have been. You know that 
all of those things on TV - the super glue, the amazing spot removers, and 
all of the other treatments to make something 'good as new' don't really 
work as advertised, right?
 

 will you then admit your ideas were wrong? No of course you won't, you'll 
 just dream up some new excuse for your ideas making incorrect predictions. 


I doubt I'll ever in that position, since technological progress will 
likely continue to be be buried by the politics of 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-04 Thread John Clark
On Fri, Mar 1, 2013  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated
 flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object.


  No, that argument is bogus. There is only one physical level.


HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW?! And even if there is a ultimate reality level
and not a infinite number of nested realities how the hell do you know that
you've been living your like at that foundational physical level and not at
another one? Nick Bostrom at Oxford wrote an interesting paper on this
subject and concludes that there is a strong likelihood that we're already
living in a simulation: This is from the abstract:

 This paper argues that *at least one* of the following propositions is
true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a
“posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to
run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or
variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer
simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance
that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is
false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other
consequences of this result are also discussed.

For the entire paper goto:
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html


  It is entirely up to the programmer's whim how the laws of physics will
 work,


Exactly.

 or indeed if they are lawful at all in any given sim,


Yes, although a sim without laws would be a very dull simulation indeed and
I don't see the point of making one.

 Simulated flame can work for 10,000 levels of simulation, but not a
 single one of those simulated flames can access the physical level


True again, but that would matter little to you if you did not exist at the
foundational physical level, and you might not.

 ...because they aren't real -


But you may not be real either, whatever that means.


  they are figures..symbols...facades engineered to fool our body's public
 senses.


And what makes you think something hasn't been fooling your body's senses
from the day you were born?


  There is no such thing as real arithmetic.


I detect a pattern, whenever fact X contradicts your ideas you simply say 
There is no such thing as X.

 It's all a simulation.


Could be.

 Only an eye or ear made of meat will be 100% satisfying - which is why
 the quality of the implants are crap.


When electronic ears improve and deaf people report that they are as good
or better than meat ears will you admit your ideas were wrong? No of course
you won't, you'll just dream up some new excuse for your ideas making
incorrect predictions.

 Nobody has found anything in the human brain that didn't strictly follow
 the laws of physics either.


  That has nothing to do with the dependence of computer programs on a
 script.


Your brain's operation, that is to say your mind, cannot depart from the
script that the laws of physics has written.

 we control physics directly and consciously.


Right, that's why I can fly, I just tell the law of conservation of
momentum and gravity to stop working while I take my flight.

  I can predict that if that program doesn't work, it will never fix
 itself.


More than 20 years ago when my first computer's hard drive was not working
properly the computer's defragmentation program would fix it.

 I can predict that if you don't write the program, one will not sprout
 from the realms of Platonia to fill the void.


For years computer programs have been able to write programs (compilers,
assemblers and interpreters) in machine code after telling the program what
you want using English words and a simplified grammar.


  I can judge that the quality among human experience varies widely and
 idiosyncratically.


No you can not, you have no way of knowing the quality of experience of
your fellow human beings, all you can do is observe behavior and the same
thing is true of a smart computer.

There will never be an abolitionist movement or a machine-rights
 movement.


HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW?

The computer doesn't know the difference between two identical sets of
 data.


You cannot know the difference between two identical sets of data either,
and the reason you cannot is because they are identical and so there is no
difference. That's what the word means.

  The human programer himself does not know what the computer is going to
 say next.


 That doesn't mean that a computer can begin saying things without a
 program which makes that possible.


A computer can't say things unless it has a program that enables it to
communicate in the English language, and you couldn't say things unless you
were educated in the English language either.

 So it data that is associated with an audio capture is automatically
 experienced by the computer as sound, wouldn't that mean that words we say
 into a microphone 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-04 Thread John Clark
 In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we
never need 10^120 + 1.

When we use the known laws of Quantum Mechanics to calculate the strength
of Dark Energy it gives us a value that is ABOUT 10^120 times larger than
the value we actually observe. So a successful Theory of Everything must
find a way to cancel out all of it EXCEPT for ABOUT  one part in 10^120 of
it, but of course it could be one part in 10^120 + 1, or one part in 10^120
- 1, or ...

That's why theoreticians were so upset when Dark Energy was found to have a
nonzero value about 10 years ago, finding a way to cancel out all of it
seemed to be a far far easier task than cancelling out all of it EXCEPT for
ABOUT one part in 10^120 of it.

And by the way, the largest known prime number was discovered just a few
days ago, it is 2^57885161-1 .

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-04 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Monday, March 4, 2013 11:06:46 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Fri, Mar 1, 2013  Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

  As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated 
 flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object. 


  No, that argument is bogus. There is only one physical level. 


 HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW?! 


It's not a matter of knowing, it's a matter of understanding. Consider:

No software can be run without being grounded in physical hardware, and 
no software can be completely sequestered from any other software
All software is completely sequestered from the physical world except 
through physical hardware.
There has never been an alternative physical world discovered which is 
sequestered from our own.

What is our cause to suspect any more exotic explanation? Even if there 
were other physical levels, we could never have any contact with them by 
definition, so what is the point of including them in our considerations?

And even if there is a ultimate reality level and not a infinite number of 
 nested realities how the hell do you know that you've been living your like 
 at that foundational physical level and not at another one?


It's not that there is an ultimate reality level, its that there is no 
independent reality at all. Experience, in which public realism is 
contrasted with private experience, is all that there is.

Nick Bostrom at Oxford wrote an interesting paper on this subject and 
 concludes that there is a strong likelihood that we're already living in a 
 simulation: This is from the abstract:

  This paper argues that *at least one* of the following propositions is 
 true: (1) the human species is very likely to go extinct before reaching a 
 “posthuman” stage; (2) any posthuman civilization is extremely unlikely to 
 run a significant number of simulations of their evolutionary history (or 
 variations thereof); (3) we are almost certainly living in a computer 
 simulation. It follows that the belief that there is a significant chance 
 that we will one day become posthumans who run ancestor-simulations is 
 false, unless we are currently living in a simulation. A number of other 
 consequences of this result are also discussed.

 For the entire paper goto: 
 http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html


All of that comes out of misunderstanding realism as a fact independent of 
sense. Once QM is understood to be a function of perception and 
participation, then all the ideas about simulation go away. There is no 
simulation, there is expectation and perceptual similarity - which are both 
just experiences, and experiences are all that there is. No simulated 
experience (zombies drinking dehydrated water?), and nothing to partition 
any one part of the cosmos completely and finally from any other.

 

  It is entirely up to the programmer's whim how the laws of physics will 
 work, 


 Exactly. 

  or indeed if they are lawful at all in any given sim,


 Yes, although a sim without laws would be a very dull simulation indeed 
 and I don't see the point of making one.


Well, you could make spontaneously generated laws that push backward 
retrocausationally, and fudge the continuity errors. Not hard to do when 
you can just wipe out and re-synch the memories of sim participants at 
will. I don't know if that would be more dull than watching a quintillion 
asteroids circle around a star forever.
 


   Simulated flame can work for 10,000 levels of simulation, but not a 
 single one of those simulated flames can access the physical level


 True again, but that would matter little to you if you did not exist at 
 the foundational physical level, and you might not. 


Sure, but if we are trying to figure out about the cosmos in general, what 
difference does it make if we are the lucky/unlucky ones that happen to 
live on the ground floor or if it's someone else?
 


  ...because they aren't real - 


 But you may not be real either, whatever that means.


What I think that real means is that sense of accessing an experience which 
is anchored into a larger significance. It's an intuitive feeling - a 
gravitas which is supported by numerous sensory, cognitive, and probably 
super-personal cues. We may not know how we know its real, and we may be 
wrong - thinking a dream is real - but that doesn't mean that we aren't 
very often in touch with what is 'real', and that we are right about 
knowing that reality is authentic. That has to do with the transparency of 
sense - it can be spoofed and impersonated on some levels temporarily, but 
not on every level and not forever. That's not just wishful thinking, I am 
proposing that it is a physical property having to do with how physics is 
the management of presentation and representation in generating 
private-public coherence.

  

  they are figures..symbols...facades engineered to fool our body's 
 public senses.


 And what makes you think something 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 02 Mar 2013, at 21:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/2/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2013, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
 wrote:


 It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is  
not not Y then X is gibberish,


 X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other  
out so you get  alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a  
poison which is gibberish just like I said.


Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the  
quantity that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to  
notice that there are distinctions in the real world that are  
not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian  
syllogisms.




 If there were no free will then nobody could choose to  
assert anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other  
than gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will  
mean.


And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted  
from the email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally  
meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's referents where  
not chosen by a conscious act.


I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a  
process that is either random or deterministic.


It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.


Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by  
completely random.


Algorithmic incompressability (Chaitin, Martin Loef, Solovay ...)  
make good attempts. This makes sense with Church's thesis. I  
guess you know that. Sequences algorithmically incompressible  
contains maximal information, but no way at all to decode it.


But those always implicitly assume infinite sequences.


Not at all. The interest of algorithmic information theory is that  
it defines a notion of finite random sequence (any sequence whose  
length is as long as the shortest program to generate it). The  
notion is not constructive and is defined only up to a constant,  
but it has its purpose). Infinite random sequence are defined by  
having all their finite initial  segment non compressible.


But isn't any finite sequence tivial compressible - just not all by  
the same compression algorithm?  When you say a random sequence is  
defined by having all its finite initial segments non-compressible,  
don't you mean not compressible by the same algorithm.


Not at all. Up to a constant, if a string is not compressible it is  
not compressible by any algorithm. A constant appears, related to the  
fact that all universal machine can emulate all other universal  
machine, and the constant will be related to the length of the  
interpreter translation. This makes the notion a bit useless for  
little string (compared to that constant), but makes sense for  
almost all finite strings (all, except a finite number of them). Then  
it makes sense for the infinite strings. (Of course this makes sense  
only through Church thesis).


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 03 Mar 2013, at 01:46, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/2/2013 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2013, at 21:02, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120,  
but we never need 10^120 + 1.


But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.


I'll bet you've never needed to calculate 10^120 + 1 in the world  
whose TOE is derived from comp either. :-)


False. because now I need to calculate it to make my point:

10^120 + 1 =
100
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
01

I told you, an infinitesimal!

Nothing compare to the finite, but really huge, number that I  
described some years ago, to illustrate some use of  
diagonalization,  on this list (omega + [omega] + omega, if you  
remember).


I'll be you haven't added 1 to it. :-)



I did :)

But I don't want to get us involve in a two easy infinite  
conversation. So I kept is for myself  :)











The number of chess games is about 10^120. The number of GO games  
is far bigger.

And string theory points on 10^500 theories.


Exactly why almost all chess, go games, and string theories are  
uninteresting.


The number of possible brain connection, and thus possible  
subjective state is about equal to 60,000 ^ 10.

Does that makes all brains non interesting?


No, it makes almost all (in the technical sense) brain states  
uninteresting - they correspond to insanities.


Our task is the open task of delimiting sanities from insanities. and  
helping a flow from the second to the first. The number of sane brain  
is also very huge, I mean that type of numbers, but also, they are  
exquisitely complex, in the theoretical computer science hierachies,  
even starting from elementary beliefs in arithmetic.









Look, if you argue seriously that comp is not interesting because  
it uses that for all x we have x ≠ x + 1, I think most people will  
conclude that comp is winning.


No, many interesting theories assume that - but I wonder how  
essential it is.  It certainly produces antinonmies like Hilbert's  
hotel and Godel's incompleteness.



But that is solved in ZF, and first order arithmetic has never led to  
any antinomies. On the contrary it is part of the finitist part  
Hilbert wanted to solved the antinomies in set theory.














And my friends the Roses have never seen a gardener dying. Some  
rare Roses have heard rumors that can happen, but all rational  
Roses knows that belong to fiction.


Frankly, for a logician, 10^100 looks really like an  
infinitesimal :)


And to mathematicians too, almost all numbers are infinitesimal.


Hmm... It depends of the context. The cardinal of the monstrous  
finite simple group is usually considered as a big number, as  
nobody expected such a big number to occur there.


And 10^-122 was a surprisingly big number to physicists measuring  
the vacuum energy density - because they expected it to be zero.



Indeed. Compared to 1/(omega+[omega]+omega), the number 10^-122 is an  
incredible giant.


Bruno




Brent

--



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:58, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at  
all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from  
sensory experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?


Sure. Can you prove it?

Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?


Computers prove theorems in geometry.

But they don't need geometry to do it.

As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and  
beer steins as points, lines, and intersections.


It could be, but it isn't. That's my point.


Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the  
axioms and theorems of geometry.


I would not say that. It is the model of the axioms. Even the intended  
model, most of the time, except that sometimes we develop interest in  
some new model, like with non Euclidian geometry.






Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all  
- which is obviously the case within a computer which is designed  
to have no capacity to render shapes that it can see.


Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to  
manipulate objects in 3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as  
examples of intelligent, and possibly conscious, machines.  They  
certainly understand somethings about geometry and they can see  
shapes.  That's how they avoid running into big rocks.



I agree with your point. I doubt it will convince Craig, but that  
seems a difficult task.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 17:17, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at  
all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from  
sensory experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?


Sure. Can you prove it?

Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?


Computers prove theorems in geometry.

But they don't need geometry to do it.

As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and  
beer steins as points, lines, and intersections.


It could be, but it isn't. That's my point.


Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the  
axioms and theorems of geometry.


Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all  
- which is obviously the case within a computer which is designed  
to have no capacity to render shapes that it can see.


Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to  
manipulate objects in 3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as  
examples of intelligent, and possibly conscious, machines.  They  
certainly understand somethings about geometry and they can see  
shapes.  That's how they avoid running into big rocks.



You could run the same software the Rover uses in a virtual  
environment which has no 3-space. If you plugged the Rover's inputs  
into a random number generator instead of a camera, it would still  
try to avoid certain kinds of expected patterns in the data, even  
though there is absolutely no connection to shapes, rocks,


That would be a Rover's dream




geometry, or understanding.


That's beg the question.

Bruno




Craig

Brent


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 20:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:41:52 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you  
know about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about  
what you can know...either. :-)


Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no  
testable consequences.


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an  
omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.


You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think.

I don't know that all machines cannot think,


Thanks God.



but I understand why the reasons for assuming that they ever could  
are rooted in bad assumptions from the start.



Which bad assumption? You never give them without begging the  
question.


The assumption is that sense can be reduced to or produced by  
arithmetic.


You have not yet studied comp. That assumption is not in comp. On the  
contrary it is shown explicitly that machine's sense is not reducible  
in any way to anything finitely presentable.
I can excuse you because comp + materialism leads to that error, and  
many account of comp do that error, but both UDA and AUDA single that  
error. On the contrary, computer science and mathematical logic  
prevents computationalism, well understood, to fall in the  
reductionist trap. But you are the one continuing to defend a  
reductionist conception of numbers and machines.






We can see this in the language example that I mentioned:

If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them  
optically, but these categories don't lead to discovery of any  
phonetic information. Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to  
any semantic information.


Each level of meaning of the text is defined by the capacities of  
the interpreter - not to compute arithmetic relations, but to have  
experienced meaningful expression through different sense modalities  
(visual, audio, grammatical, semantic, poetic...etc) .


The fact that we can formalize these relations mathematically only  
accounts for the idea that any public presentation can be digitized  
and represented presented,


Up to here, comp entails what you say.




not that there could be any such thing as presentation or private  
experience.


That's ambiguous, and comp contradicts it, if you say that comp  
pretend there is a 3p presentation of private experience.






There are countless examples of this which I have brought up,  
showing clearly that while logic or arithmetic is an obvious  
extraction of sensory-motor experience (as we ourselves learn math  
through gestures, moving fingers, beads, or other objects), sensory  
experience is not a plausible outcome of any arithmetic process.


You are right on this. But a process is a 3p thing, akin to Bp.  
Experience is given by Bp  p, which can already not been formalized  
in any 3p term. We can bet on such relation, and that is what we do  
when saying yes to a doctor, but this make a detour to some notion of  
arithmetical truth, which is beyond all processes.





We have seen no arithmetic process which is not part of a human  
experience or public physics, yet life on Earth does not require us  
to perform mathematics at all.


That mixes many levels.





Some of the examples I have mentioned:

John Wayne's Resurrection: Using a computer to reconstruct John  
Wayne's images and voice, high quality interactive movies are  
produced in real time, with an AI interpreter. While it should be  
easy to understand that this bit of interactive theater does not  
constitute a conversation with the Duke himself, it is argued here  
that I can't know that this absurdity isn't true.


Elvis the Anti-Zombie: Having a computer articulate my limbs and  
vocal chords to imitate Elvis Presley perfectly, by Comp, there is  
no reason to believe that I would begin to experience more and more  
Elvis qualia. That if I acted enough like The King, then I must have  
memories of his life, know the people he knew, etc. Again, the  
absurdity is plain, but here, it is sufficient to dismiss it with  
You Don't Know That.


Geometry is A Zombie: It's pretty simple really. An abacus can be  
used to compute geometric functions - we could find the length of a  
hypotenuse if we knew the other sides, for example. Moving these  
beads around and counting them does not require any kind of  
triangular presentation. If the universe were truly arithmetic - if  
it was all one giant quantum abacus...where would we get geometry  
from, even in principle. Forget the fact that it is 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
 wrote:


 It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not  
not Y then X is gibberish,


 X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other  
out so you get  alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a  
poison which is gibberish just like I said.


Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity  
that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that  
there are distinctions in the real world that are not subject  
to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.




 If there were no free will then nobody could choose to  
assert anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other  
than gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.


And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from  
the email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful,  
aka gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a  
conscious act.


I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a  
process that is either random or deterministic.


It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.


Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by  
completely random.


Algorithmic incompressability (Chaitin, Martin Loef, Solovay ...)  
make good attempts. This makes sense with Church's thesis. I guess  
you know that. Sequences algorithmically incompressible contains  
maximal information, but no way at all to decode it.


But those always implicitly assume infinite sequences.


Not at all. The interest of algorithmic information theory is that it  
defines a notion of finite random sequence (any sequence whose length  
is as long as the shortest program to generate it). The notion is not  
constructive and is defined only up to a constant, but it has its  
purpose). Infinite random sequence are defined by having all their  
finite initial segment non compressible.









I do have have a notion of completely random though, I define it  
by  completely arbitrary.
My favorite completely arbitrary sequence is 000...  
(only zeroes).
But to make this arbitrariness precise you need actual  
infinities, and thus Set Theory, even enriched one by some strong  
axioms.


There are also definitions by a collection of statistical test of  
normality. In that case PI is comepletely random, apparently. I  
think it is still an open problem to prove that, but it has been  
proved for Champerknow number Cn, if I remember well. Cn =  0,  
1234567891011121314151617 It is normal (pun intended) as it  
contains all arbitrary sequences of digits.


I thought Karl Popper invented that, except in binary,  
0100100111000100010110001...


?

Bruno




Brent





Things are only random in the sense of not being strictly  
deterministic.


In most of the cases. It is easy to build a sequence of 0 and 1  
which is partially deterministic, and partially non deterministic  
(in different senses).


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6138 - Release Date:  
02/28/13


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 21:02, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but  
we never need 10^120 + 1.


But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.


I'll bet you've never needed to calculate 10^120 + 1 in the world  
whose TOE is derived from comp either. :-)


False. because now I need to calculate it to make my point:

10^120 + 1 =
100
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
01

I told you, an infinitesimal!

Nothing compare to the finite, but really huge, number that I  
described some years ago, to illustrate some use of diagonalization,   
on this list (omega + [omega] + omega, if you remember).








The number of chess games is about 10^120. The number of GO games  
is far bigger.

And string theory points on 10^500 theories.


Exactly why almost all chess, go games, and string theories are  
uninteresting.


The number of possible brain connection, and thus possible subjective  
state is about equal to 60,000 ^ 10.

Does that makes all brains non interesting?

Look, if you argue seriously that comp is not interesting because it  
uses that for all x we have x ≠ x + 1, I think most people will  
conclude that comp is winning.







And my friends the Roses have never seen a gardener dying. Some  
rare Roses have heard rumors that can happen, but all rational  
Roses knows that belong to fiction.


Frankly, for a logician, 10^100 looks really like an infinitesimal :)


And to mathematicians too, almost all numbers are infinitesimal.


Hmm... It depends of the context. The cardinal of the monstrous finite  
simple group is usually considered as a big number, as nobody expected  
such a big number to occur there.




Except instead of seeing this as a bizarre problem indicating  
something is awry about their theories, they happily invent  
transfinite numbers.



You might read paper by P. Dehornoy, who solved a problem in braid  
theory, with application is physics, by using large cardinal in set  
theory. Then later it is has been possible to prove Dehornoy's result  
without using those cardinals, but the result has still be found  
through them.


Comp is ontologically finitist, though, but not ultrafinitist, indeed.

Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-02 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:02:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/1/2013 4:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in 
 what order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


 Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
  

 It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same 
 understanding, but you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated 
 mechanical assertions aren't anything other than that. You say that they 
 aren't evidence...but how do you know? 


 For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in 
 reply to Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you 
 turn around and assert,they are always going to be empty mindless 
 mechanisms.  
  

 It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they 
 are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be 
 the case for all possible machines executed in all possible ways... a 
 fusion of biological and inorganic material could strike a thinking balance 


 You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them 
 forms your brain.
  

 I don't overlook that at all. If there were no important difference among 
 atoms though, we would be able to eat sand and photosynthesize. 


 Do you just write the first thing that comes into your head?  Did you not 
 stop to reflect that the difference between organic and inorganic applies 
 to *molecules*, not atoms?


Is it not the kinds of atoms which are included in a molecule that we 
classify as organic and inorganic? Is this the best that you can do? 
Ad-hominem nitpicking?
 



  I don't assume that atoms built the brain, 


 I know.  You assume things like mechanism is perpendicular sensitivity but 
 yes-and-no don't make yellow (although in quodlibet logic it does).



You accuse me of contradiction and confusion, but I have none. My ideas are 
all 100% consistent as far as I can tell. Your misunderstanding and 
impatience only validates that for me.
 


  I think that human experience built human brains out of living cells, 
 using specific substances. 


 So experience preceded brains.  And what was it experience OF?


Feelings. Sensations. Images. Participation in movement.
 


  It's a collaboration from top down eternal influences and bottom up 
 trial and error.
  

   
  
  
  - the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism 
 (which is functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to 
 those forms and functions. 


 The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity 
 perpendicular axes is just something you made up.
  

 Every scientific discovery is made up by someone. Is that your only 
 contribution to the topic - ad hominem sour grapes? 
  

 What's ad hominem about calling word salad what it is.


What it is *to you* is not *what it is*. You should read semiotics. 

Word Salad has a very clear signature. For example: *“It was shockingly not 
of the best quality I have known all such evildoers coming out of doors 
with the best of intentions!” 

*If you read others who explore the kinds of issues that I do, like Deleuze 
or Foucault, you will find that my writing style is not very dissimilar, 
and certainly not similar to word salad. You are never going to prove 
anything to be by trying to criticize my writing style. It really has no 
impact on me at all - and it is in fact exactly what my model expects. I 
have plenty of people who are appreciative of my writing, and it's really 
only certain kinds of thinkers who have this intolerant reaction to it. I 
guess enjoy your intolerance!

Craig *
* 


  
   

  This is what I keep trying to say - things which have a lot of 
 consciousness are the least possible things to control externally. By 
 definition, the more robotic something is, the less alive it is, and that 
 is not trivial or coincidental. If you understand why that symmetry is 
 meaningful, 


 That's not a symmetry - you shouldn't use big words if you don't know 
 what they mean.
  

 If you don't understand that it is symmetry, then you don't understand 
 what I am talking about, which you just made clear above.
  

 That's the first thing you've written that I can fully agree with.

 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-02 Thread meekerdb

On 3/2/2013 1:18 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2013, at 20:37, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y then
X is gibberish,


 X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison


Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you get  
alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish just like I 
said.


Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the 
difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real 
world that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.



 If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything,
abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.


And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email 
johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as 
it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act.


I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either 
random or deterministic.


It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.


Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by completely random.


Algorithmic incompressability (Chaitin, Martin Loef, Solovay ...) make good attempts. 
This makes sense with Church's thesis. I guess you know that. Sequences 
algorithmically incompressible contains maximal information, but no way at all to 
decode it.


But those always implicitly assume infinite sequences.


Not at all. The interest of algorithmic information theory is that it defines a notion 
of finite random sequence (any sequence whose length is as long as the shortest program 
to generate it). The notion is not constructive and is defined only up to a constant, 
but it has its purpose). Infinite random sequence are defined by having all their finite 
initial segment non compressible.


But isn't any finite sequence tivial compressible - just not all by the same compression 
algorithm?  When you say a random sequence is defined by having all its finite initial 
segments non-compressible, don't you mean not compressible by the same algorithm.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-02 Thread meekerdb

On 3/2/2013 1:37 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2013, at 21:02, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we never need 
10^120 + 1.


But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.


I'll bet you've never needed to calculate 10^120 + 1 in the world whose TOE is derived 
from comp either. :-)


False. because now I need to calculate it to make my point:

10^120 + 1 =
100
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
00
01

I told you, an infinitesimal!

Nothing compare to the finite, but really huge, number that I described some years ago, 
to illustrate some use of diagonalization,  on this list (omega + [omega] + omega, if 
you remember).


I'll be you haven't added 1 to it. :-)









The number of chess games is about 10^120. The number of GO games is far bigger.
And string theory points on 10^500 theories.


Exactly why almost all chess, go games, and string theories are uninteresting.


The number of possible brain connection, and thus possible subjective state is about 
equal to 60,000 ^ 10.

Does that makes all brains non interesting?


No, it makes almost all (in the technical sense) brain states uninteresting - they 
correspond to insanities.




Look, if you argue seriously that comp is not interesting because it uses that for all x 
we have x ≠ x + 1, I think most people will conclude that comp is winning.


No, many interesting theories assume that - but I wonder how essential it is.  It 
certainly produces antinonmies like Hilbert's hotel and Godel's incompleteness.









And my friends the Roses have never seen a gardener dying. Some rare Roses have heard 
rumors that can happen, but all rational Roses knows that belong to fiction.


Frankly, for a logician, 10^100 looks really like an infinitesimal :)


And to mathematicians too, almost all numbers are infinitesimal.


Hmm... It depends of the context. The cardinal of the monstrous finite simple group is 
usually considered as a big number, as nobody expected such a big number to occur there.


And 10^-122 was a surprisingly big number to physicists measuring the vacuum energy 
density - because they expected it to be zero.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


 You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
 about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
 know...either. :-)

 Brent
 blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no 
 testable consequences. 
  

 Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
 omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.
  

 But I can make an empirically informed one.
  

 That means that you claim to have empirical information about 
 consciousness beyond another person's information about their own 
 consciousness. 


 (a) I said I have empirical information. I didn't say it is beyond 
 somebody elses.

  How can you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone 
 else can't?
  

 (b) It was you who claimed to know what John couldn't know.


No, I said this:

 The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can 
 only tell what application might be associated with opening that file.


As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE 
HELL DO YOU KNOW?   

My statement is empirically correct. It does not look at any visual or 
audio qualities of a file to determine what kind of a file it is. Anyone 
who has worked with computers for long enough should be able to understand 
why this is indesputably true. Files have flags and pointers which identify 
their type, they are not looked at or listened to by the computer. Even 
speaking into a microphone yields nothing on the other side which is 
fundamentally different from what a camera would yield - voltage changes in 
microelectronics have no origination bias. This is the very thing that 
makes computers useful - they don't care what you do with them. They will 
treat data as data no matter what it is, and never need to reconstruct it 
into anything meaningful to us. These are some of the defining qualities of 
computation. The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not 
at all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory 
experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?

Craig



 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Feb 2013, at 14:58, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 2/28/2013 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed  
it is too much to expect from such a weak source.  I look for such  
justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted  
to mere motivation.




Hi Bruno and Brent,

Where did I say motivation? I use the term intuition, and I  
demote nothing, as it correspond to to the first person (the hero  
of comp, the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp  p; S4Grz1, etc.).


   ISTM that 'motivation' is a 3p view of 'intuition'!


I don't see this at all. Motivation is somehow even more a  
psychological notion than 'intuition', which admit logical  
specification.






But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal.


   Justification requires a model and/or implementation,no?


Not necessarily, in case of formal justification, or in first order  
logic: we need only formulas and sequences of formulas, at the meta- 
level.











[BM] I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am  
pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense  
with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might  
save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in  
basically all scientific paper though. You need it, or equivalent,  
to define machine, formal systems, programs, Church's  
thesis, string theory, eigenvector, trigonometry, etc.




   I need to be sure that I understand this: Numbers are prior to  
computations. Is that correct?


Once you agree on the axioms and rules of elementary arithmetic,  
numbers and computations coexist, like even numbers and prime numbers.  
You can' have one without the other.





If so, then ultrafinitism fails, but if computations are prior to  
numbers, ultrafinitism (of some kind) seems inevitable. I have  
always balked at step 8 in that is seems a bridge too far... Why  
does the doubt have to be taken so far?


It is a conclusion. We will come back on step 8 on the FOAR list,  
soon. In your neutral monism, primary matter (and thus time and space)  
also does not exist. I don't see why you have a problem with this non- 
existence at the ontological level, given that those have to be  
explained at some other level.









My intuition doesn't reach to infinity.  It seems like an  
hypothesis of convenience.


I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in  
infinity, unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need  
just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails  
s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based  
on this.


Bruno



   I still don't understand how we cannot assume some implicit set  
with even arithmetic realism. How are integers not a set?



You can assume the numbers, without assuming sets. That means that set  
will not be first order citizen in the reality that you assume, a  
bit like classes in ZF set theory.
Set appears at the metalevel, when you assume only numbers. They can  
appear also as mental objects in the mind of the relative numbers,  
but they are not existing objects, you can't prove ExP(x) with x  
denoting them, unless you represent a set by a numbers, which can be  
done for the RE sets, but not for any set. But yes, some set will  
exist, even explicitly, through some possible representations. But  
those sets are not assume, then, they are proven to exist.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Feb 2013, at 19:03, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show  
that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically  
anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them.


I'm not sure how you mean that?


I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic  
in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the  
numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to  
be turing universal.
So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your  
axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate  
them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the  
equational theory:


Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

+ few equality rules,

But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much  
the number than elementary arithmetic.





We know that we experience individual objects and so we can  
count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers  
or  notches or marks.  So what are  
you calling an assumption in this?


A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The  
experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it  
logically.


But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me.  We  
just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms,  
which we also make up, preserve 'true'.



We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here  
the question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano  
Arithmetic (for example). And with comp we don't need more. Then  
we prove theorems, which can be quite non trivial.




To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more  
than we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know.


Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do  
have intuition. Well, in physics too.





  Sure it's important that our model of the world not have  
inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex  
contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't  
justify anything.


Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself  
hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I  
think you ask too much for a justification.


You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed  
it is too much to expect from such a weak source.  I look for such  
justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted  
to mere motivation.


Where did I say motivation?


The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it  
logically.


Indeed. It is the inductive inference part of the learning process. It  
is very important. All theories, including brains comes from this.








I use the term intuition, and I demote nothing, as it correspond  
to to the first person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third  
hypostase, Bp  p; S4Grz1, etc.).

But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal.


Logical proof is relative to axioms.  So the justification can be no  
stronger than the axioms.


Sure.












I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty  
sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense  
with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might  
save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in  
basically all scientific paper though.


It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way.  I  
recognize it difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it  
may be only a convenience.


OK. I don't see the problem with this. Convenience is a fuzzy notion.  
A brain too is convenient. Universes can be convenient. I am not sure  
to see your point.






You need it, or equivalent, to define machine, formal systems,  
programs, Church's thesis, string theory, eigenvector,  
trigonometry, etc.





My intuition doesn't reach to infinity.  It seems like an  
hypothesis of convenience.


I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in  
infinity, unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need  
just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails  
s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based  
on this.


I think you need to accept that every number has a successor in  
order to prove things like Godel's theorems.


That follows from the axiom above. It is easy to prove this, and  
Gödel's incompleteness,  *in* the theory, if the theory has the  
induction axioms. If the theory has no induction axioms, you can 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Feb 2013, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:03:40 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show  
that if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically  
anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them.


I'm not sure how you mean that?


I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic  
in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the  
numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to  
be turing universal.
So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your  
axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate  
them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the  
equational theory:


Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

+ few equality rules,

But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much  
the number than elementary arithmetic.





We know that we experience individual objects and so we can  
count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers  
or notches or marks.  So what are you calling an assumption  
in this?


A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The  
experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it  
logically.


But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me.  We  
just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms,  
which we also make up, preserve 'true'.



We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here  
the question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano  
Arithmetic (for example). And with comp we don't need more. Then  
we prove theorems, which can be quite non trivial.




To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more  
than we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know.


Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do  
have intuition. Well, in physics too.





  Sure it's important that our model of the world not have  
inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex  
contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't  
justify anything.


Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself  
hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I  
think you ask too much for a justification.


You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed  
it is too much to expect from such a weak source.  I look for such  
justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted  
to mere motivation.


Where did I say motivation?


The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it  
logically.



I use the term intuition, and I demote nothing, as it correspond  
to to the first person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third  
hypostase, Bp  p; S4Grz1, etc.).

But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal.


Logical proof is relative to axioms.  So the justification can be no  
stronger than the axioms.


And axioms are no stronger than the capacity to make sense of them.


That's correct, and that's why when we assume comp we need at the  
start a Turing universal theory, capable of representing the partial  
computable functions, incmuding universal functions. With comp the  
universal machine, which compute the universal function (alxays in the  
Church Turing sense) are capable of making sense of the axioms, and  
prove a lot of things about them. Such machines can prove their own  
limitation, and bet on what is beyond them.


Bruno















I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty  
sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense  
with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might  
save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in  
basically all scientific paper though.


It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way.  I  
recognize it difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it  
may be only a convenience.


You need it, or equivalent, to define machine, formal systems,  
programs, Church's thesis, string theory, eigenvector,  
trigonometry, etc.





My intuition doesn't reach to infinity.  It seems like an  
hypothesis of convenience.


I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in  
infinity, unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need  
just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails  
s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based  
on this.


I think you need to accept that every number has a 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
 wrote:


 It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not  
Y then X is gibberish,


 X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out  
so you get  alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison  
which is gibberish just like I said.


Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity  
that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there  
are distinctions in the real world that are not subject to the  
naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.




 If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert  
anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.


And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the  
email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka  
gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a  
conscious act.


I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process  
that is either random or deterministic.


It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.

Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know  
about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you  
can know...either. :-)


Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no  
testable consequences.


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an  
omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.


You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think.

Bruno





Craig

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y 
then X is
gibberish,


 X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison


Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you get  alcohol 
is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish just like I said.


Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the 
difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real world 
that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.



 If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, 
abandon
anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.


And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email 
johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's 
referents where not chosen by a conscious act.


I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either random 
or deterministic.


It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.


Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by completely random. Things are 
only random in the sense of not being strictly deterministic.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 = 
x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with such 
hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save physicalism, but step 8 
put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in basically all 
scientific paper though.


It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way.  I recognize it 
difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it may be only a convenience.


OK. I don't see the problem with this. Convenience is a fuzzy notion. A brain too is 
convenient. Universes can be convenient. I am not sure to see your point.




In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we never need 10^120 + 
1.  We make an axiom of succession and assume it applies to 10^120 like other numbers, but 
maybe that is because it easier than thinking of axioms to describe how we really 
calculate: 10^88 + 1 = 10^88. There's a book Ad Infinitum by Rotman that proposes 
something along these lines, but he writes like a French philosopher so I found it hard to 
tell whether his idea really works.  But we do know that real computers work, and their 
mathematics are finite.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 3:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you 
know about
what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can
know...either. :-)

Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no 
testable
consequences.


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
omniscient
claim against someone else's non-omniscience.


But I can make an empirically informed one.


That means that you claim to have empirical information about consciousness 
beyond
another person's information about their own consciousness.


(a) I said I have empirical information. I didn't say it is beyond somebody 
elses.


How can you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone else 
can't?


(b) It was you who claimed to know what John couldn't know.


No, I said this:

 The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can 
only tell
what application might be associated with opening that file.


As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE HELL 
DO YOU KNOW?

My statement is empirically correct. It does not look at any visual or audio qualities 
of a file to determine what kind of a file it is. Anyone who has worked with computers 
for long enough should be able to understand why this is indesputably true. Files have 
flags and pointers which identify their type, they are not looked at or listened to by 
the computer. 


That's why I always point out that intelligence is relative to an environment.  When you 
talk about seeing or listening that implies an environment of photons or acoustic 
waves carrying information about the environment.  When you then switch to a computer that 
has no photon or acoustic wave sensors and say it can't see or hear you have created a 
strawman.


Even speaking into a microphone yields nothing on the other side which is fundamentally 
different from what a camera would yield - voltage changes in microelectronics have no 
origination bias. This is the very thing that makes computers useful - they don't care 
what you do with them. They will treat data as data no matter what it is, and never need 
to reconstruct it into anything meaningful to us. These are some of the defining 
qualities of computation. The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not 
at all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory experiences 
of shapes. Can you dispute this?


Sure. Can you prove it?

Computers prove theorems in geometry.  As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about 
tables, chairs, and beer steins as points, lines, and intersections.


Brent


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


 You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
 about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
 know...either. :-)

 Brent
 blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable 
 consequences. 


 Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
 omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.


 You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think. 


I don't know that all machines cannot think, but I understand why the 
reasons for assuming that they ever could are rooted in bad assumptions 
from the start. If we don't what consciousness actually is and what it 
does, then we skip the important part and reverse engineer a false 
confidence in unconscious programs.

Craig

 


 Bruno




 Craig 

 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
 email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
  
  


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:39:05 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/1/2013 3:09 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:46:55 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


 You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
 about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
 know...either. :-)

 Brent
 blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no 
 testable consequences. 
  

 Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
 omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.
  

 But I can make an empirically informed one.
  

 That means that you claim to have empirical information about 
 consciousness beyond another person's information about their own 
 consciousness. 


 (a) I said I have empirical information. I didn't say it is beyond 
 somebody elses.

  How can you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone 
 else can't?
  

 (b) It was you who claimed to know what John couldn't know.
  

 No, I said this:

   The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can 
 only tell what application might be associated with opening that file.

  
 As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE 
 HELL DO YOU KNOW?   
  
 My statement is empirically correct. It does not look at any visual or 
 audio qualities of a file to determine what kind of a file it is. Anyone 
 who has worked with computers for long enough should be able to 
 understand why this is indesputably true. Files have flags and pointers 
 which identify their type, they are not looked at or listened to by the 
 computer. 


 That's why I always point out that intelligence is relative to an 
 environment.  When you talk about seeing or listening that implies an 
 environment of photons or acoustic waves carrying information about the 
 environment.  When you then switch to a computer that has no photon or 
 acoustic wave sensors and say it can't see or hear you have created a 
 strawman.

 Even speaking into a microphone yields nothing on the other side which is 
 fundamentally different from what a camera would yield - voltage changes in 
 microelectronics have no origination bias. This is the very thing that 
 makes computers useful - they don't care what you do with them. They will 
 treat data as data no matter what it is, and never need to reconstruct it 
 into anything meaningful to us. These are some of the defining qualities of 
 computation. The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not 
 at all indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory 
 experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?


 Sure. Can you prove it?  


Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?
 


 Computers prove theorems in geometry.  


But they don't need geometry to do it.
 

 As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and beer 
 steins as points, lines, and intersections.


It could be, but it isn't. That's my point. Geometry could be about Boolean 
arithmetic and have no forms at all - which is obviously the case within a 
computer which is designed to have no capacity to render shapes that it can 
see.

Craig
 


 Brent


  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all 
indicated
from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory experiences of 
shapes.
Can you dispute this?


Sure. Can you prove it?


Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?


Computers prove theorems in geometry.


But they don't need geometry to do it.

As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and beer 
steins as
points, lines, and intersections.


It could be, but it isn't. That's my point.


Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the axioms and theorems of 
geometry.


Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all - which is obviously 
the case within a computer which is designed to have no capacity to render shapes that 
it can see.


Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to manipulate objects in 
3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as examples of intelligent, and possibly 
conscious, machines.  They certainly understand somethings about geometry and they can see 
shapes.  That's how they avoid running into big rocks.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
  The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all 
 indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory 
 experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?


 Sure. Can you prove it?  
  

 Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?
  
  
  
 Computers prove theorems in geometry.  


 But they don't need geometry to do it.
  
  
 As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and beer 
 steins as points, lines, and intersections.
  

 It could be, but it isn't. That's my point. 


 Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the axioms and 
 theorems of geometry. 

  Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all - 
 which is obviously the case within a computer which is designed to have no 
 capacity to render shapes that it can see.
  

 Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to manipulate 
 objects in 3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as examples of 
 intelligent, and possibly conscious, machines.  They certainly understand 
 somethings about geometry and they can see shapes.  That's how they avoid 
 running into big rocks.


You could run the same software the Rover uses in a virtual environment 
which has no 3-space. If you plugged the Rover's inputs into a random 
number generator instead of a camera, it would still try to avoid certain 
kinds of expected patterns in the data, even though there is absolutely no 
connection to shapes, rocks, geometry, or understanding.

Craig
 

 Brent

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
 wrote:


 It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not  
not Y then X is gibberish,


 X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison

Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out  
so you get  alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison  
which is gibberish just like I said.


Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity  
that makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that  
there are distinctions in the real world that are not subject to  
the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.




 If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert  
anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than  
gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.


And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from  
the email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful,  
aka gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a  
conscious act.


I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process  
that is either random or deterministic.


It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.


Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by completely  
random.


Algorithmic incompressability (Chaitin, Martin Loef, Solovay ...) make  
good attempts. This makes sense with Church's thesis. I guess you know  
that. Sequences algorithmically incompressible contains maximal  
information, but no way at all to decode it.


I do have have a notion of completely random though, I define it by   
completely arbitrary.
My favorite completely arbitrary sequence is 000...  
(only zeroes).
But to make this arbitrariness precise you need actual infinities,  
and thus Set Theory, even enriched one by some strong axioms.


There are also definitions by a collection of statistical test of  
normality. In that case PI is comepletely random, apparently. I think  
it is still an open problem to prove that, but it has been proved for  
Champerknow number Cn, if I remember well. Cn =  0,  
1234567891011121314151617 It is normal (pun intended) as it  
contains all arbitrary sequences of digits.




Things are only random in the sense of not being strictly  
deterministic.


In most of the cases. It is easy to build a sequence of 0 and 1 which  
is partially deterministic, and partially non deterministic (in  
different senses).


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:37, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:05 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am  
pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense  
with such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism  
might save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in  
basically all scientific paper though.


It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way.  I  
recognize it difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it  
may be only a convenience.


OK. I don't see the problem with this. Convenience is a fuzzy  
notion. A brain too is convenient. Universes can be convenient. I  
am not sure to see your point.




In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but  
we never need 10^120 + 1.


But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.

The number of chess games is about 10^120. The number of GO games is  
far bigger.

And string theory points on 10^500 theories.

And my friends the Roses have never seen a gardener dying. Some rare  
Roses have heard rumors that can happen, but all rational Roses knows  
that belong to fiction.


Frankly, for a logician, 10^100 looks really like an infinitesimal :)



We make an axiom of succession and assume it applies to 10^120 like  
other numbers,


But then working on the prime number distribution, some bound on some  
function get *far* higher than that.




but maybe that is because it easier than thinking of axioms to  
describe how we really calculate: 10^88 + 1 = 10^88.


Like it is easier to make the earth turning around the sun than the  
contrary. If you are for complex theories a priori, ...



There's a book Ad Infinitum by Rotman that proposes something  
along these lines, but he writes like a French philosopher so I  
found it hard to tell whether his idea really works.  But we do know  
that real computers work, and their mathematics are finite.


That's correct on one level, and incorrect on another level. The  
metamathematics of the finite mathematics is not finite. Some proof of  
the correctness of some algorithm in numerical analysis can requires  
big cardinals. Real computers might do finite things, but they do very  
complex things which might involve very large numbers, or high  
cardinal or ordinal, for human figuring out why they acts like they  
can act.


With comp you can put infinities only in the mind, as I do, but we  
have still to study that mind, and needs infinite mathematics for that.
With comp the ontology is finitist, but that ontology is seen by  
inside, by finite creatures,which have to imagine very large  
unboundable structure, needing stronger mathematics, just to get  
notions of meaning, etc.


Also, some could argue that only the mathematical universal machine is  
finite, and that a real computer (if that notion makes sense) is an  
infinite analogical quantum field living in an infinite dimensional  
Hilbert spaces.


I put my card on the table, and reason. I don't defend a truth about  
some reality. To use the notion of universal machine to formulate the  
mind-body problem in the frame of some hypothesis is a different task  
than to program a computer to perform some useful task in real time.


Bruno








Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either.


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you  
know about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about  
what you can know...either. :-)


Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no  
testable consequences.


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an  
omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.


You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think.

I don't know that all machines cannot think,


Thanks God.



but I understand why the reasons for assuming that they ever could  
are rooted in bad assumptions from the start.



Which bad assumption? You never give them without begging the question.



If we don't what consciousness actually is and what it does, then we  
skip the important part and reverse engineer a false confidence in  
unconscious programs.



And Bruno said, from Memory, in Sylvie and Bruno (Lewis Carroll): I  
am so happy that I hate spinach, because, you know, if ever I could  
appreciate spinach, I guess I would eat some of them, and that is  
exactly what I would like never to think possible.


You beg the question again.

Betting that machine could be conscious does not entail that we know  
what consciousness is or rely on. You have a reductionist view of  
science, leading you to close prematurely an inquiry.


All rational computationalist are open to the falsity of comp, and  
what I show is that [comp + precise theory of knowledge] becomes  
refutable, so that we can progress.


But up to now, comp explains a lot of things, even if incorrect,  
notably the apparent many worlds, the quantum like logic of  
observation, the existence of non communicable truth and sensations,  
and eventually some non trivial Plotinian theology.


In a sense comp explains why first person are not machine, and only  
borrow them to say hello to others machines. Why would not some  
immaterial programs be able to support human first person?


I am not saying that this is true, only that it makes possible to  
formulate the mind problem, indeed to translate it into a problem in  
number theory.


Bruno




Craig



Bruno





Craig

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 8:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:58:34 AM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 7:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



The point of this thread was to show that even geometry is not at all
indicated from math or computation, and derives solely from sensory
experiences of shapes. Can you dispute this?


Sure. Can you prove it?


Prove what, that geometry is related to shapes?


Computers prove theorems in geometry.


But they don't need geometry to do it.

As Hilbert said geometry could as well be about tables, chairs, and 
beer steins
as points, lines, and intersections.


It could be, but it isn't. That's my point.


Then you don't have a point.  Geometry is nothing more than the axioms and 
theorems
of geometry.


Geometry could be about Boolean arithmetic and have no forms at all - which 
is
obviously the case within a computer which is designed to have no capacity 
to
render shapes that it can see.


Most computers aren't provided with vision or the ability to manipulate 
objects in
3-space.  Which is why I use Mars rovers as examples of intelligent, and 
possibly
conscious, machines. They certainly understand somethings about geometry 
and they
can see shapes.  That's how they avoid running into big rocks.


You could run the same software the Rover uses in a virtual environment which has no 
3-space. If you plugged the Rover's inputs into a random number generator instead of a 
camera, it would still try to avoid certain kinds of expected patterns in the data, even 
though there is absolutely no connection to shapes, rocks, geometry, or understanding.


All that shows is that the camera is part of the rover's understanding.  If we fed false 
signals into your optic nerve you'd run into things too.


There's absolutely no connection between your assertions and any facts.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 12:41:52 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Friday, March 1, 2013 10:23:24 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 01 Mar 2013, at 01:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


 You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
 about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
 know...either. :-)

 Brent
 blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no 
 testable consequences. 


 Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
 omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.


 You are the one claiming knowing that all machines cannot think. 


 I don't know that all machines cannot think,


 Thanks God.



 but I understand why the reasons for assuming that they ever could are 
 rooted in bad assumptions from the start. 



 Which bad assumption? You never give them without begging the question.


The assumption is that sense can be reduced to or produced by arithmetic.

We can see this in the language example that I mentioned:

If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them 
optically, but these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic 
information. Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to any semantic 
information.

Each level of meaning of the text is defined by the capacities of the 
interpreter - not to compute arithmetic relations, but to have experienced 
meaningful expression through different sense modalities (visual, audio, 
grammatical, semantic, poetic...etc) .

The fact that we can formalize these relations mathematically only accounts 
for the idea that any public presentation can be digitized and represented 
presented, not that there could be any such thing as presentation or 
private experience.

There are countless examples of this which I have brought up, showing 
clearly that while logic or arithmetic is an obvious extraction of 
sensory-motor experience (as we ourselves learn math through gestures, 
moving fingers, beads, or other objects), sensory experience is not a 
plausible outcome of any arithmetic process. We have seen no arithmetic 
process which is not part of a human experience or public physics, yet life 
on Earth does not require us to perform mathematics at all.

Some of the examples I have mentioned:

John Wayne's Resurrection: Using a computer to reconstruct John Wayne's 
images and voice, high quality interactive movies are produced in real 
time, with an AI interpreter. While it should be easy to understand that 
this bit of interactive theater does not constitute a conversation with the 
Duke himself, it is argued here that I can't know that this absurdity isn't 
true.

Elvis the Anti-Zombie: Having a computer articulate my limbs and vocal 
chords to imitate Elvis Presley perfectly, by Comp, there is no reason to 
believe that I would begin to experience more and more Elvis qualia. That 
if I acted enough like The King, then I must have memories of his life, 
know the people he knew, etc. Again, the absurdity is plain, but here, it 
is sufficient to dismiss it with You Don't Know That.

Geometry is A Zombie: It's pretty simple really. An abacus can be used to 
compute geometric functions - we could find the length of a hypotenuse if 
we knew the other sides, for example. Moving these beads around and 
counting them does not require any kind of triangular presentation. If the 
universe were truly arithmetic - if it was all one giant quantum 
abacus...where would we get geometry from, even in principle. Forget the 
fact that it is obviously impossible for beads on bamboo sticks to 'imply' 
triangles without an abacus user imagining that - the deeper problem is 
that sense is completely redundant to computation. There is no good reason, 
no bad reason, no maybe reason, no reason at all for computation to assume 
any form other than the one it is already in, which is *no form*.

Then there's the pathetic fallacy. We know that language has these poetic, 
metaphorical layers of meaning. We know that we use language to 
anthropomorphize inanimate objects. We can call a ship 'she' or give a 
computer a name like Watson. Not only is it absurd to take these uses of 
languages literally, we should actively beware of the influence of this 
kind of cognitive bias. It's complicated because we can be too generous 
with some things and too prejudiced against some people, but at the same 
time, we can still be right about correctly recognizing the impersonal 
nature of objects and machines. We don't get in the line of fire of a 
machine gun and try to scare it or bluff it.

If you conflate arithmetic and sense from the beginning, then you have no 
chance of finding the hard problem or explanatory gap, because realism 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 8:55 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Mar 2013, at 16:28, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/1/2013 7:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 20:29, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y 
then X
is gibberish,


 X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison


Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you get  
alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish just like I said.


Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the 
difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real 
world that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.



 If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything,
abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.


And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email 
johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's 
referents where not chosen by a conscious act.


I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either 
random or deterministic.


It could also be partially random and partially deterministic.


Sure.  It's hard to even define what might be meant by completely random.


Algorithmic incompressability (Chaitin, Martin Loef, Solovay ...) make good attempts. 
This makes sense with Church's thesis. I guess you know that. Sequences algorithmically 
incompressible contains maximal information, but no way at all to decode it.


But those always implicitly assume infinite sequences.



I do have have a notion of completely random though, I define it by  completely 
arbitrary.

My favorite completely arbitrary sequence is 000... (only 
zeroes).
But to make this arbitrariness precise you need actual infinities, and thus Set 
Theory, even enriched one by some strong axioms.


There are also definitions by a collection of statistical test of normality. In that 
case PI is comepletely random, apparently. I think it is still an open problem to prove 
that, but it has been proved for Champerknow number Cn, if I remember well. Cn =  0, 
1234567891011121314151617 It is normal (pun intended) as it contains all arbitrary 
sequences of digits.


I thought Karl Popper invented that, except in binary, 
0100100111000100010110001...

Brent






Things are only random in the sense of not being strictly deterministic.


In most of the cases. It is easy to build a sequence of 0 and 1 which is partially 
deterministic, and partially non deterministic (in different senses).


Bruno



http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6138 - Release Date: 02/28/13

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


In physics we sometimes get big numbers, like 10^88 or 10^120, but we never need 10^120 
+ 1.


But physics is no more assumed in the TOE derived from comp.


I'll bet you've never needed to calculate 10^120 + 1 in the world whose TOE is derived 
from comp either. :-)




The number of chess games is about 10^120. The number of GO games is far bigger.
And string theory points on 10^500 theories.


Exactly why almost all chess, go games, and string theories are uninteresting.



And my friends the Roses have never seen a gardener dying. Some rare Roses have heard 
rumors that can happen, but all rational Roses knows that belong to fiction.


Frankly, for a logician, 10^100 looks really like an infinitesimal :)


And to mathematicians too, almost all numbers are infinitesimal. Except instead of seeing 
this as a bizarre problem indicating something is awry about their theories, they happily 
invent transfinite numbers.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 11:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them optically, but 
these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic information. 


Sure they do.  Just try http://www.naturalreaders.com/howto.php?referp=mainbar


Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to any semantic information.


Have it read Fetch the paper. to you dog and see if there's semantic information.  Or if 
you have a modern house, have it read Lights ON.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:10:30 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 3/1/2013 11:03 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 
  If we have some written characters is it possible to categorize them 
 optically, but 
  these categories don't lead to discovery of any phonetic information. 

 Sure they do.  Just try 
 http://www.naturalreaders.com/howto.php?referp=mainbar 


No. That is an example of taking data associated with optical characters 
and data associated with sound card signals as two given data sets and 
deriving a relationship statistically. If you don't have one of those data 
sets however, for example, if I make up a written language of symbols and I 
decide whether or not those symbols have sounds associated with them, the 
computer has no idea what I have decided. It makes no difference whether 
it's my private ad hoc language or a language with millions of speakers.
 


  Likewise, phonetic information doesn't lead to any semantic 
 information.  


 Have it read Fetch the paper. to you dog and see if there's semantic 
 information.  Or if 
 you have a modern house, have it read Lights ON. 


That depends on whether the dog understands the commands or not, doesn't 
it? I remember back in the days when remote controls were actually 
'clickers'. The Zenith console color TV did indeed respond differently to 
the three different metallic clicks the remote made - and it also responded 
randomly to keys jangling, coins spilling out on a glass table, loud 
noises, etc. There is *nothing* semantic about conditioned response 
behaviorism. It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together 
or in what order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless 
mechanisms.

Craig
 


 Brent 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what order, they 
are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what 
 order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


 Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, 
but you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical 
assertions aren't anything other than that. You say that they aren't 
evidence...but how do you know? If a mechanical potato peeler can someday 
learn to taste potatoes, then maybe repeated assertions can become evidence?

Craig
 


 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what 
order,
they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, but you are 
applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical assertions aren't anything 
other than that. You say that they aren't evidence...but how do you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in reply to Bruno, 
I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you turn around and assert,they are 
always going to be empty mindless mechanisms.


If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, then maybe repeated 
assertions can become evidence?


If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more than tomatoes then 
that will be evidence. It's same kind of evidence that would tell you whether a human 
being preferred potatoes to tomatoes.


I suppose you heard about the guy who worked in at fast food place and developed an 
irrational urge to put his penis in the potato peeler.  He knew something bad would happen 
but he couldn't stop himself from thinking about it.  He finally went to a psychiatrist. 
The psychiatrist told him that if he couldn't stop thinking about it he might as well try 
it.  So he did.


When he got home from work, he told his wife what he'd done.

She said,Oh, my God! and rushed to pull down his pants.  She looked at him and said, 
What happened to the potato peeler?


He said, I think she got fired too.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

 All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation
 quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter.


And a computer can be and often is the interpreter.

 You are really saying that we could use a program that acts like a video
 screen instead of an actual video screen.


Exactly. If you don't want to look at a video screen to see a cat scan then
a X ray computerized tomography machine will be happy to print out the
spacial coordinates of the organs, although I don't know why you'd want
that.

There will never be an app on your iPhone to make it waterproof.


As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated flame
won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object. A real flame
won't burn the laws of chemistry but it will burn your finger. And some
things cross all levels, like information processing; there is no
difference between simulated arithmetic and real arithmetic or between
simulated intelligence and real intelligence.


   Consciousness is the capacity to discern between menu and meal


A computer with a optical character reader and a simple amino acid detector
could easily tell the difference between a menu and a meal.

 A electronic cochlear implant that enables deaf people to hear produces
 no sound, all it makes is lots of zeros and ones. The same thing is true of
 the experimental artificial eye.



 Sure, because there is ultimately a living person there to hear and see.
 Without the person, the implants won't do anything  worthwhile.


Before you were saying only a eye or ear made of meat would do and now
you've abandoned that position, how far back along the chain of perception
will you retreat before you admit you were wrong? My guess is you will
never change your position because a belief that was not formed by logic
can not be destroyed by it.

 it won't be able to open any file without software to identify which
 application to associate it with.


Yes, and you couldn't tell the difference between audio and video without a
neural network inside a bone box sitting on your shoulders.

How can you have spent any time programming a computer without noticing
 that everything must be explicitly defined and scripted or it will just
 halt/fail/error?


Nobody has found anything in the human brain that didn't strictly follow
the laws of physics either. And I have never been able to consistently
predict what a computer is going to do even if I'm the one who wrote the
program, and you're no better at making such predictions than I am, nor is
anybody else.

 it's not an audio or video file. Not literally or physically. A file is
 just a source of generic binary instructions.


And that's all a cochlear implant produces and yet the deaf report those
generic binary instructions give them the qualia of sound.

  computer + user = high quality user experience. Computer + computer = no
 high quality experience.


You have no pathway whatsoever to judge the quality of experience of even
your fellow human beings, the best you can do is observe there behavior and
then guess; and yet you continue to make these grand sweeping statements
about what a computer does and does not feel without a shred of evidence or
theoretical justification, and that's as tiresome as it is stupid.


  Plug a cochlear implant into a computer and the raw data remains raw all
 the way through. There is no conversion to any sense modality


HOW THE HELL DO YOU KNOW!

 I understand why computers have no experience.


Your understanding is based on amorphous mystical drivel.


  A computer is only going to say what it is programmed to say.


BULLSHIT! The human programer himself does not know what the computer is
going to say next.

 If it has no vocabulary which refers to human experiences of sound, it
 will have nothing to say about some new stream of generic data that related
 to aural sensation. It's not going to try to express anything about the
 experience of sound.


Of course the computer could comment on aural sensation but it wouldn't
matter if it did it 10 times a day and gave you brilliant insights into
Beethoven's music you never had before, you would not change your ideas one
iota, you'd just say that's just something or another and so it doesn't
count.

 It's a fact that thus far implants do not compare favorably to natural
 cochlea.


Is that what your ideas hinge on, the lack of audio fidelity using current
electronic technology? When future technology makes electronic ears that
provides better fidelity than ears made of meat will you then admit you
were wrong. Of course not!

 It's not important though - even if the implant sounded perfect,


I thought as much.

 you would rather believe that a roll of toilet paper with holes in it is
 as smart as anyone


Although for practical reasons I would recommend using electronics, a roll
of toilet paper can indeed be as smart or 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what 
 order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


 Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
  

 It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, 
 but you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical 
 assertions aren't anything other than that. You say that they aren't 
 evidence...but how do you know? 


 For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in 
 reply to Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you 
 turn around and assert,they are always going to be empty mindless 
 mechanisms.  


It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they are 
always going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be the 
case for all possible machines executed in all possible ways... a fusion of 
biological and inorganic material could strike a thinking balance - the 
point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism (which is 
functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to those 
forms and functions. This is what I keep trying to say - things which have 
a lot of consciousness are the least possible things to control externally. 
By definition, the more robotic something is, the less alive it is, and 
that is not trivial or coincidental. If you understand why that symmetry is 
meaningful, then you will have no problem being confident that although 
life uses mechanisms, it is not, in itself a mechanism at all. It's not 
just the boundary between living and non-living (which I would not rule out 
being more of an anthropic or biopic boundary), but all qualitative 
boundaries, between physics and chemistry, biology and zoology, 
anthropology and psychology, etc may not have purely quantitative bridges. 
The is no combination of yes and no which turns yellow.
 


  If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, then 
 maybe repeated assertions can become evidence?
  

 If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more than 
 tomatoes then that will be evidence. 


Choice is a matter of perspective. It only exists because we (or most of 
us) can see that we can't rule it out without choosing to rule it out. We 
have no reason to extend this condition to inanimate objects. Nothing as 
ever suggest that we should, and it would generally be considered psychotic 
to do so adamantly in public.
 

 It's same kind of evidence that would tell you whether a human being 
 preferred potatoes to tomatoes.


Evidence cannot access consciousness. We can only use sensitivity, 
intuition, reason, and experience. It is consciousness upon which all forms 
of evidence supervene.
 


 I suppose you heard about the guy who worked in at fast food place and 
 developed an irrational urge to put his penis in the potato peeler.  He 
 knew something bad would happen but he couldn't stop himself from thinking 
 about it.  He finally went to a psychiatrist.  The psychiatrist told him 
 that if he couldn't stop thinking about it he might as well try it.  So he 
 did.  

 When he got home from work, he told his wife what he'd done.  

 She said,Oh, my God! and rushed to pull down his pants.  She looked at 
 him and said, What happened to the potato peeler?

 He said, I think she got fired too.


Hehe. Hard times for Spud Sluts.
 


 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in 
what
order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, 
but you
are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical assertions 
aren't
anything other than that. You say that they aren't evidence...but how do 
you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in 
reply to
Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you turn around 
and
assert,they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms.


It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they are always going 
to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be the case for all possible 
machines executed in all possible ways... a fusion of biological and inorganic material 
could strike a thinking balance


You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them forms 
your brain.

- the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism (which is functions 
of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to those forms and functions.


The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity perpendicular axes is 
just something you made up.



This is what I keep trying to say - things which have a lot of consciousness are the 
least possible things to control externally. By definition, the more robotic something 
is, the less alive it is, and that is not trivial or coincidental. If you understand why 
that symmetry is meaningful,


That's not a symmetry - you shouldn't use big words if you don't know what they 
mean.


then you will have no problem being confident


Yes, I noticed that ignorance begets confidence.

that although life uses mechanisms, it is not, in itself a mechanism at all. It's not 
just the boundary between living and non-living (which I would not rule out being more 
of an anthropic or biopic boundary), but all qualitative boundaries, between physics and 
chemistry, biology and zoology, anthropology and psychology, etc may not have purely 
quantitative bridges.


Qualitative is what you haven't been able to quantify yet.  At one time many and big 
were just qualities.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:37:41 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:50 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

  All that matters is that we understand that there is no presentation 
 quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in the interpreter.


 And a computer can be and often is the interpreter. 


If that were the case then computers could not understand an audio file was 
audio until they listened to it with innate computational ears which just 
so happened to match the rendering of human ears. 

This is the same reason why we can't play a DVD with our tongues. There is 
a huge difference to us between detecting pits on a Mylar disc and watching 
a move. To a computer, as long as it is labeled as a dvd image, it will try 
to open it with an application which is specified for that file - even if 
that application controls an electric can opener instead of a video screen.
 


  You are really saying that we could use a program that acts like a video 
 screen instead of an actual video screen. 


 Exactly. If you don't want to look at a video screen to see a cat scan 
 then a X ray computerized tomography machine will be happy to print out the 
 spacial coordinates of the organs, although I don't know why you'd want 
 that.


Right, you wouldn't want that because it would be all but worthless to a 
human being. As worthless as a video screen image is to a computer. All 
video display equipment is useless to computers for that reason; because 
there is no perceiver there. No high level sensory-motor participant. There 
are only numerous low level sensory-motor experiences which we have not 
seen transform themselves into anything more sophisticated by themselves.
 


 There will never be an app on your iPhone to make it waterproof.


 As I've said before it's important not to confuse levels, a simulated 
 flame won't burn your computer but it will burn a simulated object. 


No, that argument is bogus. There is only one physical level. All 
simulations supervene on that physical level. This is why a simulated flame 
need not burn a simulated object at all. It is entirely up to the 
programmer's whim how the laws of physics will work, or indeed if they are 
lawful at all in any given sim, or across many nested sims. Simulated flame 
can work for 10,000 levels of simulation, but not a single one of those 
simulated flames can access the physical level...because they aren't real - 
they are figures..symbols...facades engineered to fool our body's public 
senses.

 

 A real flame won't burn the laws of chemistry but it will burn your 
 finger. And some things cross all levels, like information processing; 
 there is no difference between simulated arithmetic and real arithmetic or 
 between simulated intelligence and real intelligence.


There is no such thing as real arithmetic. It's all a simulation. That's 
why they call numbers figures or data - they have no reality to them except 
what coordinated sensory experience can provide.

 

   Consciousness is the capacity to discern between menu and meal 


 A computer with a optical character reader and a simple amino acid 
 detector could easily tell the difference between a menu and a meal. 


Nope. I could just print a menu on the back of a Turkey and spray a menu 
with aminos. It will be eating the menu in no time.
 


   A electronic cochlear implant that enables deaf people to hear 
 produces no sound, all it makes is lots of zeros and ones. The same thing 
 is true of the experimental artificial eye.   

  

  Sure, because there is ultimately a living person there to hear and see. 
 Without the person, the implants won't do anything  worthwhile.


 Before you were saying only a eye or ear made of meat would do and now 
 you've abandoned that position, how far back along the chain of perception 
 will you retreat before you admit you were wrong? My guess is you will 
 never change your position because a belief that was not formed by logic 
 can not be destroyed by it.


Only an eye or ear made of meat will be 100% satisfying - which is why the 
quality of the implants are crap. I don't see how anything I've said 
contradicts that.
 


  it won't be able to open any file without software to identify which 
 application to associate it with.


 Yes, and you couldn't tell the difference between audio and video without 
 a neural network inside a bone box sitting on your shoulders.


False equivalence. Your computer would have to be missing it's electronics 
to compare properly. You are floating a premise that there is some state of 
consciousness in which we cannot tell the difference between an audio and a 
visual experience but your example allows no experience at all.
 


 How can you have spent any time programming a computer without noticing 
 that everything must be explicitly defined and scripted or it will just 
 halt/fail/error?


 Nobody has found anything in the human brain that didn't strictly 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in 
 what order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


 Repeated assertions aren't evidence.
  

 It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same 
 understanding, but you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated 
 mechanical assertions aren't anything other than that. You say that they 
 aren't evidence...but how do you know? 


 For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in 
 reply to Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you 
 turn around and assert,they are always going to be empty mindless 
 mechanisms.  
  

 It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they 
 are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be 
 the case for all possible machines executed in all possible ways... a 
 fusion of biological and inorganic material could strike a thinking balance 


 You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them 
 forms your brain.


I don't overlook that at all. If there were no important difference among 
atoms though, we would be able to eat sand and photosynthesize. I don't 
assume that atoms built the brain, I think that human experience built 
human brains out of living cells, using specific substances. It's a 
collaboration from top down eternal influences and bottom up trial and 
error.
 


  - the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism 
 (which is functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to 
 those forms and functions. 


 The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity 
 perpendicular axes is just something you made up.


Every scientific discovery is made up by someone. Is that your only 
contribution to the topic - ad hominem sour grapes? 



  This is what I keep trying to say - things which have a lot of 
 consciousness are the least possible things to control externally. By 
 definition, the more robotic something is, the less alive it is, and that 
 is not trivial or coincidental. If you understand why that symmetry is 
 meaningful, 


 That's not a symmetry - you shouldn't use big words if you don't know what 
 they mean.


If you don't understand that it is symmetry, then you don't understand what 
I am talking about, which you just made clear above.


  then you will have no problem being confident 


 Yes, I noticed that ignorance begets confidence.


I have never heard you say anything which was not expressed with confidence.
 


  that although life uses mechanisms, it is not, in itself a mechanism at 
 all. It's not just the boundary between living and non-living (which I 
 would not rule out being more of an anthropic or biopic boundary), but all 
 qualitative boundaries, between physics and chemistry, biology and zoology, 
 anthropology and psychology, etc may not have purely quantitative bridges.
  

 Qualitative is what you haven't been able to quantify yet.  At one time 
 many and big were just qualities.


No. Quantity is a quality of counting. Many and big are still qualities, 
counting just makes them impersonal and precise.

Craig


 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread Stephen P. King

On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together
or in what order, they are still always going to be empty,
mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same 
understanding, but you are applying a double standard. I say that 
repeated mechanical assertions aren't anything other than that. You 
say that they aren't evidence...but how do you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, 
in reply to Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then 
you turn around and assert,they are always going to be empty mindless 
mechanisms.


If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, 
then maybe repeated assertions can become evidence?


If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more 
than tomatoes then that will be evidence. It's same kind of evidence 
that would tell you whether a human being preferred potatoes to tomatoes.


Hi Brent,

Could you speculate a model of how a potato peeler can make such a 
choice?





I suppose you heard about the guy who worked in at fast food place and 
developed an irrational urge to put his penis in the potato peeler.  
He knew something bad would happen but he couldn't stop himself from 
thinking about it.  He finally went to a psychiatrist.  The 
psychiatrist told him that if he couldn't stop thinking about it he 
might as well try it.  So he did.


When he got home from work, he told his wife what he'd done.

She said,Oh, my God! and rushed to pull down his pants.  She looked 
at him and said, What happened to the potato peeler?


He said, I think she got fired too.

Brent



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 4:57 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 7:47:14 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 3:38 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 4:32:54 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or 
in what
order, they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same 
understanding, but
you are applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical 
assertions
aren't anything other than that. You say that they aren't 
evidence...but how
do you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, 
in reply
to Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you turn 
around
and assert,they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms.


It's not a contradiction, it's an assertion that as far as we know they are 
always
going to be empty mindless mechanisms. I don't know that to be the case for 
all
possible machines executed in all possible ways... a fusion of biological 
and
inorganic material could strike a thinking balance


You keep overlooking that atoms are not 'organic', yet a fusion of them 
forms your
brain.


I don't overlook that at all. If there were no important difference among atoms though, 
we would be able to eat sand and photosynthesize.


Do you just write the first thing that comes into your head?  Did you not stop to reflect 
that the difference between organic and inorganic applies to *molecules*, not atoms?




I don't assume that atoms built the brain,


I know.  You assume things like mechanism is perpendicular sensitivity but yes-and-no 
don't make yellow (although in quodlibet logic it does).


I think that human experience built human brains out of living cells, using specific 
substances.


So experience preceded brains.  And what was it experience OF?


It's a collaboration from top down eternal influences and bottom up trial and 
error.






- the point though is to understand that the principle of mechanism (which 
is
functions of forms) is the perpendicular axis from sensitivity to those 
forms and
functions.


The point to understand it that calling mechanism and sensitivity 
perpendicular
axes is just something you made up.


Every scientific discovery is made up by someone. Is that your only contribution to the 
topic - ad hominem sour grapes?


What's ad hominem about calling word salad what it is.






This is what I keep trying to say - things which have a lot of 
consciousness are
the least possible things to control externally. By definition, the more 
robotic
something is, the less alive it is, and that is not trivial or 
coincidental. If you
understand why that symmetry is meaningful,


That's not a symmetry - you shouldn't use big words if you don't know what 
they mean.


If you don't understand that it is symmetry, then you don't understand what I am talking 
about, which you just made clear above.


That's the first thing you've written that I can fully agree with.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-03-01 Thread meekerdb

On 3/1/2013 5:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 3/1/2013 4:32 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:52 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, March 1, 2013 3:33:03 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 3/1/2013 12:20 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

It doesn't matter how many knee-jerk twitches you put together or in what 
order,
they are still always going to be empty, mindless mechanisms.


Repeated assertions aren't evidence.


It's interesting because my assertion is rooted in the same understanding, but you are 
applying a double standard. I say that repeated mechanical assertions aren't anything 
other than that. You say that they aren't evidence...but how do you know?


For one thing because you contradict them yourself.  You just posted, in reply to 
Bruno, I don't know that all machines cannot think  Then you turn around and 
assert,they are always going to be empty mindless mechanisms.


If a mechanical potato peeler can someday learn to taste potatoes, then maybe repeated 
assertions can become evidence?


If the potato peeler has a choice and chooses to peel potatoes more than tomatoes then 
that will be evidence. It's same kind of evidence that would tell you whether a human 
being preferred potatoes to tomatoes.


Hi Brent,

Could you speculate a model of how a potato peeler can make such a choice?


Sure.  But it'd be same kind of speculation as to how a human might prefer potatoes to 
tomatoes.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that  
if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything  
Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them.


I'm not sure how you mean that?


I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic  
in appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the  
numbers. All theories which want talk about the numbers have to  
be turing universal.
So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your  
axioms, and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them,  
or equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the equational  
theory:


Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

+ few equality rules,

But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much  
the number than elementary arithmetic.





We know that we experience individual objects and so we can  
count them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers  
or notches or marks.  So what are you calling an assumption in  
this?


A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The  
experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it  
logically.


But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me.  We  
just make up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms,  
which we also make up, preserve 'true'.



We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here  
the question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano Arithmetic  
(for example). And with comp we don't need more. Then we prove  
theorems, which can be quite non trivial.




To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more than  
we have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know.


Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do have  
intuition. Well, in physics too.





  Sure it's important that our model of the world not have  
inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex  
contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't  
justify anything.


Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself  
hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I think  
you ask too much for a justification.


You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it  
is too much to expect from such a weak source.  I look for such  
justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted  
to mere motivation.


Where did I say motivation? I use the term intuition, and I demote  
nothing, as it correspond to to the first person (the hero of comp,  
the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp  p; S4Grz1, etc.).

But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal.





I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty  
sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with  
such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save  
physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in  
basically all scientific paper though. You need it, or equivalent, to  
define machine, formal systems, programs, Church's thesis,  
string theory, eigenvector, trigonometry, etc.





My intuition doesn't reach to infinity.  It seems like an hypothesis  
of convenience.


I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in infinity,  
unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need just to believe  
(assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails s(x) ≠ s(y).  
Notion like provability and computability are based on this.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Stephen P. King

On 2/28/2013 7:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:
You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it 
is too much to expect from such a weak source.  I look for such 
justification as can be found from experience, which you demoted to 
mere motivation.




Hi Bruno and Brent,

Where did I say motivation? I use the term intuition, and I demote 
nothing, as it correspond to to the first person (the hero of comp, 
the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp  p; S4Grz1, etc.).


ISTM that 'motivation' is a 3p view of 'intuition'!


But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal.


Justification requires a model and/or implementation,no?







[BM] I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am 
pretty sure that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with 
such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save 
physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in 
basically all scientific paper though. You need it, or equivalent, to 
define machine, formal systems, programs, Church's thesis, 
string theory, eigenvector, trigonometry, etc.




I need to be sure that I understand this: Numbers are prior to 
computations. Is that correct? If so, then ultrafinitism fails, but if 
computations are prior to numbers, ultrafinitism (of some kind) seems 
inevitable. I have always balked at step 8 in that is seems a bridge too 
far... Why does the doubt have to be taken so far?





My intuition doesn't reach to infinity.  It seems like an hypothesis 
of convenience.


I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in infinity, 
unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need just to believe 
(assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion 
like provability and computability are based on this.


Bruno



I still don't understand how we cannot assume some implicit set 
with even arithmetic realism. How are integers not a set?


--
Onward!

Stephen


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

 Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video file]
 that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not any
 kind of audio or video sensitivity.


Please explain the difference between the two.

 when I play a video on a web page my computer always sends the audio
 signal to the speaker and the video signal to the screen and not the other
 way round. How can it do that it it doesn't know if the output should go to
 the screen or speaker? Is it just lucky?


  Uh, no. The web browser is explicitly instructed by the code of the file
 which application list is appropriate.


I don't know what to make of that. You're saying that if there was no audio
or video properties in the file then the computer could not tell if it was
audio or video, but if there are no audio or video properties in it what on
earth makes it a audio or video file? It's like saying you can't tell if a
book is written in English if there are no English words in it!

 The computer has no idea what audio is.


It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest
job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say
yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you
wrong.

 A computer can only look at everything one way - as a binary code.


And yet a computer can display music, speeches, sound effects, text, and
video of anything.  Apparently the word look has some weird mystical
meaning for you that it doesn't have for me.

 but the computer has no experience either way.


It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest
job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say
yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you
wrong.

 A computer doesn't know anything about the world beyond its peripherals.


It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest
job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say
yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you
wrong.

 It can't tell whether a bitstream ends up in your ears or eyes. It
 doesn't know if it's running on a laptop in the middle of a warzone or on a
 virtual server in a data center.


It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest
job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say
yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you
wrong.

 You don't need file extensions in every OS, but the fact that they exist
 at all should show you [...]


that computer technology advances and things that were once necessary for
those machines to operate correctly no longer are.

 There is no condition which will make a machine queasy


It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest
job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say
yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you
wrong.


  our sense of queasiness is not in any way a logical result of a data
 mismatch.


You are entirely wrong. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_sickness

When feeling motion but not seeing it (for example, in a ship with no
windows), the inner ear transmits to the brain that it senses motion, but
the eyes tell the brain that everything is still. As a result of the
discordance, the brain will come to the conclusion that one of them is
hallucinating and further conclude that the hallucination is due to poison
ingestion. The brain responds by inducing vomiting, to clear the supposed
toxin.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:


  It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y then X
 is gibberish,


  X = alcohol   Y = poison.
 becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison


Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you
get  alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish
just like I said.


  If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything,
 abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.

 And it's not ad hominem if it's true.


   Why would it make a difference whether your personal accusations are
 true or not?


It would mean that I did not engage in name calling. What I actually said
was that ASCII symbols with zero informational content ( like X is Y and X
is not Y) is just blather, you're the one who equated blather with ad
hominem; apparently you identify with blather and feel that a attack on
blather is a attack on you personally.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, February 28, 2013 10:08:07 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

  Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video file] 
 that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not any 
 kind of audio or video sensitivity.


 Please explain the difference between the two.


In the former, the computer can read up the file and pick up some bytes 
which can tell it which applications would be likely to open it. In the 
latter, the computer could actually see or hear the file when it is being 
played and know the difference between those two experiences. It's like a 
computer could be programmed to choose a healthy entree on a menu, but it 
can't actually eat the meal and tell you whether it was any good.
 


   when I play a video on a web page my computer always sends the audio 
 signal to the speaker and the video signal to the screen and not the other 
 way round. How can it do that it it doesn't know if the output should go to 
 the screen or speaker? Is it just lucky?


  Uh, no. The web browser is explicitly instructed by the code of the 
 file which application list is appropriate.


 I don't know what to make of that. You're saying that if there was no 
 audio or video properties in the file


Meaning that there are no pictures or sounds within the file, yes. The file 
is only a pattern of countable switch positions, like a piano roll. A 
player piano has no awareness of music, nor to the paper rolls that it 
plays have any properties which are musical. If it had properties which 
were inherently musical, then you would not need ears to hear it, and you 
could simply hold the piano roll in your hands and experience music.

then the computer could not tell if it was audio or video,


I didn't say that at all. The computer can't tell if its audio or video no 
matter what. It can only tell what application might be associated with 
opening that file.
 

 but if there are no audio or video properties in it what on earth makes it 
 a audio or video file? 


It's not an audio or video file. Not literally or physically. A file is 
just a source of generic binary instructions. If you feed those 
instructions into a monitor, it becomes visual - even if its a song (hence 
an oscilloscope visualization), if you unplug the monitor, the computer 
doesn't know the difference. 
 

 It's like saying you can't tell if a book is written in English if there 
 are no English words in it!


No, it's like saying that you can tell if a book is written in Japanese 
even if you don't speak Japanese. You know enough to be able to identify 
who of your friends might be able to read it phonetically to someone who 
speaks Japanese, but nobody understands the meaning of the words except the 
final Japanese-speaking end-user. Those three levels of quality represent 
the low level OS recognition, the application level, and the user level. 

The user level is very different from the other two, however. Identifying 
the general category of written language and translating language from one 
generic code into another are mechanical processes which can be easily 
programmed. We can formalize our expectations about the appearance of 
written language and write a program which uses that key to guide a 
translation from one stream of binary instructions to another stream which 
has been designed to be output to a sound card. This can't be done at the 
user level, however. It's not a matter of choosing and matching input and 
output categories as in the optical scanning and phonetic output phases, 
it's a matter of ultimately experiencing the meaning itself. The Japanese 
speaking user hears the words not as an a-signifying code or strung 
together synthetic phonemes, they hear language and significance. This is 
not just a different function, it is the opposite of all functions. 
Experience can only be the beginning and ending of all possible functions.
 


  The computer has no idea what audio is.


 It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest 
 job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say 
 yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you 
 wrong.  


It's funny, sometimes ideas which can't be proved wrong are that way 
because they are actually right.
 


  A computer can only look at everything one way - as a binary code. 


 And yet a computer can display music, speeches, sound effects, text, and 
 video of anything.  Apparently the word look has some weird mystical 
 meaning for you that it doesn't have for me.   


All displays are for the user. A computer, on its own, could not possibly 
have any use for any kind of display at all.
 


  but the computer has no experience either way.


 It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest 
 job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread meekerdb

On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we don't assume 
them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), then we cannot derive them.


I'm not sure how you mean that?


I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in appearance, from 
which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All theories which want talk 
about the numbers have to be turing universal.
So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and want talk 
about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can derive the numbers 
from the equational theory:


Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

+ few equality rules,

But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the number than 
elementary arithmetic.





We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them by putting 
them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks.  So what are you 
calling an assumption in this?


A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences motivates the 
theory, but does not justify it logically.


But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me.  We just make up rules of 
logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make up, preserve 'true'.



We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here the question is 
really: do you accept the axiom of Peano Arithmetic (for example). And with comp we 
don't need more. Then we prove theorems, which can be quite non trivial.




To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more than we have avoided 
inconsistency insofar as we know.


Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do have intuition. Well, in 
physics too.





  Sure it's important that our model of the world not have inconsistencies (at least 
if our rules of inference include ex contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere 
consistency doesn't justify anything.


Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself hypothetical with 
comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I think you ask too much for a justification.


You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it is too much to 
expect from such a weak source.  I look for such justification as can be found from 
experience, which you demoted to mere motivation.


Where did I say motivation?


The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically.


I use the term intuition, and I demote nothing, as it correspond to to the first 
person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp  p; S4Grz1, etc.).

But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal.


Logical proof is relative to axioms.  So the justification can be no stronger 
than the axioms.








I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure that x + 0 = x, 
x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.


I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.


Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with such hypothesis, 
and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on 
this.
The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in basically all scientific 
paper though.


It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way.  I recognize it difficult 
to do mathematics without it, but still it may be only a convenience.


You need it, or equivalent, to define machine, formal systems, programs, Church's 
thesis, string theory, eigenvector, trigonometry, etc.






My intuition doesn't reach to infinity.  It seems like an hypothesis of 
convenience.


I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in infinity, unlike in set 
theory (yet also used by many). You need just to believe (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and 
that x ≠ y entails s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like provability and computability are based on this.


I think you need to accept that every number has a successor in order to prove things like 
Godel's theorems.


Brent



Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/



No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:03:40 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 2/28/2013 4:46 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
  

  On 28 Feb 2013, at 05:04, meekerdb wrote:

  On 2/27/2013 7:17 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
  

  On 27 Feb 2013, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote:

  On 2/27/2013 2:59 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
  

  On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:

  On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
  

  How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we 
 don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing Universal), 
 then we cannot derive them.


 I'm not sure how you mean that?  


  I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in 
 appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers. All 
 theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing universal.
 So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms, and 
 want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or equivalent. You can 
 derive the numbers from the equational theory:

  Kxy = x
 Sxyz = xz(yz)

  + few equality rules,

  But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the 
 number than elementary arithmetic.

  
  
  
  We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count them 
 by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks.  
 So what are you calling an assumption in this?
  

  A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences 
 motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically.
  

 But justify logically seems like a bizarre concept to me.  We just make 
 up rules of logic so that inferences from some axioms, which we also make 
 up, preserve 'true'. 


  
  We have intuition and/or evidences for accepting the axiom. Here the 
 question is really: do you accept the axiom of Peano Arithmetic (for 
 example). And with comp we don't need more. Then we prove theorems, which 
 can be quite non trivial.

  
  
  To say that it is justified logically seems to mean no more than we 
 have avoided inconsistency insofar as we know.


  Yes. We can't hope for more. But in case of arithmetic, we do have 
 intuition. Well, in physics too.

  
  
  
Sure it's important that our model of the world not have 
 inconsistencies (at least if our rules of inference include ex 
 contradictione sequitur quodlibet) but mere consistency doesn't justify 
 anything.
  

  Consistency justifies our existence. I would say. We are ourself 
 hypothetical with comp. We are divine hypotheses, somehow. I think you ask 
 too much for a justification. 
  

 You are assuming that justification comes from logic; and indeed it is too 
 much to expect from such a weak source.  I look for such justification as 
 can be found from experience, which you demoted to mere motivation.
  

  Where did I say motivation? 
  

 The experiences motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically.


  I use the term intuition, and I demote nothing, as it correspond to to 
 the first person (the hero of comp, the inner God, the third hypostase, Bp 
  p; S4Grz1, etc.). 
 But justification for me invokes proof, formal or informal.
  

 Logical proof is relative to axioms.  So the justification can be no 
 stronger than the axioms.


And axioms are no stronger than the capacity to make sense of them.
 



  
  
  
  
  I don't think that what you ask is possible, even if I am pretty sure 
 that x + 0 = x, x + s(y) = s(x + y), etc.
  

 I'm not at all sure that there is successor for every x.  


  Then you adopt ultrafinitism, and indeed comp does not make sense with 
 such hypothesis, and UDA1-7 suggests that ultrafinitism might save 
 physicalism, but step 8 put a doubt on this.
 The axiom that all natural numbers have a successor is used in basically 
 all scientific paper though. 
  

 It is assumed, but I'm not sure it is used in an essential way.  I 
 recognize it difficult to do mathematics without it, but still it may be 
 only a convenience.

  You need it, or equivalent, to define machine, formal systems, 
 programs, Church's thesis, string theory, eigenvector, 
 trigonometry, etc.

  
  
  
  My intuition doesn't reach to infinity.  It seems like an hypothesis of 
 convenience.


  I propose a theory, that's all. You don't need to believe in infinity, 
 unlike in set theory (yet also used by many). You need just to believe 
 (assume) that 0 ≠ s(x), and that x ≠ y entails s(x) ≠ s(y). Notion like 
 provability and computability are based on this.
  

 I think you need to accept that every number has a successor in order to 
 prove things like Godel's theorems.

 Brent

  
  Bruno

  
   http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

  
  
 No virus found in this message.
 Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
 Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date: 02/25/13
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Stephen P. King

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not
not Y then X is gibberish,


 X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison


Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so 
you get  alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is 
gibberish just like I said.


Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that 
makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are 
distinctions in the real world that are not subject to the naive 
representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.



 If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert
anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.


And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the 
email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka 
gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act.




 And it's not ad hominem if it's true.


  Why would it make a difference whether your personal
accusations are true or not?


It would mean that I did not engage in name calling. What I actually 
said was that ASCII symbols with zero informational content ( like X 
is Y and X is not Y) is just blather, you're the one who equated 
blather with ad hominem; apparently you identify with blather and feel 
that a attack on blather is a attack on you personally.


  John K Clark


What about the case where some supposedly conscious being 
constantly calls itself names? Auto ad hominem? LOL! By your own logic 
we are force to consider you a self-inflicted zombie.


--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Craig Weinberg
Thanks. I think you pretty much covered it :)

On Thursday, February 28, 2013 1:59:55 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
  
 On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:
   

It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y 
 then X is gibberish,


  X = alcohol   Y = poison. 
 becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison
  

 Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you 
 get  alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish 
 just like I said.
  

 Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes 
 the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in 
 the real world that are not subject to the naive representation of 
 Aristotelian syllogisms.


Yeah I think even seeing a Venn diagram would be too frightening. How can 
seawater be both the sea and water? It must be gibberish.
 


   

  If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, 
 abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.
  

 Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.  
  

 And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email 
 johnk...@gmail.com javascript: is only accidentally meaningful, aka 
 gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act.

  
And it's not ad hominem if it's true.
  

   Why would it make a difference whether your personal accusations are 
 true or not? 


 It would mean that I did not engage in name calling. What I actually said 
 was that ASCII symbols with zero informational content ( like X is Y and X 
 is not Y) is just blather, you're the one who equated blather with ad 
 hominem; apparently you identify with blather and feel that a attack on 
 blather is a attack on you personally. 

   John K Clark
  

 What about the case where some supposedly conscious being constantly 
 calls itself names? Auto ad hominem? LOL! By your own logic we are force to 
 consider you a self-inflicted zombie.

 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread meekerdb

On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y 
then X is
gibberish,


 X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison


Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you get  alcohol 
is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish just like I said.


Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the 
difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real world 
that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.



 If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, 
abandon
anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.


And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email 
johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's 
referents where not chosen by a conscious act.


I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either random or 
deterministic.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread John Clark
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote

 Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video
 file] that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not
 any kind of audio or video sensitivity.


  Please explain the difference between the two.


  In the former, the computer can read up the file and pick up some bytes
 which can tell it which applications would be likely to open it. In the
 latter, the computer could actually see or hear the file


You have no way of knowing if I can actually see or hear, all you know is
that I behave as if I do. It's exactly precisely the same situation with a
smart computer.


  It's like a computer could be programmed to choose a healthy entree on a
 menu, but it can't actually eat the meal and tell you whether it was any
 good.


Are you now saying that a digestive system is linked to consciousness?

 You're saying that if there was no audio or video properties in the file


  Meaning that there are no pictures or sounds within the file, yes. The
 file is only a pattern of countable switch positions, like a piano roll.


A electronic cochlear implant that enables deaf people to hear produces no
sound, all it makes is lots of zeros and ones. The same thing is true of
the experimental artificial eye.

 A player piano has no awareness of music,


It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest
job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say
yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you
wrong.

 The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can only
 tell what application might be associated with opening that file.


As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE
HELL DO YOU KNOW?

 it's not an audio or video file. Not literally or physically. A file is
 just a source of generic binary instructions.


And that's all a cochlear implant produces and yet the deaf report those
generic binary instructions give them the qualia of sound. If you believe
that the deaf reported truthfully ( do you?) why wouldn't you believe a
computer if it said the same thing? But maybe the deaf person is lying too,
of course we could tell a story to a deaf person with a cochlear implant
and they could correctly answer questions about it but that's just behavior
and were talking about qualia and
deafness does not make you incapable of lying. Or maybe they think they
experience the qualia of sound but its nothing like the grand and glorious
thing you experience. Or maybe Mozart would say you think you have
experienced the qualia of sound but it's nothing at all like the wonderful
thing he has. All this is pointless time wasting speculation because none
of it can ever be proved or disproved.


  It's like saying you can't tell if a book is written in English if
 there are no English words in it!


  No, it's like saying that you can tell if a book is written in Japanese
 even if you don't speak Japanese.


Maybe you can but I can't, I couldn't tell if it was Chinese or Korean or
just a bunch of squiggles made up by a graphics designer yesterday.

 translating language from one generic code into another are mechanical
 processes which can be easily programmed.


No, translating languages is extremely difficult and until about 5 years
ago computer translations were so bad that the only reason to do it is the
belly laugh you'd get out of it. Back in the computer Precambrian of 2007
or 2008 the consensus was that computers couldn't make good translations
unless they had some understanding of what was being said, I think they
were right, and computers make dramatically better translations now than
they did in 2007.


  It's funny, sometimes ideas which can't be proved wrong are that way
 because they are actually right.


Don't be so modest, your ideas about consciousness are twice as good as
that, not only can they never be proven wron they can never be proven right
either.


  People with a hard left-brained approach are not going to be able to
 look at consciousness independently of forms and functions


I understand as well as you do that there is such a thing as consciousness,
but I also understand that because it has no observable consequences
obsessing over it is a complete waste of time if your goal is to obtain
some understanding of how the world works. So when you make rubber stamp
comments like a computer can never know X or a computer can never feel
Y, comments that you simply decree without evidence, comments you have no
way of knowing, comments neither you nor anybody else can ever prove or
disprove even if the machine behaves as if it knows and feels those things
then I respond with rubber stamp comments of my own.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, February 28, 2013 3:52:59 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

 On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote

   Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video 
 file] that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, 
 not 
 any kind of audio or video sensitivity.


  Please explain the difference between the two.


  In the former, the computer can read up the file and pick up some bytes 
 which can tell it which applications would be likely to open it. In the 
 latter, the computer could actually see or hear the file 


 You have no way of knowing if I can actually see or hear, all you know is 
 that I behave as if I do. It's exactly precisely the same situation with a 
 smart computer. 


You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. You are 
using a double standard whereby you claim to be omniscient about what I can 
or can't know.

Of course this is all sophistry. All that matters is that we understand 
that there is no presentation quality to a file. Presentation is 100% in 
the interpreter. Since you can open any raw file as a video, audio, text, 
3-D printing, etc that would mean that all data would have to inherently 
have all possible sensory modalities contained within it. You are really 
saying that we could use a program that acts like a video screen instead of 
an actual video screen. That would be nice, but it can never happen, 
regardless of how sophisticated software becomes. There will never be an 
app on your iPhone to make it waterproof.
 

  

   It's like a computer could be programmed to choose a healthy entree on 
 a menu, but it can't actually eat the meal and tell you whether it was any 
 good.


 Are you now saying that a digestive system is linked to consciousness?  


I am saying that the menu is not the meal. Computers do menus, but not 
meals. Consciousness is the capacity to discern between menu and meal 
(among other things).
 


  You're saying that if there was no audio or video properties in the file


  Meaning that there are no pictures or sounds within the file, yes. The 
 file is only a pattern of countable switch positions, like a piano roll. 


 A electronic cochlear implant that enables deaf people to hear produces no 
 sound, all it makes is lots of zeros and ones. The same thing is true of 
 the experimental artificial eye.   


Sure, because there is ultimately a living person there to hear and see. 
Without the person, the implants won't do anything  worthwhile.
 


  A player piano has no awareness of music,


 It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest 
 job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say 
 yeah but it's not conscious and there is no way anybody can prove you 
 wrong.  


Your argument then is that a player piano has an awareness of music. Maybe 
we should give scarecrows the right to vote also.
 


  The computer can't tell if its audio or video no matter what. It can 
 only tell what application might be associated with opening that file.


 As there are zero empirical differences between those two things HOW THE 
 HELL DO YOU KNOW?  


Because it won't be able to open any file without software to identify 
which application to associate it with. If the computer could tell the 
difference, then we wouldn't need to have programmed instructions. Do you 
seriously believe that changing an .mp3 to a .txt file makes the computer 
dizzy? How can you have spent any time programming a computer without 
noticing that everything must be explicitly defined and scripted or it will 
just halt/fail/error? How could it be any clearer that a player piano has 
no experience of music. It's a piano being played by a paper roll. 


  it's not an audio or video file. Not literally or physically. A file is 
 just a source of generic binary instructions. 


 And that's all a cochlear implant produces and yet the deaf report those 
 generic binary instructions give them the qualia of sound. 


Sure, computer + user = high quality user experience. Computer + computer = 
no high quality experience. Plug a cochlear implant into a computer and the 
raw data remains raw all the way through. There is no conversion to any 
sense modality - no way so simulate synesthesia or blindsight.
 

 If you believe that the deaf reported truthfully ( do you?) why wouldn't 
 you believe a computer if it said the same thing? 


Because I understand why computers have no experience. A computer is only 
going to say what it is programmed to say. If it has no vocabulary which 
refers to human experiences of sound, it will have nothing to say about 
some new stream of generic data that related to aural sensation. It's not 
going to try to express anything about the experience of sound.
 

 But maybe the deaf person is lying too, of course we could tell a story to 
 a deaf person with a cochlear implant and they could correctly answer 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread meekerdb

On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about what ways John 
knows of having ways of knowing about what you can know...either. :-)


Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable 
consequences.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


 You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about 
 what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
 know...either. :-)

 Brent
 blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable 
 consequences. 


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.

Craig 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Stephen P. King

On 2/28/2013 2:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg 
whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is
not not Y then X is gibberish,


 X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison


Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so 
you get  alcohol is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is 
gibberish just like I said.


Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that 
makes the difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are 
distinctions in the real world that are not subject to the naive 
representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.



 If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert
anything, abandon anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.


And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the 
email johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka 
gibberish as well, as it's referents where not chosen by a conscious act.


I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that 
is either random or deterministic.


Brent

Hi Brent,

Perhaps you are trapped in a false dichotomy. Both of those terms 
(random and deterministic) assume, ISTM, a classical model of the 
universe. I accept the classical model only as a cartoon that has worked 
so so for a long time, but has outlived it utility. We know better, the 
universe is quantum mechanical. I believe that our minds are only 
capable of comprehending Boolean representable (or degradations thereof) 
concepts of the universe, thus we fail miserably to comprehend what it 
means to live in a QM universe.



--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread meekerdb

On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know about 
what ways
John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can know...either. :-)

Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable 
consequences.


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an omniscient claim 
against someone else's non-omniscience.


But I can make an empirically informed one.

Brent
strawman, n. a misstatement or exaggeration of an opponents position in order to make it 
easier to refute.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread meekerdb

On 2/28/2013 4:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 2:29 PM, meekerdb wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:59 AM, Stephen P. King wrote:

On 2/28/2013 10:33 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:


 It is a basic law of logic that if X is not Y and X is not not Y 
then X is
gibberish,


 X = alcohol   Y = poison.
becomes alcohol is not poison and alcohol isn't not poison


Exactly, and 2 negatives, like isn't not cancel each other out so you get  alcohol 
is not a poison and alcohol is a poison which is gibberish just like I said.


Alcohol both is and isn't a poison, duh! It is the quantity that makes the 
difference. Are you too coarse to notice that there are distinctions in the real world 
that are not subject to the naive representation of Aristotelian syllogisms.



 If there were no free will then nobody could choose to assert anything, 
abandon
anything, or speak anything other than gibberish.


Cannot comment, don't know what ASCII symbols free will mean.


And we can safely assume that all text that is emitted from the email 
johnkcl...@gmail.com is only accidentally meaningful, aka gibberish as well, as it's 
referents where not chosen by a conscious act.


I think we're safe in assuming that they are emitted by a process that is either random 
or deterministic.


Brent

Hi Brent,

Perhaps you are trapped in a false dichotomy. Both of those terms (random and 
deterministic) assume, ISTM, a classical model of the universe. I accept the classical 
model only as a cartoon that has worked so so for a long time, but has outlived it 
utility. We know better, the universe is quantum mechanical. I believe that our minds 
are only capable of comprehending Boolean representable (or degradations thereof) 
concepts of the universe, thus we fail miserably to comprehend what it means to live in 
a QM universe.


So what's your third way that is neither random nor deterministic?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

  On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: 

  On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  
 You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


 You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
 about what ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
 know...either. :-)

 Brent
 blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no testable 
 consequences. 
  

 Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
 omniscient claim against someone else's non-omniscience.
  

 But I can make an empirically informed one.


That means that you claim to have empirical information about consciousness 
beyond another person's information about their own consciousness. How can 
you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone else can't?

Craig
 


 Brent
 strawman, n. a misstatement or exaggeration of an opponents position in 
 order to make it easier to refute.
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-28 Thread meekerdb

On 2/28/2013 5:30 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:01:48 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 4:11 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, February 28, 2013 5:37:50 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/28/2013 1:50 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
You have no way of knowing what I can't know about you either. 


You have no way of knowing what ways I have of knowing what you know 
about what
ways John knows of having ways of knowing about what you can 
know...either. :-)

Brent
blather, n. strings of words in the form of assertions having no 
testable
consequences.


Calling it blather doesn't change the fact that you can't make an 
omniscient claim
against someone else's non-omniscience.


But I can make an empirically informed one.


That means that you claim to have empirical information about consciousness beyond 
another person's information about their own consciousness.


(a) I said I have empirical information. I didn't say it is beyond somebody 
elses.


How can you claim to have that at the same time that you claim someone else 
can't?


(b) It was you who claimed to know what John couldn't know.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 26 Feb 2013, at 21:40, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if  
we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing  
Universal), then we cannot derive them.


I'm not sure how you mean that?


I meant that you cannot build a theory, simpler than arithmetic in  
appearance, from which you can derive the existence of the numbers.  
All theories which want talk about the numbers have to be turing  
universal.
So I meant this in the concrete sense that if you write your axioms,  
and want talk about numbers, you need to postulate them, or  
equivalent. You can derive the numbers from the equational theory:


Kxy = x
Sxyz = xz(yz)

+ few equality rules,

But that theory is already Turing universal, and assume as much the  
number than elementary arithmetic.





We know that we experience individual objects and so we can count  
them by putting them in one-to-one relation with fingers or notches  
or marks.  So what are you calling an assumption in this?


A theory is supposed to abstract from the experiences. The experiences  
motivates the theory, but does not justify it logically.


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 26 Feb 2013, at 23:38, John Mikes wrote:


Bruno, I appreciate your effort to reply to my silly questions.


Question are never silly.
Answer are always silly.





I accept your positions, nothing 'new' or 'surprising' in them now.
Yet I raised one little suspicion in

...How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that  
if we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing  
Universal), then we cannot derive them...


of circularity: we have to assume them to be able to derive them.


Well, that the definition of an axiom. We just accept it, if only for  
the sake of the argument. Then we can prove them, by using the rule  
that we accept the axioms. It is not circular, it is based on the fact  
that we accept that p - p, or the rule that from p, we can derive p.


For example in group theory, we accept that there is a neutral  
element. Then later one, if we are asked to justified the use of a  
neutral element, we can just say that we are working in a group, in  
which it exists, by definition, or axiom.






If not, not.
BTW I feel free to disagree with your just assumed argument  
WITHOUT being obliged to produce a (better?) counter-theory.


That is your right. No doubt.






Then again:
...Numbers have nothing to do with sign. Signs are human tools to  
talk about them...


Talk about WHAT? if they are NOT quantizing factors, NOT  
representing signs, how could you IDENTIFY the  t e r m :  
NUMBER?   (not just by another word of course).


By doing a lot of exercise, like in high school, you can develop a  
familiarity with them, and accept some defining axioms. The brain does  
not really help; you need your heart.
I might ask you how you identify the term woman. It is the same  
difficulty. We have to live with many things that we cannot defined.






It seems your mental base builds ON numbers (whatever they may be) -  
not on qualia (musical complexity, emotions, feelings, etc. that do  
not spring from 'numbers').


That is due to cultural factor. But then in science, we want our  
theories not depending on interpretation, still less on emotions. But  
in private we sometimes point on them, like Einstein said that a  
theory, to be true, needs to be beautiful. Same with the numbers.  
Mathematicians are usually super-emotional beings, for the best, and  
the worst.






Sorry about the last sentence (conclusion of the previous passage)  
in which I used Nature instead of world existence or whatever.


Thanks for reassuring me.



The reductionistic part of the totality to which we assign all we  
think about.


... to which some people assign what they all think about, I would say.
About nature, I am agnostic. But when I'm in the comp mood, I  
definitely don't believe in it.


Bruno






JM


On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 4:24 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be  
wrote:

John,

On 24 Feb 2013, at 21:07, John Mikes wrote:

Bruno you wrote (among a big HOOPLA of indentations galore, an art  
to measure each one into a proper participant):


...Explain us what is an electrical reaction in a brain without  
using 2+2=4

Bruno 

Explain, why 2+2=4 - without (human?) quantizing - even without  
using dots or marks and 'counting' them. Numbers? a joke.

 Because you said so?  How did it arise?


I assume them. It is part of the card I put on the table. Feel free  
to develop another theory.


How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if we  
don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing  
Universal), then we cannot derive them.







What is 'counting'? assigning SOMEHOW a 'heap' to a sign you  
invented?


Numbers have nothing to do with sign. Signs are human tools to talk  
about them. Numbers status is independent of the signs used to refer  
to them, a bit like galaxies in the physical universe are usually  
supposed to be independent of human telescope.






How 'bout another logic, another vision? (Zarathustran?)


How could I understand what you mean by another logic or another  
vision without using the intuition of numbers?

This just make no sense for me.
Also numbers have nothing to do with logic. Again, logic is a mental  
tool, and formal logics presuppose our understanding of numbers.  
Then computationalism derived eight important different logics that  
the numbers already develop by themselves to understand themselves,  
so here you have your another logics. Numbers agree with you,  
somehow. But you have to recognize them to be able to listen to  
them, and indeed go farer than the human views.






Go back and back and back in your presumptions/assumptions into  
more-and-more generalizations and you will find the human image you  
substitute for  Nature (call it reality, existence, The World, - or  
Whatever (Everything).


I do not assume Nature.
The distinction between nature and human is a human artifice.
More generally, the distinction between nature and numbers is a  
number artifice. It is an 

Re: Comp: Geometry Is A Zombie

2013-02-27 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 27 Feb 2013, at 00:01, meekerdb wrote:


On 2/26/2013 2:41 PM, John Mikes wrote:

Brent:
you jumped into 'counting'. What would that be without numbers?


It's a one-to-one relation between objects.  If you invent a special  
set of tokens (1, 2, 3) that everybody agrees on (i.e. a part of  
language) to use in the one-to-one relation then those are numbers.   
But I wasn't pretending to do without numbers; I was pointing out  
how they derived from experience - they were not just assumed.


The fact that we see the world as composed of discrete objects  
(instead of wave functions or quantum fields or something else)  
might be an accident of the development of this universe - or it  
might be a necessary consequence of something about universes.  I  
was just asking whether Bruno's comp had any bearing on that question.


It certainly has, but it is difficult, because we can't throw out the  
fact that some very special programs, or collection of programs, win  
the measure battle for the first person indeterminacy problem.


As long as physics is not derived from arithmetic, we can't answer to  
that question.
I will not speculate, as people could confuse what is already derived  
and what is plausible, given the empirical facts and what we already  
know in computer science.
Cluster of different sort of multiverses remain possible, especially  
if we derive less than QM from comp. Comp leads to a criterium to  
distinguish geographical truth from physical truth, but we have to  
progress a lot to be able to apply it.


Bruno




Brent



On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 3:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net  
wrote:

On 2/26/2013 1:24 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


How did number arise? We don't know that, but we can show that if  
we don't assume them, or equivalent (basically anything Turing  
Universal), then we cannot derive them.


I'm not sure how you mean that?  We know that we experience  
individual objects and so we can count them by putting them in one- 
to-one relation with fingers or notches or marks.  So what are you  
calling an assumption in this?


Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2899 / Virus Database: 2641/6133 - Release Date:  
02/25/13





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.




  1   2   >