### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

Dear MarkCC.
Thank you for paying attention on my crackpottery article.
I like your comment.
Very like.
==.
You say:
Create a universe with no matter, a universe with different kinds
of matter, a universe with 300 forces instead of the four that
we see - and e and π won't change.
=..
Now Euler's equation plays a role in quantum theory.
In quantum theory there isn't constant firm quant particle.
The Pi says  that a point-particle or string-particle cannot  be
a quant particle. The Pi says that that quant particle
can be a circle and it cannot be a perfect circle.
If e and π  belong to quant particle then these numbers
can mutually change.
Doesn't it mean that Pi ( a circle ) can be changed into sphere?
Doesn't Euler's equationcosx + isinx in = e^ix can explain
this transformation / fluctuation of quant particle ?
You say:
What things like e and π, and their relationship via Euler's equation
tell us is that there's a fundamental relationship between numbers
and shapes on a two-dimensional plane which does not and cannot
really exist in the world we live in.
=.

But this 'a fundamental relationship between numbers and
shapes on a two-dimensional plane' can really exist
in two-dimensional vacuum.

All the best.
socratus.

==.

On Mar 5, 9:57 pm, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
Euler's Equation Crackpottery

One of my twitter followers sent me an interesting piece of
crackpottery.
I debated whether to do anything with it. The thing about
crackpottery
is that it really needs to have some content.
Total incoherence isn't amusing. This bit is, frankly, right on the
line.
==.
Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.
a) Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality.
Euler's identity is the gold standard for mathematical beauty'.
Euler's identity is the most famous formula in all mathematics.
' . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of Leonardo
da Vinci's Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo's statue of David'
'It is God's equation', 'our jewel ', ' It is a mathematical icon'.
. . . . etc.
b) Euler's Equation as a physical reality.
it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, . . . . .'
' Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence'
' Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?'
'It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process
using physics.'
' Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum
physics ?'
My aim is to understand the reality of nature.
Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality?
To give the answer to this. question I need to bind Euler's equation
with an object - particle. Can it be math- point or string- particle
or triangle-particle? No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which
says me that the particle must be only a circle .
Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and
therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories.
These two theories say me that the reason of circle - particle's
movement is its own inner impulse (h) or (h*=h/2pi).
a) Using its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves
( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - 'photon'.
From Earth - gravity point of view this speed is maximally
. From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no
charge).
b) Using its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum
( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle rotates around its axis.
In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves
( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is : c.
1. We call such particle - ' electron' and its energy is: E=h*f.
In this way I can understand the reality of nature.
==.
Best wishes.

==.
Euler's equation says that . It's an amazingly profound equation.
The way that it draws together fundamental concepts is beautiful
and surprising.
But it's not nearly as mysterious as our loonie-toon makes it out to
be.
The natural logarithm-base is deeply embedded in the structure of
numbers, and we've known that, and we've known how it works
for a long time.
What Euler did was show the relationship between e and the
fundamental rotation group of the complex numbers.
There are a couple of ways of restating the definition of that
make the meaning of that relationship clearer.
For example:

That's an alternative definition of what e is. If we use that, and we
plug  into it, we get:

If you work out that limit, it's -1. Also, if you take values of N,
and plot , , , and , ... on the complex plane, as N gets larger,
the resulting curve gets closer and closer to a semicircle.
An equivalent way of seeing it is that exponents of  are rotations
in the complex number plane. The reason that  is because if you

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 15 Feb 2013, at 05:52, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

The learned men  confuse the mathematical tools with the
physical reality and therefore we have math-physical  fairy-tales.
=.

That happens too, and is of course even worst than confusing
mathematical tools and the mathematical reality.

Bruno

On Feb 14, 5:39 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 14 Feb 2013, at 08:48, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.
=.
Mr. Dexter Sinister  wrote:
‘ I understand Euler's Identity,
and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it,
there's nothing particularly mystical about it,
it just demonstrates that exponential, trigonometric,
and complex functions are related.
Given what we know of mathematics it shouldn't surprise
anyone that its various bits are connected.
It would be much more surprising if they weren't, that would
almost certainly mean something was badly wrong somewhere.’

Mr. Gary wrote:
Mathematics is NOT science.
Science is knowledge of the REAL world.
Mathematics is an invention of the mind.

This is of course false in the comp theory.

It is also intuitively false for most mathematicians.

It is usually asserted by people confusing the mathematical tools,
that we invent indeed, and the mathematical reality, which is
really a

sequence of surprising facts, that we discover.

The use of REAL world is dogmatic physicalism. It proposes as a
fact

what is a theological or metaphysical hypothesis, and this condemns
any attempt to be rigorous on the subject. It is as bad as using
God

as a gap explanation. It is the same mistake.

Bruno

Many aspects of mathematics have found application
in the real world, but there is no guarantee.
Any correlation must meet the ultimate test:
does it explain something about the real world?
As an electrical engineer I used the generalized
Euler's equation all the time in circuit analysis:

exp(j*theta) = cos(theta) + j*sin(theta).

So it works at that particular level in electricity.
Does it work at other levels, too?
Logic cannot prove it.
It must be determined by experiment, not by philosophizing.
..
Thinking about theirs posts I wrote brief article:
Euler's Equation and Reality.
=.
a)
Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality.
Euler's identity is the gold standard for mathematical beauty'.
Euler's identity is the most famous formula in all mathematics.
‘ . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of  Leonardo
da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo’s statue of David’
‘It  is God’s equation.’, ‘ It is a mathematical icon.’
. . . .  etc.
b)
Euler's Equation as a physical reality.
it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, .  . . . .’
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence’
‘ Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?’
‘It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical
process

using physics.‘
‘ Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum
physics ?’
==.
My aim is to understand the reality of nature.
Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality?
To give the answer to this question I need to bind
Euler's equation with an object - particle.
Can it  be math- point or string- particle or triangle-particle?
No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which says me that
the particle must be only a circle .
Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and
therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories.
These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s
movement  is its own inner impulse (h) or  (h*=h/2pi).
a)
Using  its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves
( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - ‘photon’.
From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally.
From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no
charge).

b)
Using  its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum
( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle  rotates around its axis.
In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves
( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is :  c1.
We call such particle - ‘ electron’  and its  energy is:  E=h*f.

In this way I (as a peasant ) can understand the reality of nature.
==.
I reread my post.
My God, that is a naïve peasant's explanation.
It is absolutely not scientific, not professor's explanation.
Would a learned man adopt such simple and naive explanation?
Hmm,  . . .   problem.
In any way, even Mr. Dexter Sinister  and Mr. Gary
wouldn't agree with me, I want to say them
' Thank you for emails and cooperation’
=.
Best wishes.
=.
P.S.
' They would play a greater and greater role in mathematics –
and then, with the advent of quantum mechanics in the twentieth
century, in physics and engineering and any field that deals with
cyclical

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

Intuitive Understanding Of Euler’s Formula

http://betterexplained.com/articles/intuitive-understanding-of-eulers-formula/#comment-190704
=….

On Feb 14, 8:48 am, socra...@bezeqint.net socra...@bezeqint.net
wrote:
Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.
=.
Mr. Dexter Sinister  wrote:
‘ I understand Euler's Identity,
and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it,
there's nothing particularly mystical about it,
it just demonstrates that exponential, trigonometric,
and complex functions are related.
Given what we know of mathematics it shouldn't surprise
anyone that its various bits are connected.
It would be much more surprising if they weren't, that would
almost certainly mean something was badly wrong somewhere.’

Mr. Gary wrote:
Mathematics is NOT science.
Science is knowledge of the REAL world.
Mathematics is an invention of the mind.
Many aspects of mathematics have found application
in the real world, but there is no guarantee.
Any correlation must meet the ultimate test:
does it explain something about the real world?
As an electrical engineer I used the generalized
Euler's equation all the time in circuit analysis:

exp(j*theta) = cos(theta) + j*sin(theta).

So it works at that particular level in electricity.
Does it work at other levels, too?
Logic cannot prove it.
It must be determined by experiment, not by philosophizing.
..
Thinking about theirs posts I wrote brief article:
Euler's Equation and Reality.
=.
a)
Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality.
Euler's identity is the gold standard for mathematical beauty'.
Euler's identity is the most famous formula in all mathematics.
‘ . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of  Leonardo
da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo’s statue of David’
‘It  is God’s equation.’, ‘ It is a mathematical icon.’
. . . .  etc.
b)
Euler's Equation as a physical reality.
it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, .  . . . .’
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence’
‘ Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?’
‘It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process
using physics.‘
‘ Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum
physics ?’
==.
My aim is to understand the reality of nature.
Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality?
To give the answer to this question I need to bind
Euler's equation with an object - particle.
Can it  be math- point or string- particle or triangle-particle?
No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which says me that
the particle must be only a circle .
Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and
therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories.
These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s
movement  is its own inner impulse (h) or  (h*=h/2pi).
a)
Using  its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves
( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - ‘photon’.
From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally.
From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge).
b)
Using  its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum
( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle  rotates around its axis.
In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves
( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is :  c1.
We call such particle - ‘ electron’  and its  energy is:  E=h*f.

In this way I (as a peasant ) can understand the reality of nature.
==.
I reread my post.
My God, that is a naïve peasant's explanation.
It is absolutely not scientific, not professor's explanation.
Would a learned man adopt such simple and naive explanation?
Hmm,  . . .   problem.
In any way, even Mr. Dexter Sinister  and Mr. Gary
wouldn't agree with me, I want to say them
' Thank you for emails and cooperation’
=.
Best wishes.
=.
P.S.
' They would play a greater and greater role in mathematics –
and then, with the advent of quantum mechanics in the twentieth
century, in physics and engineering and any field that deals with
cyclical phenomena such as waves that can be represented by
complex numbers. For a complex number allows you to represent
two processes such as phase and wavelenght simultaneously –
and a complex exponential allows you to map a straight line
onto a circle in a complex plane.'

/   Book:  The great equations.  Chapter four.
The gold standard for mathematical beauty.
Euler’s equation.   Page 104. /

#
Euler's e-iPi+1=0 is an amazing equation, not in-and-of itself,
but because it sharply points to our utter ignorance of the
simplest mathematical and scientific fundamentals.
The equation means that in flat Euclidean space, e and Pi happen
to have their particular

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 14 Feb 2013, at 08:48, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.
=.
Mr. Dexter Sinister  wrote:
‘ I understand Euler's Identity,
and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it,
there's nothing particularly mystical about it,
it just demonstrates that exponential, trigonometric,
and complex functions are related.
Given what we know of mathematics it shouldn't surprise
anyone that its various bits are connected.
It would be much more surprising if they weren't, that would
almost certainly mean something was badly wrong somewhere.’

Mr. Gary wrote:
Mathematics is NOT science.
Science is knowledge of the REAL world.
Mathematics is an invention of the mind.

This is of course false in the comp theory.

It is also intuitively false for most mathematicians.

It is usually asserted by people confusing the mathematical tools,
that we invent indeed, and the mathematical reality, which is really a
sequence of surprising facts, that we discover.

The use of REAL world is dogmatic physicalism. It proposes as a fact
what is a theological or metaphysical hypothesis, and this condemns
any attempt to be rigorous on the subject. It is as bad as using God
as a gap explanation. It is the same mistake.

Bruno

Many aspects of mathematics have found application
in the real world, but there is no guarantee.
Any correlation must meet the ultimate test:
does it explain something about the real world?
As an electrical engineer I used the generalized
Euler's equation all the time in circuit analysis:

exp(j*theta) = cos(theta) + j*sin(theta).

So it works at that particular level in electricity.
Does it work at other levels, too?
Logic cannot prove it.
It must be determined by experiment, not by philosophizing.
..
Thinking about theirs posts I wrote brief article:
Euler's Equation and Reality.
=.
a)
Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality.
Euler's identity is the gold standard for mathematical beauty'.
Euler's identity is the most famous formula in all mathematics.
‘ . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of  Leonardo
da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo’s statue of David’
‘It  is God’s equation.’, ‘ It is a mathematical icon.’
. . . .  etc.
b)
Euler's Equation as a physical reality.
it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, .  . . . .’
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence’
‘ Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?’
‘It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process
using physics.‘
‘ Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum
physics ?’
==.
My aim is to understand the reality of nature.
Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality?
To give the answer to this question I need to bind
Euler's equation with an object - particle.
Can it  be math- point or string- particle or triangle-particle?
No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which says me that
the particle must be only a circle .
Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and
therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories.
These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s
movement  is its own inner impulse (h) or  (h*=h/2pi).
a)
Using  its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves
( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - ‘photon’.
From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally.
From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge).
b)
Using  its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum
( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle  rotates around its axis.
In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves
( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is :  c1.
We call such particle - ‘ electron’  and its  energy is:  E=h*f.

In this way I (as a peasant ) can understand the reality of nature.
==.
I reread my post.
My God, that is a naïve peasant's explanation.
It is absolutely not scientific, not professor's explanation.
Would a learned man adopt such simple and naive explanation?
Hmm,  . . .   problem.
In any way, even Mr. Dexter Sinister  and Mr. Gary
wouldn't agree with me, I want to say them
' Thank you for emails and cooperation’
=.
Best wishes.
=.
P.S.
' They would play a greater and greater role in mathematics –
and then, with the advent of quantum mechanics in the twentieth
century, in physics and engineering and any field that deals with
cyclical phenomena such as waves that can be represented by
complex numbers. For a complex number allows you to represent
two processes such as phase and wavelenght simultaneously –
and a complex exponential allows you to map a straight line
onto a circle in a complex plane.'

/   Book:  The great equations.  Chapter four.
The gold standard for mathematical beauty.
Euler’s equation.   Page 104.

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 6:39 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

So far, nobody has been able to figure out a learning algorithm as
generic as the one our brains contains.

The developers of Watson have come very close to doing exactly that.

What I mean by a generic learning algorithm is one that can program
itself using very high-level feedback signals, something equivalent to
pleasure/pain. That allows the same algorithm to learn how to drive a
car and learn to speak new languages, and even learn new ways to
learn. I think it's possible, but I'm not convinced Watson is it.

there is definitely room for generalists.

Then why don't family doctors recommend that their patient see a generalists
when they run into a particular problem they can't handle?

Because you don't want brain surgery performed by an amateur, and also
to avoid law suits. But if I had to chose just one doctor for the rest
of my life, I would chose a generalist. I'm not saying that
specialists are not valuable, just that we've gone too far in
fetishising them. Or, put another way, there aren't as many brain
surgeon-level fields that require maniacal focus for competence as
people seem to think. But everyone wants to believe that of their own
field because specialisation is currently viewed as high status.

Einstein might have been a great scientist in any field.

Perhaps Einstein could have been great in ANY field, but he most certainly
could not have been great in EVERY field.

Agreed, mainly because of lack of time. Immortal Einstein would
probably get bored of theoretical physics at some point and explore
something else.

Watson and Deep Blue cannot change their minds.

The great thing about computers is that every time they run a new program
they quite literally CHANGE THEIR MINDS.

In a sense, but not in the sense I was alluding to.

Deep Blue beat the world human chess champion and it required a
supercomputer to do so, but that was 16 years ago and Moore's law marches
on;

Sort of.

There is no sort of about it, Moore's law marches on. In 1994 I bought one
of the most powerful PC's in the world, it had a one core microprocessor
running at 5 *10^7 cycles per second with 8*10^6 bytes of solid state memory
and a 2*10^8 byte hard drive and cost me \$4000 in expensive 1994 dollars;
Today I am using a 4 core microprocessor running at 3.4 *10^9 cycles per
second with 1.6 *10^10 bytes of solid state memory and a 2*10^12 byte hard
drive and it cost me \$2000 in in much cheaper 2012 dollars.

The Moore's law marches on if you allow for multi-cores after a
certain date and not before a certain date.

Now it's progressing due to multi-core architectures, which one could
consider cheating

If I grew up on a farm and was retarded I might consider that cheating too,
but I didn't and I'm not so I don't.

Funnily enough you're still vulnerable to basic formal fallacies, as
the sentence above illustrates.

because algorithm parallelisation is frequently non-trivial.

Few things worth doing are trivial,

You wanted a touché but settled for a cliché?

but fortunately for us most physical
processes are inherently parallel as are most algorithms that are of
interest such as video and audio processing, playing chess, making quantum
mechanical calculations, understanding speech, language translation, weather
forecasting, car driving, Higgs particle hunting, and the sort of thinking
Watson did on Jeopardy.

Yes, and in Nature they run on inherently parallel hardware. With von
Neumann class computers we are stitching together sequential machines
and trying to make them operate in a parallel way. This leads to very
though problems like race conditions and deadlocks. One possible way
out is the use of purely functional languages like Haskel, but
implementing I/O in a purely functional way is also tough.

Also, the CAP theorem imposes a theoretical limit on the capabilities
of distributed computers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem

Most of these difficulties can be surmounted, but at a cost. The
higher the number of cores, the higher the cost. To make Moore's law
work, people apply simple arithmetics (like adding the number of
transistors) and ignore all these problems.

I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a good chess program

A chess program good enough to beat the best human player could be run on
very primitive 1997 hardware, therefore I am not underestimating the
complexity of a good chess program. QED.

It cannot be achieved with a few tweaks on a completely different
program like Watson, which was what you were implying. It's not like
the developers of Watson just said: hey, we've created a very
intelligent system, let's just throw some grand-master level chess
playing capabilities in there.

can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess game and update his
view of the world

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

there aren't as many brain surgeon-level fields that require maniacal
focus for competence as

people seem to think.

I would maintain that for the last 200 years every major advance in science
or mathematics has come from specialists.

The Moore's law marches on if you allow for multi-cores after a certain
date and not before a certain date.

I have no idea what that means, but I do know that the human brain is a
multi-core machine, we know there are at least 2 million cortical columns
in it and probably more.

Also, the CAP theorem imposes a theoretical limit on the capabilities of
distributed computers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAP_theorem

So what? All parts of the human brain can't see the same data at the same
time either, and if one cortical column can send a signal to another
cortical column indicating that data has or has not been successfully
received nobody has ever found it, probably because it doesn't exist.

Most of these difficulties can be surmounted, but at a cost. The higher
the number of cores, the higher the cost.

Unless the cost per core falls faster than the number of cores increases,
so you can double the number of cores every 18 months and keep the cost
constant.

To make Moore's law work, people apply simple arithmetics (like adding
the number of transistors) and ignore all these problems.

Yes, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.

A chess program good enough to beat the best human player could be run
on very primitive 1997 hardware, therefore I am not underestimating the
complexity of a good chess program. QED.

It cannot be achieved with a few tweaks on a completely different
program like Watson,

Now you're just being silly. There are chess playing programs that you
could download and run in 2 minutes that would turn the very computer
you're reading this message on into a machine that could beat Deep Blue of
1997 at Chess. Are you trying to tell me that mighty Watson couldn't do
what your puny little Walmart special can do??!

It's not like the developers of Watson just said: hey, we've created a
very intelligent system, let's just throw some grand-master level chess
playing capabilities in there.

You are entirely incorrect, IT IS EXACTLY PRECISELY LIKE THAT! The
inability of humans to grasp this basic abillity that computers have that
they themselves do not is what causes them to VASTLY underrate the changes
that computers will make to society and even changes in what species is at
the top of the food chain.

Can he read a text about learning strategies and update his own learning
strategy accordingly?

No Watson can't do that and I can't either, I read a lot but I've never
read a learning strategies self help book that was worth a bucket of warm
spit. Watson can however learn new algorithms.

I'm making a distinction between generic and domain-specific
intelligence.

Watson can play Chess better than anyone, Watson can diagnose diseases
better than most doctors, Watson can solve equations you couldn't dream of
solving and Watson is the world champion at Jeopardy which means he's at
least as good a conversationalist and can engage in small talk at least as
well as a autistic human being like Gregory Perelman and probably a good
deal better than one of the principle founders of quantum mechanics Paul
Dirac. So exactly what is this grand difference between generic and
domain-specific intelligence that you're trying to make?

I actually care about the goal of AGI

I care about AI but I care little about Adjusted Gross Income or the
American Geological Institute.

Turns out that autism can really make you focused.

Yes.

So what?

So saying that Watson is autistic is very different from saying Watson is
unintelligent.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

The learned men  confuse the mathematical tools with the
physical reality and therefore we have math-physical  fairy-tales.
=.

On Feb 14, 5:39 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 14 Feb 2013, at 08:48, socra...@bezeqint.net wrote:

Euler's Equation and the Reality of Nature.
=.
Mr. Dexter Sinister  wrote:
‘ I understand Euler's Identity,
and I know what it means, and I know how to prove it,
there's nothing particularly mystical about it,
it just demonstrates that exponential, trigonometric,
and complex functions are related.
Given what we know of mathematics it shouldn't surprise
anyone that its various bits are connected.
It would be much more surprising if they weren't, that would
almost certainly mean something was badly wrong somewhere.’

Mr. Gary wrote:
Mathematics is NOT science.
Science is knowledge of the REAL world.
Mathematics is an invention of the mind.

This is of course false in the comp theory.

It is also intuitively false for most mathematicians.

It is usually asserted by people confusing the mathematical tools,
that we invent indeed, and the mathematical reality, which is really a
sequence of surprising facts, that we discover.

The use of REAL world is dogmatic physicalism. It proposes as a fact
what is a theological or metaphysical hypothesis, and this condemns
any attempt to be rigorous on the subject. It is as bad as using God
as a gap explanation. It is the same mistake.

Bruno

Many aspects of mathematics have found application
in the real world, but there is no guarantee.
Any correlation must meet the ultimate test:
does it explain something about the real world?
As an electrical engineer I used the generalized
Euler's equation all the time in circuit analysis:

exp(j*theta) = cos(theta) + j*sin(theta).

So it works at that particular level in electricity.
Does it work at other levels, too?
Logic cannot prove it.
It must be determined by experiment, not by philosophizing.
..
Thinking about theirs posts I wrote brief article:
Euler's Equation and Reality.
=.
a)
Euler's Equation as a mathematical reality.
Euler's identity is the gold standard for mathematical beauty'.
Euler's identity is the most famous formula in all mathematics.
‘ . . . this equation is the mathematical analogue of  Leonardo
da Vinci’s Mona Lisa painting or Michelangelo’s statue of David’
‘It  is God’s equation.’, ‘ It is a mathematical icon.’
. . . .  etc.
b)
Euler's Equation as a physical reality.
it is absolutely paradoxical; we cannot understand it,
and we don't know what it means, .  . . . .’
‘ Euler's Equation reaches down into the very depths of existence’
‘ Is Euler's Equation about fundamental matters?’
‘It would be nice to understand Euler's Identity as a physical process
using physics.‘
‘ Is it possible to unite Euler's Identity with physics, quantum
physics ?’
==.
My aim is to understand the reality of nature.
Can Euler's equation explain me something about reality?
To give the answer to this question I need to bind
Euler's equation with an object - particle.
Can it  be math- point or string- particle or triangle-particle?
No, Euler's formula has quantity (pi) which says me that
the particle must be only a circle .
Now I want to understand the behavior of circle - particle and
therefore I need to use spatial relativity and quantum theories.
These two theories say me that the reason of circle – particle’s
movement  is its own inner impulse (h) or  (h*=h/2pi).
a)
Using  its own inner impulse (h) circle - particle moves
( as a wheel) in a straight line with constant speed c = 1.
We call such particle - ‘photon’.
From Earth – gravity point of view this speed is maximally.
From Vacuum point of view this speed is minimally.
In this movement quantum of light behave as a corpuscular (no charge).
b)
Using  its own inner impulse / intrinsic angular momentum
( h* = h / 2pi ) circle - particle  rotates around its axis.
In such movement particle has charge, produce electric waves
( waves property of particle) and its speed ( frequency) is :  c1.
We call such particle - ‘ electron’  and its  energy is:  E=h*f.

In this way I (as a peasant ) can understand the reality of nature.
==.
I reread my post.
My God, that is a naïve peasant's explanation.
It is absolutely not scientific, not professor's explanation.
Would a learned man adopt such simple and naive explanation?
Hmm,  . . .   problem.
In any way, even Mr. Dexter Sinister  and Mr. Gary
wouldn't agree with me, I want to say them
' Thank you for emails and cooperation’
=.
Best wishes.
=.
P.S.
' They would play a greater and greater role in mathematics –
and then, with the advent of quantum mechanics in the twentieth
century, in physics and engineering and any field that deals with
cyclical phenomena such as

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:49 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful
supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than five
minutes to find and download a free chess playing program on the internet
that if run on the very machine you're writing your posts on that would beat
the hell out of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson had a sub sub
sub routine that enabled it to play Chess at least as well as Depp Blue,

Maybe (although I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a good
chess program). But can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess game
and update his view of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text and
figure out how to play better? I'm not saying that these things are
impossible, just that they haven't been achieved yet.

after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to be
Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be added
at virtually no cost.

But could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself? Because you could ask
that of a person. Or to go and learn to fish.

I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any of
its behavior as reflecting intelligence.

If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one
second in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon
so you don't.

Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic.

The main reason Watson and similar programs fail to have human like
intelligence is that they lack human like values and motivations

True, but they could have generic intelligence -- the ability to learn
something new in a new domain, just by being told to do it. Such
slaves would be tremendously useful and free us from labor. There is
no lack of motivation to create such things.

- and deliberately so

Deliberately implies that we have the option. I'm pretty sure a lot of
people would very much like to create an artificial human, but they
failed so far.

because we don't want them to be making autonomous decisions
based on their internal values.  That's why I usually take something like an
advanced Mars rover as an example of intelligence.

I agree, but not general intelligence.

Telmo.

Being largely autonomous
a Mars rover must have a hierarchy of values that it acts on.

Bretn

--
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
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/13/2013 3:10 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

The main reason Watson and similar programs fail to have human like
intelligence is that they lack human like values and motivations

True, but they could have generic intelligence -- the ability to learn
something new in a new domain, just by being told to do it.

I don't know if that could work.  If you wanted the robot to learn to do some task you'd
have stand there and say learn this, no learn that, learn this,...  Being able to learn
already requires some degree of generality.

Such
slaves would be tremendously useful and free us from labor. There is
no lack of motivation to create such things.

- and deliberately so

Deliberately implies that we have the option. I'm pretty sure a lot of
people would very much like to create an artificial human, but they
failed so far.

As Bruno would say, the want to create human level *competence*. But they haven't thought
about the problem of that entailing human level intelligence (although some have, c.f.
John McCarthy's website).

because we don't want them to be making autonomous decisions
based on their internal values.  That's why I usually take something like an
advanced Mars rover as an example of intelligence.

I agree, but not general intelligence.

I as my professor used to say, Artificial intelligence is just whatever can't be
done yet.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

So far, nobody has been able to figure out a learning algorithm as
generic as the one our brains contains.

The developers of Watson have come very close to doing exactly that.

there is definitely room for generalists.

Then why don't family doctors recommend that their patient see a
generalists when they run into a particular problem they can't handle?

Einstein might have been a great scientist in any field.

Perhaps Einstein could have been great in ANY field, but he most certainly
could not have been great in EVERY field.

Watson and Deep Blue cannot change their minds.

The great thing about computers is that every time they run a new program
they quite literally CHANGE THEIR MINDS.

Deep Blue beat the world human chess champion and it required a
supercomputer to do so, but that was 16 years ago and Moore's law marches
on;

Sort of.

There is no sort of about it, Moore's law marches on. In 1994 I bought
one of the most powerful PC's in the world, it had a one core
microprocessor running at 5 *10^7 cycles per second with 8*10^6 bytes of
solid state memory and a 2*10^8 byte hard drive and cost me \$4000 in
expensive 1994 dollars; Today I am using a 4 core microprocessor running at
3.4 *10^9 cycles per second with 1.6 *10^10 bytes of solid state memory and
a 2*10^12 byte hard drive and it cost me \$2000 in in much cheaper 2012
dollars.

Now it's progressing due to multi-core architectures, which one could
consider cheating

If I grew up on a farm and was retarded I might consider that cheating too,
but I didn't and I'm not so I don't.

because algorithm parallelisation is frequently non-trivial.

Few things worth doing are trivial, but fortunately for us most physical
processes are inherently parallel as are most algorithms that are of
interest such as video and audio processing, playing chess, making quantum
mechanical calculations, understanding speech, language translation,
weather forecasting, car driving, Higgs particle hunting, and the sort of
thinking Watson did on Jeopardy.

I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a good chess program

A chess program good enough to beat the best human player could be run on
very primitive 1997 hardware, therefore I am not underestimating the
complexity of a good chess program. QED.

can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess game and update his view
of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text and figure out how to play
better?

Yes, Watson can and does learn from his mistakes

could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself?

Yes, Watson spent many many hours organizing the vast amount of information
it contained and figuring out what it did wrong when it provided incorrect
answers in the past and trying new ways to improve performance. As a result
even the programers of Watson had no way of knowing what that machine would
do next; when Watson was asked a question they had to just watch and wait
to see what sort of response he would give just like everybody else. The
only way to know what Watson would do is to just watch him and see.

If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one
second in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon
so you don't.

Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic.

Gregory Perelman is a mathematical genius who made the most important
advance in pure mathematics in the last 10 years, Perelman is also
autistic. Perelman is certainly not a genius about every aspect of human
endeavor, he recently turned down a \$1,000,000 prize for proving the
Poincare Conjecture even though he's almost homeless. Perelman has his
faults but would you really want to say he is not intelligent?

Another example is Richard Borcherds, he is also a mathematician and he won
the Field's Medal, in prestige it is the mathematical equivalent to the
Nobel Prize. Borcherds admits that he has been officially diagnosed with
having Asperger's syndrome, a condition closely related to autism.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 11 Feb 2013, at 18:30, John Clark wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote

The Watson program is competent, but I doubt it makes sense to say
it is intelligent.

Just like with God and atheist it looks like we're back at the
tired old game of redefining words. Using the normal meaning of
intelligent if somebody can beat you at checkers and chess and
equation solving and Jeopardy then they are more intelligent than
you at those activities.

It is better to use the term competence. Competence depends on
domain. I use intelligence for a deeper ability which does not need to
be domain dependent. Yet it is needed to develop many sort of
competence.

So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent.

It is competent in jeopardy.

And just today news was released that Watson is well on its way at
becoming better than human doctors at diagnosing disease.

http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/clinical-systems/ibm-watson-helps-doctors-fight-cancer/240148236

Making it competent in that domain.
Intelligence is a more general mind state making it possible to be
flexible, to get jokes, to get bored, to take distance, to be curious,
to find new questions, to develop modesty, ...

I am open to the idea that universal number are initially intelligent,
but lost that intelligence when specializing too much (as they might
lost also their universality).

Intelligence is something emotional, and it relates consciousness and
the many possible competence. Like universality, intelligence is
domain independent.

He lacks the self-reference needed to make sense of intelligence,

Watson can do even better than make sense out of intelligence,
Watson can make concrete actions out of intelligence, among many
other things Watson can move chess pieces around in such a way as to
beat you or any other human in a game.

I can beat Watson in chess. Watson, if I remember correctly, is
competent in Jeopardy, and only in Jeopardy. But that's besides the
point. I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see
any of its behavior as reflecting intelligence. Today I see this in
animals and humans. Perhaps plants on some different scales.
Intelligence, like consciousness, cannot be judged by others, unlike
competence. But it can be locally appreciated, though.

Bruno

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.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent.

It is competent in jeopardy.

And the enormously impressive thing about Watson is that unlike Chess
Jeopardy is not a specialized game, you could get asked about anything from
cosmology to cosmetology. And even if the language used to communicate with
Watson is far more convoluted than everyday speech and is full of analogies
poetic allusions and even very bad puns Watson can still figure out what
information you desire and then provide it.

just today news was released that Watson is well on its way at becoming
better than human doctors at diagnosing disease.

http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/clinical-systems/ibm-watson-helps-doctors-fight-cancer/240148236

Making it competent in that domain.

How many domains does something need to have genius level competence in
before you admit it's pretty damn smart? Even human polymaths, those who
are a genius at everything have gone extinct. In the days of Leonardo da
Vinci one smart man could know all the science and mathematics that there
was in the world to know, but that stopped being possible about 200 years
ago. Today humans need to specialize, the best even the brightest among us
can hope for is to be a genius in one domain, be pretty good in another,
know a little bit about 2 or 3 others, and be almost clueless about
everything else.

I can beat Watson in chess.

I doubt that very very much.

Watson, if I remember correctly, is  competent in Jeopardy, and only in
Jeopardy.

Bruno, Deep Blue beat the world human chess champion and it required a
supercomputer to do so, but that was 16 years ago and Moore's law marches
on; I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most
powerful supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than
five minutes to find and download a free chess playing program on the
internet that if run on the very machine you're writing your posts on that
would beat the hell out of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson
had a sub sub sub routine that enabled it to play Chess at least as well as
Depp Blue, after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn
out to be Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could
be added at virtually no cost.

I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any of
its behavior as reflecting intelligence.

If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one
second in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon
so you don't.

Intelligence, like consciousness, cannot be judged by others

That is ridiculous, I'll bet you personally have made that judgement at
least 10 times a day every single day of your life.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

Hi John,

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:53 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013  Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent.

It is competent in jeopardy.

And the enormously impressive thing about Watson is that unlike Chess
Jeopardy is not a specialized game, you could get asked about anything from
cosmology to cosmetology.

They operate in two completely different domains (min-max trees vs.
semantic networks) and they are both highly specialised for their
respective domains.

And even if the language used to communicate with Watson is far more
convoluted than everyday speech and is full of analogies poetic allusions
and even very bad puns Watson can still figure out what information you
desire and then provide it.

just today news was released that Watson is well on its way at becoming
better than human doctors at diagnosing disease.

http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/clinical-systems/ibm-watson-helps-doctors-fight-cancer/240148236

Making it competent in that domain.

How many domains does something need to have genius level competence in
before you admit it's pretty damn smart?

It's not the number of domains, it's the potential to learn to operate in
new ones. So far, nobody has been able to figure out a learning algorithm
as generic as the one our brains contains.

Even human polymaths, those who are a genius at everything have gone
extinct. In the days of Leonardo da Vinci one smart man could know all the
science and mathematics that there was in the world to know, but that
stopped being possible about 200 years ago. Today humans need to specialize,

Some think that specialisation is for insects. Nobody needs' to do
anything except to conform to some social norm. I see the benefits of
specialisation (beyond being able to secure a job, which is a good part of
it), but there is definitely room for generalists.

the best even the brightest among us can hope for is to be a genius in one
domain, be pretty good in another, know a little bit about 2 or 3 others,
and be almost clueless about everything else.

But they can chose which ones along the way. Intuitively, Einstein might
have been a great scientist in any field. Watson and Deep Blue cannot
change their minds and chose something else.

I can beat Watson in chess.

I doubt that very very much.

Watson, if I remember correctly, is  competent in Jeopardy, and only in
Jeopardy.

Bruno, Deep Blue beat the world human chess champion and it required a
supercomputer to do so, but that was 16 years ago and Moore's law marches
on;

Sort of. Now it's progressing due to multi-core architectures, which one
could consider cheating because algorithm parallelisation is frequently
non-trivial.

I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most
powerful supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than
five minutes to find and download a free chess playing program on the
internet that if run on the very machine you're writing your posts on that
would beat the hell out of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson
had a sub sub sub routine that enabled it to play Chess at least as well as
Depp Blue,

Maybe (although I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a good
chess program). But can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess game
and update his view of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text and
figure out how to play better? I'm not saying that these things are
impossible, just that they haven't been achieved yet.

after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to be
Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be added
at virtually no cost.

But could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself? Because you could ask
that of a person. Or to go and learn to fish.

I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any of
its behavior as reflecting intelligence.

If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one
second in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon
so you don't.

Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic.

Telmo.

Intelligence, like consciousness, cannot be judged by others

That is ridiculous, I'll bet you personally have made that judgement at
least 10 times a day every single day of your life.

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
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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards it
is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful
supercomputer in the
world. I'll wager it would take you less than five minutes to find and
free chess playing program on the internet that if run on the very machine
you're
writing your posts on that would beat the hell out of you. It wouldn't
surprise me
at all if Watson had a sub sub sub routine that enabled it to play Chess at
least as
well as Depp Blue,

Maybe (although I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a good chess
program). But can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess game and update his view
of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text and figure out how to play better? I'm
not saying that these things are impossible, just that they haven't been achieved yet.

after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to be
Chess. And
if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be added at
virtually no cost.

But could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself? Because you could ask that of a
person. Or to go and learn to fish.

I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any
of its
behavior as reflecting intelligence.

If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one
second in
calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon so you
don't.

Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic.

The main reason Watson and similar programs fail to have human like intelligence is that
they lack human like values and motivations - and deliberately so because we don't want
them to be making autonomous decisions based on their internal values.  That's why I
usually take something like an advanced Mars rover as an example of intelligence.  Being
largely autonomous a Mars rover must have a hierarchy of values that it acts on.

Bretn

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:49:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most
powerful supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than
five minutes to find and download a free chess playing program on the
internet that if run on the very machine you're writing your posts on that
would beat the hell out of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson
had a sub sub sub routine that enabled it to play Chess at least as well as
Depp Blue,

Maybe (although I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a
good chess program). But can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess
game and update his view of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text
and figure out how to play better? I'm not saying that these things are
impossible, just that they haven't been achieved yet.

after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to
be Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be
added at virtually no cost.

But could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself? Because you could
ask that of a person. Or to go and learn to fish.

I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see any
of its behavior as reflecting intelligence.

If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one
second in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon
so you don't.

Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic.

The main reason Watson and similar programs fail to have human like
intelligence is that they lack human like values and motivations - and
deliberately so because we don't want them to be making autonomous
decisions based on their internal values.  That's why I usually take
something like an advanced Mars rover as an example of intelligence.  Being
largely autonomous a Mars rover must have a hierarchy of values that it
acts on.

Just because something performs actions doesn't mean that it has values or
motivations. As you say, we don't want them to be making autonomous
decisions based on their internal values - and they don't, and they
wouldn't even if we did want that, because there is no internal value
possible with a machine. Values arise directly and indirectly through
experience, but a machine is just a collection of parts which embody very
simple experiences that never evolve or grow.

Craig

Bretn

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/12/2013 4:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Tuesday, February 12, 2013 5:49:04 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/12/2013 2:40 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

I don't know what sort of computer your typed you post on but by 1997
standards
it is almost certainly a supercomputer, probably the most powerful
supercomputer in the world. I'll wager it would take you less than five
minutes
to find and download a free chess playing program on the internet that
if run
on the very machine you're writing your posts on that would beat the
hell out
of you. It wouldn't surprise me at all if Watson had a sub sub sub
routine that
enabled it to play Chess at least as well as Depp Blue,

Maybe (although I believe you're underestimating the complexity of a good
chess
program). But can Watson, for example, introspect on the chess game and
update his
view of the world accordingly? Can he read a new text and figure out how to
play
better? I'm not saying that these things are impossible, just that they
haven't
been achieved yet.

after all you never know when the subject of Jeopardy will turn out to
be
Chess. And if Watson didn't already have this capability it could be
virtually no cost.

But could you ask Watson to go and learn by himself? Because you could ask
that of
a person. Or to go and learn to fish.

I have no doubt that Watson is quite competent, but I don't see
any of
its behavior as reflecting intelligence.

If a person did half of what Watson did you would not hesitate for one
second
in calling him intelligent, but Watson is made of silicon not carbon so
you don't.

Nor for another second in considering him/her profoundly autistic.

The main reason Watson and similar programs fail to have human like
intelligence is
that they lack human like values and motivations - and deliberately so
because we
don't want them to be making autonomous decisions based on their internal values.
That's why I usually take something like an advanced Mars rover as an example of

intelligence.  Being largely autonomous a Mars rover must have a hierarchy
of values
that it acts on.

Just because something performs actions doesn't mean that it has values or motivations.
As you say, we don't want them to be making autonomous decisions based on their
internal values - and they don't, and they wouldn't even if we did want that, because
there is no internal value possible with a machine. Values arise directly and indirectly
through experience, but a machine is just a collection of parts which embody very simple
experiences that never evolve or grow.

More fallacious and unsupported assertions.  Machines can grow and learn - though of
course in applications we try to give them as much knowledge as we can initially.  But
that's why Mars rovers are a good example.  The builders and programmers have only limited
knowledge of what will be encountered and so instead of trying to anticipate every
possibility they have to provide for some ability to learn from experience.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 10 Feb 2013, at 19:38, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

Consciousness might be the unconscious

Okey dokey, and if you allow that X is not X you can prove or
disprove anything you like.

Please, quote the entire sentence. It was:

Consciousness might be the unconscious, i.e. instinctive and
automated, belief or bet in a reality, or self-consistency (for
machine expressing their beliefs in first order languages)

And OK, I should have said might be the result of the unconscious
instinctive bet in a reality.

Consciousness accelerates the growing of intelligence

Then it would be easier to make a intelligent conscious computer
than a intelligent unconscious computer,

OK.

so if you see a smart computer it's safest to assume it's conscious,
just like with people.

smart is ambiguous. Competence can be imitated. You don't need much
intelligence for behaving like if you did, like you can copy an atomic
bomb, without understanding how that can be discovered. So competent
behavior is not necessarily a symptom of intelligence, nor of
consciousness. But intelligence allows the grow of competence, and the
variation of the domain competence. The Watson program is competent,
but I doubt it makes sense to say it is intelligent. He lacks the self-
reference needed to make sense of intelligence, imo.

But consciousness and emotion can make competence having negative
feedback on intelligence.

So consciousness accelerates and decelerates intelligence. Huh?

Yes.
Human histories might illustrate this, and that might be part of why
great civilization can come to an end.

It is also coherent with my older theory of human intelligence: it is
the natural state of the humans before getting adult.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 10 Feb 2013, at 23:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:

What makes computers useful is that they have no capacity to object
to drudgery. That is the capacity which is inseparable from
unconsciousness.

That is what slaves are useful at. And that does not make slaves
unconscious. It makes them only oppressed.

And humans have to do an hard work to maintain them in that mood. It
is called programming. With AI, we let much more the machine explore
possibilities, and look inward.

When we talk about computer, it is better to look at the basic
(mathematical) notion, than to their current and contingent
incarnations.

If a robotic silicon Craig-like machine could look at the early
bacteria on this planet, he would say, ---those organic creatures are
quite dumb and unconsconscious---I feel it.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote

The Watson program is competent, but I doubt it makes sense to say it is
intelligent.

Just like with God and atheist it looks like we're back at the tired
old game of redefining words. Using the normal meaning of intelligent if
somebody can beat you at checkers and chess and equation solving and
Jeopardy then they are more intelligent than you at those activities. So if
Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent.

And just today news was released that Watson is well on its way at becoming
better than human doctors at diagnosing disease.

http://www.informationweek.com/healthcare/clinical-systems/ibm-watson-helps-doctors-fight-cancer/240148236

He lacks the self-reference needed to make sense of intelligence,

Watson can do even better than make sense out of intelligence, Watson can
make concrete actions out of intelligence, among many other things Watson
can move chess pieces around in such a way as to beat you or any other
human in a game.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/11/2013 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote:
Watson can do even better than make sense out of intelligence, Watson can make concrete
actions out of intelligence, among many other things Watson can move chess pieces around
in such a way as to beat you or any other human in a game.

Actually I'm not sure Watson is any good at chess.  It was Big Blue that beat
chessmasters.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Monday, February 11, 2013 11:24:34 AM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 10 Feb 2013, at 23:16, Craig Weinberg wrote:

What makes computers useful is that they have no capacity to object to
drudgery. That is the capacity which is inseparable from unconsciousness.

That is what slaves are useful at. And that does not make slaves
unconscious. It makes them only oppressed.

Are you saying that slaves have no capacity to object to drudgery? I didn't
mean just that we could put computers in shackles and beat them to force
their compliance, I mean that they ontologically lack the capacity to
object, even emotionally, to anything at all.

If there were no threat of slave uprisings, no chains or rage or simmering
hostility then of course we would still have slaves all over the world.

And humans have to do an hard work to maintain them in that mood. It is
called programming. With AI, we let much more the machine explore
possibilities, and look inward.

It is hard to take you position seriously Bruno. I do, and I respect you
and your position, but I don't know that there is anything that I can do if
you cannot discern between enslavement by violence and coercion and
changing a line of code in a program. You talk about 1p but I don't think
that you only allow a toy model of it.

When we talk about computer, it is better to look at the basic
(mathematical) notion, than to their current and contingent incarnations.

That's just a permutation of 'Do as I say, not as I do'. Why would you want
to take the empirical evidence off the table? If we are going to talk about
computers as they should be in theory, then we should talk about people
that way also. Lets just assume that there will always be able to tell the
difference between a computer and a person because humans will continue to
develop ways of testing them.

If a robotic silicon Craig-like machine could look at the early bacteria
on this planet, he would say, ---those organic creatures are quite dumb
and unconsconscious---I feel it.

You are on the wrong track entirely. You are projecting onto me the image
of a Luddite, when in fact what you suggest is old hat to me. This is what
I grew up on. Craig in high school agrees with you. It wasn't right though.
It turns out that consciousness is far deeper and richer than is imagined
by comp. Consciousness is not just an intellectual maze of logics and
guesses, it is the ground of being itself. I have no problem with silicon
being more alive than carbon - it is not about that at all, it is about
facing the reality of the cosmic narrative and not sweeping the odd parts
under the carpet.

The fact is, that there are no alternate biologies that we are aware of nor
that we have created. The fact is that AI has not successfully instilled
any degree of feeling into a program. These should not be dismissed by
everyone just because some are enthusiastic supporters of their being
irrelevant. There is something quite significant about the difference
between life and death to us, and our bodies echo that by being violently
opposed to an inorganic diet. We can only live on other living things. That
doesn't make much sense in a comp universe - it could be justified I'm
sure, but we really don't have to bend over backward to make comp seem
true. It can simply be almost true, but actually false.

Craig

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

The situation in ' philosophy of physics'.
=.
‘ Suddenly I realized that a nagual did have one point to
defend - in my opinion, a passionate defense for the
'description of the Eagle', and 'what the Eagle does'.

But what kind of a force would the Eagle be?

I would not know how to answer that.
The Eagle is as real for the seers as gravity and time
are for you, and just as abstract and incomprehensible.

Those are abstract concepts, but they do refer to
real phenomena  that can be corroborated. .

He said that the Eagle's emanations are an immutable
thing-in-itself, which engulfs everything that exists;
the knowable and the unknowable.

There is no way to describe in words what the Eagle's
emanations really are,  . . . .  .
. . . . . .  .   etc . . .
.
/ The Fire From Within. ©1984 By Carlos Castaneda.
Chapter 03 - The Eagle's Emanations. /
http://aquakeys.com/toltec/fire-from-within-chapter_03-eagles-emanations
==..
Their dialogue is a good example for description the situation
in ' philosophy of physics'  when the stupidity has  a mandate
from the physicists  to explain us the ‘philosophy of physics’.
==.
Socratus
=.

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 08 Feb 2013, at 17:23, John Clark wrote:

... consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence.

Consciousness might be the unconscious, i.e. instinctive and
automated, belief or bet in a reality, or self-consistency (for
machine expressing their beliefs in first order languages), so that
new programs can doubt old programs. Its selective advantage is the
self-speeding up provided by such bets. That's is useful for self-
moving entities, which have to anticipate quickly how their
neighborhood evolves relatively to them.

This makes all Löbian systems conscious and self-conscious. But it is
not the system which is conscious, but the abstract person incarnated
and multiplied in all computations going through the systems' states
(which exist in arithmetic by Church's thesis).

Consciousness accelerates the growing of intelligence, which is needed
to develop different competence, and to make competence growing. But
consciousness and emotion can make competence having negative feedback
on intelligence.

Consciousness is the ultimate first person decider in the matter of
first person good and bad.
Trivially, to be burned would not been first person felt as bad if it
was not conscious.

Consciousness can perhaps be characterized by the semantical fixed
point of an attempt of universal doubting procedure. It is what would
remain in case you doubt of (almost) everything. (Slezak defended a
similar idea, which is already in the talk of the sound self-
referential machine).

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 09 Feb 2013, at 00:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Outside of consciousness, there is no possibility of discerning any
difference between accidental byproducts and selected products. Only
consciousness selects. Only consciousness has accidents.

Good point.

But this does not make consciousness a good fundamental concept to
which we can depart. With computaionalism the number are better.
Consciousness is when number relation supports local person's belief
in a reality or in a truth.

Bruno

Craig

On Friday, February 8, 2013 5:53:18 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 2/8/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote:

I don't know what you mean by that, what I mean is that
consciousness is a spandrel, it is the unavoidable result of
intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29

Or it could be an accidental byproduct of the way human intelligence
developed - unavoidable only in the sense that it was the only
reachable intelligent starting from hominds.  Evolution can only
move species to local maxima of fitness.

In Roland Omnes recent book he imagines an alien race that has
enormous memory capacity, so that simply remember everything that
has happened and what was done and when the need to make a decision
they just do the thing that turned out best in the past.  It's Omnes
caricature of Hume's theory of cause and effect.  But his idea is
that such aliens wouldn't develop 'theories' as we do to summarize
past events.  Would they be conscious?  I don't know, but I'd guess
they wouldn't be conscious in the way I am (I don't remember what I
had for breakfast yesterday...but I have a theory).

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 09 Feb 2013, at 11:05, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 1:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
I totally agree with that, what I don't agree is when you say the
moment you're becoming Telmo again, you should lose *all* cat
memories/feeling... I totally disagree with that unless you have
some proof it should be so.

Sure, I have no proof, I'm just speculating. But what I'm
speculating is the following:

- You need a significant part of the brain of the cat to be able to
understand its memories;
- You need a significant part of the brain of Telmo to have Telmo
feel like he remembers something;
- For Telmo to remember cat memories, you need both brains and an
interface between them -- this would result in a new entity that is
neither Telmo nor the cat.

The problem is that we don't know the comp subst level of the cat, but
for Telmo to, to have the experience of the cat, would be like a sort
of amnesia of what humans learned since they were equivalent to cat in
complexity in their past lives, and then having experience like
climbing trees, etc. Then, if the amnesia was just a memory
dissociation, you can wake up and see it like dream, where you can
remember having different memories.
We can't be sure that it was a cat experience, but it *might* be, or
close enough to make sense to Quentin's proposition.
It might be harder for a cat to dream having a human experience, as
our brain are reasonably more complex than the cat experience, though.
But even this might still be conceptually possible, except that waking
up, that cat has become a human (unless he forgets the whole dream).

Bruno

Quentin

My argument is based on abstract CS, not hard drives or other
technicalities.

write-only does not have to be for everybody. But it's still a
technical disgression and it is discussing the number of angels on a
pin for now.

I think it's a deep question.

It's not unless you have good working knowledge of the question.

Also, the fact that you can't imagine a solution yourself, doesn't
mean there isn't one, lack of imagination is also not an argument.

I agree, but it's an intuition.

Well...

Quentin

Regards,
Quentin

Regards,
Quentin

For example, to store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing
a tree, I would have to access my human representation of a tree to
connect the memories to it, but accessing my human representation of
a tree would spoil my cat experience.

Regards,
Quentin

And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and
that a cat's consciousness differs in both respects.  There's
consciousness of being an individual and of being located in 3-space
and in time.  You and the cat have both of those (whereas a Mars
rover only has the latter).  But there's language and narrative
memory that you have and the cat doesn't.  There's reflective
thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about myself and where I fit in
the world.  The cat probably doesn't have this because it's not
social - but a dog might.

But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it
just the general property of being conscious instantiated in
different contexts? The fact that you believe you can turn me into a
cat seems to indicate that ultimately you believe that consciousness
is all the same.

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.

--
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.

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

--
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

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 09 Feb 2013, at 23:38, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 7:00 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:

snip

If you're still want to go on the technical detail, then give real
technical insight of how the mind works and what can really prevent
that

One insight is that the human brains stores information in an
associative, decentralised memory. The way it retrieves information
is by walking through a network of associations. Every new
information I experience is stored in relation to my personal diary.
Me and the cat have different personal diaries. What I'm proposing
-- and it's not a technical argument -- is that to _know_ how it
feels to be a cat you would have to receive information in relation
to the cat's personal diary, and that the presence of your own
personal diary would spoil the experience, because then you also see
things from you perspective and not the pure 1p cat perspective. I'm
not saying, however, that it is impossible to somehow inject
memories into my brain that are translations of the cat's memory
into my own context.

(no, you're lack of knowledge is not argument against it).

I never used my lack of knowledge as an argument -- although it's
abundant in many ways. I said I don't know of an algorithm that can
write new information to a coherent memory without also reading it.
But I was being polite. I believe nobody can produce such an
algorithm.

But you can read memory and forget it, or even read memory without
making it personal, and so disconnect them from other memories.
In practice, we can't both do it and prove that we have done it, but
that's different. It can be done in principle. I would say.

Bruno

Cheers,
Telmo.

Regards,
Quentin

this would result in a new entity that is neither Telmo nor the cat.

Quentin

My argument is based on abstract CS, not hard drives or other
technicalities.

write-only does not have to be for everybody. But it's still a
technical disgression and it is discussing the number of angels on a
pin for now.

I think it's a deep question.

It's not unless you have good working knowledge of the question.

Also, the fact that you can't imagine a solution yourself, doesn't
mean there isn't one, lack of imagination is also not an argument.

I agree, but it's an intuition.

Well...

Quentin

Regards,
Quentin

Regards,
Quentin

For example, to store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing
a tree, I would have to access my human representation of a tree to
connect the memories to it, but accessing my human representation of
a tree would spoil my cat experience.

Regards,
Quentin

And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and
that a cat's consciousness differs in both respects.  There's
consciousness of being an individual and of being located in 3-space
and in time.  You and the cat have both of those (whereas a Mars
rover only has the latter).  But there's language and narrative
memory that you have and the cat doesn't.  There's reflective
thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about myself and where I fit in
the world.  The cat probably doesn't have this because it's not
social - but a dog might.

But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it
just the general property of being conscious instantiated in
different contexts? The fact that you believe you can turn me into a
cat seems to indicate that ultimately you believe that consciousness
is all the same.

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.

--
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.

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

--
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

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 09 Feb 2013, at 23:44, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 08 Feb 2013, at 13:45, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

Well, yes... with computer you could imagine doing just that... so
why not ? Also, the fact that you can't imagine a solution
yourself, doesn't mean there isn't one, lack of imagination is also
not an argument.

I agree. This can happen in dreams. I have personally experience
this a number of times, and I have read similar reports. Actually
Louis Jouvet, the discoverer of the REM dreams, has studied that
phenomenon, in the case of people relating simultaneous unrelated
dreams, and he attributed this to the disfunctionning of the corpus
callosum during the dream phase. It makes momentarily the two
hemisphere independent. It looks like we can integrate different
identities in different past. The result is a bit troubling ...
unless we are already aware of the relative nature of personal
identity. This happens also when using dissociative drugs.
Of course, if Telmo wakes up with the memory of a cat experience, he
will only access of the memory of cat + Telmo, which might biase the
original experience of the cat,

That's exactly all I'm saying.

OK.

but not necessarily so much for a short period of time. This makes
possible to conceive waking up and memorizing more than one past

I have no problem with this, but I'm proposing that for you to have
the 1p experience of another entity, the only solution is to become
the other entity. If a merged 1p of the two entities is achieved, a
new entity with a new 1p is, in fact, created.

OK. But this still makes it possible to agree with Quentin too, as you
can disconnect different memories. The present memory always biases
older memories, so you can live a cat experience, and when you awake
as a human, still have a pretty good idea of what it was like to be a
cat, even if now, you can only live the experience of being a human
remembering what it was like to be a cat, and thus introducing the
unavoidable bias, which does not need to be so great, thanks to local
dissociation. In case you live the experience of a bee, there is the
difficulty that although you might get new qualia for the seeing of
the ultraviolet, you will find hard to relate it with any human
memories, etc.

Bruno

If the many past threads are equivalently realist and coherent, it
leads to a direct understanding of the relative nature of identity,
and the possibility of sharing initial consciousness of ... who? I
let you ponder on this.

Bruno

Regards,
Quentin

Regards,
Quentin

For example, to store the memories on how a cat feels about
climbing a tree, I would have to access my human representation of
a tree to connect the memories to it, but accessing my human
representation of a tree would spoil my cat experience.

Regards,
Quentin

And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and
that a cat's consciousness differs in both respects.  There's
consciousness of being an individual and of being located in 3-
space and in time.  You and the cat have both of those (whereas a
Mars rover only has the latter).  But there's language and
narrative memory that you have and the cat doesn't.  There's
reflective thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about myself and
where I fit in the world.  The cat probably doesn't have this
because it's not social - but a dog might.

But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it
just the general property of being conscious instantiated in
different contexts? The fact that you believe you can turn me into
a cat seems to indicate that ultimately you believe that
consciousness is all the same.

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-
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-
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
.

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

--
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.

--
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

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

Consciousness might be the unconscious

Okey dokey, and if you allow that X is not X you can prove or disprove
anything you like.

Consciousness accelerates the growing of intelligence

Then it would be easier to make a intelligent conscious computer than a
intelligent unconscious computer, so if you see a smart computer it's
safest to assume it's conscious, just like with people.

But consciousness and emotion can make competence having negative
feedback on intelligence.

So consciousness accelerates and decelerates intelligence. Huh?

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 12:15:00 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:

You are convinced that computers and other machines
don't have consciousness, but you can't say what test you will apply
to them and see them fail.

I'm convinced of that because I understand why there is no reason why
they
would have consciousness... there is no 'they' there. Computers are not
born
in a single moment through cell fertilization, they are assembled by
people.
Computers have to be programmed to do absolutely everything, they have
no
capacity to make sense of anything which is not explicitly defined. This
is
the polar opposite of living organisms which are general purpose
entities
who explore and adapt when they can, on their own, for their own
internally
generated motives. Computers lack that completely. We use objects to
compute
for us, but those objects are not actually computing themselves, just as
these letters don't actually mean anything for themselves.

Why would being generated in a single moment through cell
fertilization have any bearing on consciousness?

Because consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time, or
rather through which time is created.

Why would something
created by someone else not have consciousness?

Because it is assembled rather than created. It's like asking why wood
doesn't catch on fire by itself just by stacking it in a pile.

Why would something
lacking internally generated motives (which does not apply to
computers any more than to people) lack consciousness?

Why would computers have an internally generated motive? It doesn't care
whether it functions or not. We know that people have personal motives
because it isn't possible for us to doubt it without doubting our ability
to doubt.

To make these
claims you would have to show either that they are necessarily true or
present empirical evidence in their support, and you have done
neither.

You would have to show that these criteria are relevant for consciousness,
which you have not, and you cannot. As long as you fail to recognize
consciousness as the ground of being, you will continue to justify it
against one of its own products - rationality, logic, empirical examples,
all of which are 100% sensory-motor. Consciousness can only be explained to
consciousness, in the terms of consciousness, to satisfy consciousness. All
other possibilities are subordinate. How could it be otherwise without
ending up with a sterile ontology which prohibits our own participation?

So if, in future, robots live among us for years and are accepted by
most people as conscious, does that mean they are conscious? This is
essentially a form of the Turing test.

I don't think that will happen unless they aren't robots. The whole
point is
that the degree to which an organism is conscious is inversely
proportionate
to the degree that the organism is 100% controllable. That's the purpose
of
intelligence - to advance your own agenda rather than to be overpowered
by
your environment. So if something is a robot, it will never be accepted
by
anyone as conscious, and if something is conscious it will never be
useful
to anyone as a robot - it would in fact be a slave.

You don't think it would happen, but would you be prepared to say that
if a robot did pass the test, as tough as you want to make it, it
would be conscious?

It's like asking me if there were a test for dehydrated water, would I be
prepared to say that it would be wet if it passed the test. No robot can
ever be conscious. Nothing conscious can ever be a robot. Heads cannot be
Tails, even if we move our heads to where the tails side used to be and

Craig

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

Why would being generated in a single moment through cell
fertilization have any bearing on consciousness?

Because consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time, or
rather through which time is created.

That's not an explanation.

Why would something
created by someone else not have consciousness?

Because it is assembled rather than created. It's like asking why wood
doesn't catch on fire by itself just by stacking it in a pile.

That's not an explanation.

Why would something
lacking internally generated motives (which does not apply to
computers any more than to people) lack consciousness?

Why would computers have an internally generated motive? It doesn't care
whether it functions or not. We know that people have personal motives
because it isn't possible for us to doubt it without doubting our ability to
doubt.

You're saying a computer can't be conscious because it would need to
be conscious in order to be conscious.

To make these
claims you would have to show either that they are necessarily true or
present empirical evidence in their support, and you have done
neither.

You would have to show that these criteria are relevant for consciousness,
which you have not, and you cannot.

You make claims such as that a conscious being has to arise at a
moment of fertilization, which is completely without basis. You need
to present some explanation for such claims. Consciousness is a
singularity of perspective through time is not an explanation.

As long as you fail to recognize
consciousness as the ground of being, you will continue to justify it
against one of its own products - rationality, logic, empirical examples,
all of which are 100% sensory-motor. Consciousness can only be explained to
consciousness, in the terms of consciousness, to satisfy consciousness. All
other possibilities are subordinate. How could it be otherwise without
ending up with a sterile ontology which prohibits our own participation?

Again, you've just made up consciousness is the ground of being.
It's like saying consciousness is the light, light is not black, so
black people are not conscious.

You don't think it would happen, but would you be prepared to say that
if a robot did pass the test, as tough as you want to make it, it
would be conscious?

It's like asking me if there were a test for dehydrated water, would I be
prepared to say that it would be wet if it passed the test. No robot can
ever be conscious. Nothing conscious can ever be a robot. Heads cannot be
Tails, even if we move our heads to where the tails side used to be and

So you accept the possibility of zombies, beings which could live
among us and consistently fool everyone into thinking they were
conscious?

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Sunday, February 10, 2013 4:23:52 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 7:06 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:

Why would being generated in a single moment through cell
fertilization have any bearing on consciousness?

Because consciousness is a singularity of perspective through time, or
rather through which time is created.

That's not an explanation.

It's a hypothesis.

Why would something
created by someone else not have consciousness?

Because it is assembled rather than created. It's like asking why wood
doesn't catch on fire by itself just by stacking it in a pile.

That's not an explanation.

It's a hypothesis that is consistent with my model and with observation.

Why would something
lacking internally generated motives (which does not apply to
computers any more than to people) lack consciousness?

Why would computers have an internally generated motive? It doesn't care
whether it functions or not. We know that people have personal motives
because it isn't possible for us to doubt it without doubting our
ability to
doubt.

You're saying a computer can't be conscious because it would need to
be conscious in order to be conscious.

I'm saying that a computer is not physically real. We are using a
collection of physical objects of various sizes as a machine to serve our
motives to do our computations for us. It is not a structure which reflects
an interior motive. What makes computers useful is that they have no
capacity to object to drudgery. That is the capacity which is inseparable
from unconsciousness.

To make these
claims you would have to show either that they are necessarily true or
present empirical evidence in their support, and you have done
neither.

You would have to show that these criteria are relevant for
consciousness,
which you have not, and you cannot.

You make claims such as that a conscious being has to arise at a
moment of fertilization, which is completely without basis. You need
to present some explanation for such claims. Consciousness is a
singularity of perspective through time is not an explanation.

I don't think that a conscious being arises at a moment of fertilization, I
say that fertilization is just one milestone within biological stories. The
stories are what is physically real, the private presentation. The cellular
fusion is a public representation.

I see nothing wrong with observing the singular nature of consciousness and
its role in providing a private perspective in creating time as an
explanation. I don't see that anything that physics has produced is more
explanatory than that. What is energy? What is space? What is quantum?

As long as you fail to recognize
consciousness as the ground of being, you will continue to justify it
against one of its own products - rationality, logic, empirical
examples,
all of which are 100% sensory-motor. Consciousness can only be explained
to
consciousness, in the terms of consciousness, to satisfy consciousness.
All
other possibilities are subordinate. How could it be otherwise without
ending up with a sterile ontology which prohibits our own participation?

Again, you've just made up consciousness is the ground of being.

Not at all. I have eliminated all other possibilities through rational
consideration. It's very simple. A universe which contains only matter or
only information has not possible use for participating perceivers. If you
can provide a reason why or how this would occur, then I would be very
interested and happy to consider your position.

It's like saying consciousness is the light, light is not black, so
black people are not conscious.

Nope. It's like saying that both light and dark are aspects of visual
sense, and that visual sense cannot arise from either light or dark.

You don't think it would happen, but would you be prepared to say that
if a robot did pass the test, as tough as you want to make it, it
would be conscious?

It's like asking me if there were a test for dehydrated water, would I
be
prepared to say that it would be wet if it passed the test. No robot can
ever be conscious. Nothing conscious can ever be a robot. Heads cannot
be
Tails, even if we move our heads to where the tails side used to be and

So you accept the possibility of zombies, beings which could live
among us and consistently fool everyone into thinking they were
conscious?

I don't even believe in the possibility of the word zombie. It is a
misconception based on a misplaced expectation of consciousness in
something which deserves no such expectation - like a puppet or a cartoon.
Do I accept the possibility of puppets or cartoons who could be mistaken by
everyone into thinking they were conscious? In a limited context, sure.
There  could be a

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 2/8/2013 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

My point is that the only possible write algorithm that doesn't read
information that is already stored is one that starts writing at random in
any position. You could erase or corrupt previous information and you have
no index.

I don't see why that should be the case.  The write can be to an allocated
memory area that maintains a pointer.

And then you have to read the pointer before writing. It could be in the
disk, or in memory, or in the cache, or in a processor register. Doesn't
matter, there's a piece of information you have to access. One read
operation buys you sequential writing. The more complex the data structure,
the more reads you will find. I believe the brain contains a very complex
data structure.

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
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 08 Feb 2013, at 13:45, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you
be back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought
experiment which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem
in the first place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we
are in a thought experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive
transferring consciousnes of the cat, then there is no reason we
can't imagine you remember being a cat after the experiment. I'll
agree to talk technical problems the day we would have the first
insight of how to really do it... before, it is just premature to
use technical arguments.

Fair enough, maybe it's my CS bias. But I'm still not convinced this
is a purely technical issue. Can you conceive of any system that
stores information in some coherent way that you can write to

Well, yes... with computer you could imagine doing just that... so
why not ? Also, the fact that you can't imagine a solution yourself,
doesn't mean there isn't one, lack of imagination is also not an
argument.

I agree. This can happen in dreams. I have personally experience this
a number of times, and I have read similar reports. Actually Louis
Jouvet, the discoverer of the REM dreams, has studied that phenomenon,
in the case of people relating simultaneous unrelated dreams, and he
attributed this to the disfunctionning of the corpus callosum during
the dream phase. It makes momentarily the two hemisphere independent.
It looks like we can integrate different identities in different past.
The result is a bit troubling ... unless we are already aware of the
relative nature of personal identity. This happens also when using
dissociative drugs.
Of course, if Telmo wakes up with the memory of a cat experience, he
will only access of the memory of cat + Telmo, which might biase the
original experience of the cat, but not necessarily so much for a
short period of time. This makes possible to conceive waking up and
memorizing more than one past threads. If the many past threads are
equivalently realist and coherent, it leads to a direct understanding
of the relative nature of identity, and the possibility of sharing
initial consciousness of ... who? I let you ponder on this.

Bruno

Regards,
Quentin

Regards,
Quentin

For example, to store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing
a tree, I would have to access my human representation of a tree to
connect the memories to it, but accessing my human representation of
a tree would spoil my cat experience.

Regards,
Quentin

And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and
that a cat's consciousness differs in both respects.  There's
consciousness of being an individual and of being located in 3-space
and in time.  You and the cat have both of those (whereas a Mars
rover only has the latter).  But there's language and narrative
memory that you have and the cat doesn't.  There's reflective
thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about myself and where I fit in
the world.  The cat probably doesn't have this because it's not
social - but a dog might.

But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it
just the general property of being conscious instantiated in
different contexts? The fact that you believe you can turn me into a
cat seems to indicate that ultimately you believe that consciousness
is all the same.

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.

--
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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 ameekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

Evolution can only move species to local maxima of fitness.

That is true and is a severe limitation of Evolution, a limitation a mind
designed by a intelligence, like a computer, would not have. You seem to be
saying that a mind made in a crappy haphazard way would be conscious but a
well designed mind would not be; well I can't prove that is untrue but it
just doesn't seem likely to me.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/9/2013 1:43 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:41 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 2/8/2013 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

My point is that the only possible write algorithm that doesn't read
information
that is already stored is one that starts writing at random in any
position. You
could erase or corrupt previous information and you have no index.

I don't see why that should be the case.  The write can be to an allocated
memory
area that maintains a pointer.

And then you have to read the pointer before writing. It could be in the disk, or in
memory, or in the cache, or in a processor register. Doesn't matter, there's a piece of
information you have to access.

But it's not accessing your past human memories, and it's questionable whether it's you
who must access this pointer; certainly not the conscious you.

One read operation buys you sequential writing. The more complex the data structure, the
more reads you will find. I believe the brain contains a very complex data structure.

No doubt.  But as I pointed out there are actual instances of multiple personality
disorder in which one you can access the memories of the other you but not vice versa.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/9/2013 7:52 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 ameekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

Evolution can only move species to local maxima of fitness.

That is true and is a severe limitation of Evolution, a limitation a mind designed by a
intelligence, like a computer, would not have. You seem to be saying that a mind made in
a crappy haphazard way would be conscious but a well designed mind would not be; well I
can't prove that is untrue but it just doesn't seem likely to me.

No, I'm saying it might be conscious in a very different way - which would be hard to
determine if we were only watching its intelligent behavior from outside.  But since I was
hypothesizing an AI we might also know how it's intelligence was implemented and using
that knowledge and some clever testing we might understand that its consciousness was
different.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 08 Feb 2013, at 13:45, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought experiment
which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem in the first
place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we are in a thought
experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive transferring consciousnes
of the cat, then there is no reason we can't imagine you remember being a
cat after the experiment. I'll agree to talk technical problems the day we
would have the first insight of how to really do it... before, it is just
premature to use technical arguments.

Fair enough, maybe it's my CS bias. But I'm still not convinced this is a
purely technical issue. Can you conceive of any system that stores
information in some coherent way that you can write to without reading?

Well, yes... with computer you could imagine doing just that... so why not
? Also, the fact that you can't imagine a solution yourself, doesn't mean
there isn't one, lack of imagination is also not an argument.

I agree. This can happen in dreams. I have personally experience this a
number of times, and I have read similar reports. Actually Louis Jouvet,
the discoverer of the REM dreams, has studied that phenomenon, in the case
of people relating simultaneous unrelated dreams, and he attributed this to
the disfunctionning of the corpus callosum during the dream phase. It makes
momentarily the two hemisphere independent. It looks like we can integrate
different identities in different past. The result is a bit troubling ...
unless we are already aware of the relative nature of personal identity.
This happens also when using dissociative drugs.
Of course, if Telmo wakes up with the memory of a cat experience, he will
only access of the memory of cat + Telmo, which might biase the original
experience of the cat,

That's exactly all I'm saying.

but not necessarily so much for a short period of time. This makes
possible to conceive waking up and memorizing more than one past threads.

I have no problem with this, but I'm proposing that for you to have the 1p
experience of another entity, the only solution is to become the other
entity. If a merged 1p of the two entities is achieved, a new entity with a
new 1p is, in fact, created.

If the many past threads are equivalently realist and coherent, it leads
to a direct understanding of the relative nature of identity, and the
possibility of sharing initial consciousness of ... who? I let you ponder
on this.

Bruno

Regards,
Quentin

Regards,
Quentin

For example, to store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing a
tree, I would have to access my human representation of a tree to connect
the memories to it, but accessing my human representation of a tree would
spoil my cat experience.

Regards,
Quentin

And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and
that a cat's consciousness differs in both respects.  There's
consciousness
of being an individual and of being located in 3-space and in time.  You
and the cat have both of those (whereas a Mars rover only has the
latter).
But there's language and narrative memory that you have and the cat
doesn't.  There's reflective thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about
myself and where I fit in the world.  The cat probably doesn't have
this
because it's not social - but a dog might.

But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it just
the general property of being conscious instantiated in different
contexts? The fact that you believe you can turn me into a cat seems to
indicate that ultimately you believe that consciousness is all the same.

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
Visit this group at
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

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:42 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

You are convinced that computers and other machines
don't have consciousness, but you can't say what test you will apply
to them and see them fail.

I'm convinced of that because I understand why there is no reason why they
would have consciousness... there is no 'they' there. Computers are not born
in a single moment through cell fertilization, they are assembled by people.
Computers have to be programmed to do absolutely everything, they have no
capacity to make sense of anything which is not explicitly defined. This is
the polar opposite of living organisms which are general purpose entities
who explore and adapt when they can, on their own, for their own internally
generated motives. Computers lack that completely. We use objects to compute
for us, but those objects are not actually computing themselves, just as
these letters don't actually mean anything for themselves.

Why would being generated in a single moment through cell
fertilization have any bearing on consciousness? Why would something
created by someone else not have consciousness? Why would something
lacking internally generated motives (which does not apply to
computers any more than to people) lack consciousness? To make these
claims you would have to show either that they are necessarily true or
present empirical evidence in their support, and you have done
neither.

So if, in future, robots live among us for years and are accepted by
most people as conscious, does that mean they are conscious? This is
essentially a form of the Turing test.

I don't think that will happen unless they aren't robots. The whole point is
that the degree to which an organism is conscious is inversely proportionate
to the degree that the organism is 100% controllable. That's the purpose of
your environment. So if something is a robot, it will never be accepted by
anyone as conscious, and if something is conscious it will never be useful
to anyone as a robot - it would in fact be a slave.

You don't think it would happen, but would you be prepared to say that
if a robot did pass the test, as tough as you want to make it, it
would be conscious?

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49% chance
that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I believe it's
in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I can say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief is an
heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating the truth than
mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they are
sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those states
they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I don't.
Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make you doubt that
belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except suggesting that
you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then, for
some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me (with a
mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe
that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you must
also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence because
Evolution can't directly see consciousness any better than we can and so
cannot select for it, and yet you and probably other people are conscious.
Thus you must also believe that if a computer is intelligent then it is
conscious. Then you must also believe that intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with, that
intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that intelligence == mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to exist a
gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles into
consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of it's origin. So
you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of consciousness,
where you can say that entity A is more conscious than entity B. What would
that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me (but I can't know for sure).
Is he less conscious than me? Well I know stuff that he doesn't, but he
also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he knows how it feels to be a
cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.  I think
it might be possible to change your brain, and your sensory organs, so that
it implemented consciousness very similar to a cat's (it couldn't be exact
because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of course it wouldn't be Telmo
Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the following:
to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my memories (read/write
access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't remember it. In fact
I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo Menezes. Telmo
Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and that a
cat's consciousness differs in both respects.  There's consciousness of
being an individual and of being located in 3-space and in time.  You and
the cat have both of those (whereas a Mars rover only has the latter).  But
there's language and narrative memory that you have and the cat doesn't.
There's reflective thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about myself and
where I fit in the world.  The cat probably doesn't have this because it's
not social - but a dog might.

But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it just the
general property of being conscious instantiated in different contexts?
The fact that you believe you can turn me into a cat seems to indicate that
ultimately you believe that consciousness is all the same.

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
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 post to this group,

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:00:17 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013  Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly). Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind,
then, for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me
(with a mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to
believe that all human beings have a mind, although I know I will never be
able to prove it.

I question whether it is possible to ask whether your fellow human beings
have minds without resorting to sophistry. I say that not because I am
incapable of questioning naive reasoning, but because it does not
accurately represent the reality of the situation. Just as our 'belief' in
our own mind is an a prori ontological condition which cannot be questioned
without incurring a paradox (whatever disbelieves in its own mind is by
definition a mind), the belief that our fellow human beings have minds does
not necessarily require a logical analysis to arrive at. We know that we
have access to information beyond what we can consciously understand, and
part of that may very well include a capacity to sense, on some level, the
authenticity of another mind, barring any prejudices which might interfere.

Ok, that is a testable hypotesis (once we have sufficiently advanced AI and
robotics).

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-li...@**googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.**com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
.
For more options, visit
.

--
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
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49% chance
that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I believe
it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I can say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief is an
heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating the truth than
mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they are
sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those states
they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I don't.
Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make you doubt that
belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except suggesting that
you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then, for
some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me (with a
mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe
that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you
must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence
because Evolution can't directly see consciousness any better than we can
and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably other people are
conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a computer is intelligent
then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with, that
intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that intelligence == mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to exist
a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles into
consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of it's origin. So
you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of consciousness,
where you can say that entity A is more conscious than entity B. What would
that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me (but I can't know for sure).
Is he less conscious than me? Well I know stuff that he doesn't, but he
also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he knows how it feels to be a
cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.  I think
it might be possible to change your brain, and your sensory organs, so that
it implemented consciousness very similar to a cat's (it couldn't be exact
because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of course it wouldn't be Telmo
Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo memories
should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be back as
Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Regards,
Quentin

And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and that a
cat's consciousness differs in both respects.  There's consciousness of
being an individual and of being located in 3-space and in time.  You and
the cat have both of those (whereas a Mars rover only has the latter).  But
there's language and narrative memory that you have and the cat doesn't.
There's reflective thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about myself and
where I fit in the world.  The cat probably doesn't have this because it's
not social - but a dog might.

But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it just the
general property of being conscious instantiated in different contexts?
The fact that you believe you can turn me into a cat seems to indicate that
ultimately you believe that consciousness is all the same.

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
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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49%
chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I believe
it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I can say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief is an
heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating the truth than
mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they are
sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those states
they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I don't.
Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make you doubt that
belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except suggesting that
you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then, for
some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me (with a
mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe
that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you
must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence
because Evolution can't directly see consciousness any better than we can
and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably other people are
conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a computer is intelligent
then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with, that
intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that intelligence == mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to exist
a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles into
consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of it's origin. So
you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of consciousness,
where you can say that entity A is more conscious than entity B. What would
that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me (but I can't know for sure).
Is he less conscious than me? Well I know stuff that he doesn't, but he
also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he knows how it feels to be a
cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.  I
think it might be possible to change your brain, and your sensory organs,
so that it implemented consciousness very similar to a cat's (it couldn't
be exact because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of course it wouldn't
be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo memories
should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be back as
Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible. For example, to
store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing a tree, I would have
to access my human representation of a tree to connect the memories to it,
but accessing my human representation of a tree would spoil my cat
experience.

Regards,
Quentin

And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and that a
cat's consciousness differs in both respects.  There's consciousness of
being an individual and of being located in 3-space and in time.  You and
the cat have both of those (whereas a Mars rover only has the latter).  But
there's language and narrative memory that you have and the cat doesn't.
There's reflective thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about myself and
where I fit in the world.  The cat probably doesn't have this because it's
not social - but a dog might.

But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it just the
general property of being conscious instantiated in different contexts?
The fact that you believe you can turn me into a cat seems to indicate that
ultimately you believe that

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49%
chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I believe
it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I can say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief is an
heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating the truth than
mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they are
sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those states
they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I don't.
Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make you doubt that
belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except suggesting that
you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then,
for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me
(with a
mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe
that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you
must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence
because Evolution can't directly see consciousness any better than we can
and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably other people are
conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a computer is intelligent
then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that intelligence ==
mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with, that
intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that intelligence == mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to
exist a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles
into consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of it's
origin. So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of
consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious than
entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me (but I
can't know for sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know stuff that
he doesn't, but he also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he knows
how it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.  I
think it might be possible to change your brain, and your sensory organs,
so that it implemented consciousness very similar to a cat's (it couldn't
be exact because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of course it wouldn't
be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo memories
should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be back as
Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought experiment
which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem in the first
place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we are in a thought
experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive transferring consciousnes
of the cat, then there is no reason we can't imagine you remember being a
cat after the experiment. I'll agree to talk technical problems the day we
would have the first insight of how to really do it... before, it is just
premature to use technical arguments.

Regards,
Quentin

For example, to store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing a
tree, I would have to access my human representation of a tree to connect
the memories to it, but accessing my human representation of a tree would
spoil my cat experience.

Regards,
Quentin

And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and that a
cat's consciousness differs in both respects.  There's consciousness of
being an individual and of being

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so
why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49%
chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I believe
it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I can say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief is an
heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating the truth
than
mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they are
sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those
states
they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I don't.
Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make you doubt that
belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except suggesting that
you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then,
for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me
(with a
mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe
that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you
must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence
because Evolution can't directly see consciousness any better than we can
and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably other people are
conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a computer is intelligent
then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that intelligence ==
mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with, that
intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that intelligence ==
mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to
exist a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles
into consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of it's
origin. So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of
consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious than
entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me (but I
can't know for sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know stuff that
he doesn't, but he also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he knows
how it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.  I
think it might be possible to change your brain, and your sensory organs,
so that it implemented consciousness very similar to a cat's (it couldn't
be exact because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of course it wouldn't
be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought experiment
which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem in the first
place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we are in a thought
experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive transferring consciousnes
of the cat, then there is no reason we can't imagine you remember being a
cat after the experiment. I'll agree to talk technical problems the day we
would have the first insight of how to really do it... before, it is just
premature to use technical arguments.

Fair enough, maybe it's my CS bias. But I'm still not convinced this is a
purely technical issue. Can you conceive of any system that stores
information in some coherent way that you can write to without reading?

Regards,
Quentin

For example, to store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing a
tree, I would have to access my human representation of a tree to

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so
why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49%
chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I believe
it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I can say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief is
an heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating the truth
than mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they are
sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those
states
they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I don't.
Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make you doubt that
belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except suggesting
that
you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then,
for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me
(with a
mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to
believe
that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you
must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence
because Evolution can't directly see consciousness any better than we
can
and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably other people are
conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a computer is intelligent
then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that intelligence ==
mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with, that
intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that intelligence ==
mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to
exist a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles
into consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of it's
origin. So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of
consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious than
entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me (but I
can't know for sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know stuff
that
he doesn't, but he also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he knows
how it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.  I
think it might be possible to change your brain, and your sensory organs,
so that it implemented consciousness very similar to a cat's (it couldn't
be exact because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of course it
wouldn't
be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo
Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought experiment
which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem in the first
place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we are in a thought
experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive transferring consciousnes
of the cat, then there is no reason we can't imagine you remember being a
cat after the experiment. I'll agree to talk technical problems the day we
would have the first insight of how to really do it... before, it is just
premature to use technical arguments.

Fair enough, maybe it's my CS bias. But I'm still not convinced this is a
purely technical issue. Can you conceive of any system that stores
information in some coherent way that you can write to without reading?

Well, yes... with computer you could imagine doing just that... so why not
? Also, the fact that you

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so
why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49%
chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I
believe it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I can
say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief is
an heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating the
truth
than mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they are
sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those
states
they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I
don't. Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make you
doubt
that belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except
suggesting
that you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then,
for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me
(with a
mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to
believe
that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then
you must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of
intelligence because Evolution can't directly see consciousness any
better
than we can and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably other
people are conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a computer is
intelligent then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that
intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with, that
intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that intelligence ==
mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to
exist a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles
into consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of it's
origin. So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of
consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious than
entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me (but I
can't know for sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know stuff
that
he doesn't, but he also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he knows
how it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.  I
think it might be possible to change your brain, and your sensory
organs,
so that it implemented consciousness very similar to a cat's (it
couldn't
be exact because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of course it
wouldn't
be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't
remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo
Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought experiment
which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem in the first
place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we are in a thought
experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive transferring consciousnes
of the cat, then there is no reason we can't imagine you remember being a
cat after the experiment. I'll agree to talk technical problems the day we
would have the first insight of how to really do it... before, it is just
premature to use technical arguments.

Fair enough, maybe it's my CS bias. But I'm still not convinced this is a
purely technical issue. Can you conceive of any system that stores
information in some coherent way that you can write to without reading?

Well, yes...

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark
johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so
why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49%
chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I
believe it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I
can
say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief is
an heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating the
truth
than mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they
are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in
those
states they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I
don't. Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make you
doubt
that belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except
suggesting
that you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind,
then, for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human
beings: me
(with a mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm
inclined to
believe that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then
you must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of
intelligence because Evolution can't directly see consciousness any
better
than we can and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably
other
people are conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a computer is
intelligent then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that
intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with,
that intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that
intelligence ==
mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to
exist a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just
stumbles
into consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of it's
origin. So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of
consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious than
entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me (but
I
can't know for sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know stuff
that
he doesn't, but he also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he
knows
how it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.  I
think it might be possible to change your brain, and your sensory
organs,
so that it implemented consciousness very similar to a cat's (it
couldn't
be exact because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of course it
wouldn't
be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my
memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't
remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo
Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought experiment
which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem in the first
place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we are in a thought
experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive transferring consciousnes
of the cat, then there is no reason we can't imagine you remember being a
cat after the experiment. I'll agree to talk technical problems the day we
would have the first insight of how to really do it... before, it is just
premature to use technical arguments.

Fair enough, maybe it's my CS bias. But I'm still not convinced this is
a purely technical issue. Can you conceive of any system that stores
information in some

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 11:35:08 PM UTC-5, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 2/7/2013 9:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:50:09 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:

You're avoiding the question. What is your definitive test for
consciousness? If you don't have one, then you have to admit that your
friend (who talks to you and behaves like people do, not in a coma,
not on a video recording, not dead in the morgue) may not be conscious
and your computer may be conscious.

No, you are avoiding my answer. What is your definitive test for your
own
consciousness?

The test for my own consciousness is that I feel I am conscious. That
is not at issue. At issue is the test for *other* entities'
consciousness.

Why would the test be any different?

You are convinced that computers and other machines
don't have consciousness, but you can't say what test you will apply
to them and see them fail.

I'm convinced of that because I understand why there is no reason why they
would have consciousness... there is no 'they' there. Computers are not
born in a single moment through cell fertilization, they are assembled by
people. Computers have to be programmed to do absolutely everything, they
have no capacity to make sense of anything which is not explicitly defined.
This is the polar opposite of living organisms which are general purpose
entities who explore and adapt when they can, on their own, for their own
internally generated motives. Computers lack that completely. We use
objects to compute for us, but those objects are not actually computing
themselves, just as these letters don't actually mean anything for
themselves.

When objects can compute 'for themselves' they are conscious. Maybe?

Sure, although I think that means that they have to first feel and think
for themselves. You can lead a computer to their own computations, but you
can't make them drink.

My point is that sense is broader, deeper, and more primitive than our
cognitive ability to examine it, since cognitive qualities are only the
tip
of the iceberg of sense. To test is to circumvent direct sense in favor
of
indirect sense - which is a good thing, but it is by definition not
applicable to consciousness itself in any way. There is no test to tell
if
you are conscious, because none is required. If you need to ask if you
are
conscious, then you are probably having a lucid dream or in some phase
of
shock. In those cases, no test will help you as you can dream a test
result
as easily as you can experience one while awake.

The only test for consciousness is the test of time. If you are fooled
by
some inanimate object, eventually you will probably see through it or
outgrow the fantasy.

So if, in future, robots live among us for years and are accepted by
most people as conscious, does that mean they are conscious? This is
essentially a form of the Turing test.

I don't think that will happen unless they aren't robots. The whole point
is that the degree to which an organism is conscious is inversely
proportionate to the degree that the organism is 100% controllable. That's
the purpose of intelligence - to advance your own agenda rather than to be
overpowered by your environment. So if something is a robot, it will never
be accepted by anyone as conscious, and if something is conscious it will
never be useful to anyone as a robot - it would in fact be a slave.

*L'homme est d'abord ce qui se jette vers un avenir, et ce qui est
conscient de se projeter dans l'avenir.* ~ Jean Paul Satre

(Man is, before all else, something which propels itself toward a future
and is aware that it is doing so.)

Cool. I can agree with that.

You talk with authority on what
can and can't have consciousness but it seems you don't have even an
operational definition of the word.

Consciousness is what defines, not what can be defined.

I am not asking for an explanation
or theory of consciousness, just for a test to indicate its presence,
which is a much weaker requirement.

That is too much to ask, since all tests supervene upon the
consciousness to
evaluate results.

It's the case for any test that you will use your consciousness to
evaluate the results.

Sure, but for most things you can corroborate and triangulate what you are
testing by using a control. With consciousness itself, there is no control
possible. You can do tests on the water because you can get out of the
water. You can do tests on air because you can evacuate a glass beaker of
air and compare your results. With consciousness though, there is no escape
possible. You can personally lose your own consciousness, but there is no
experience which is not experienced through

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Friday, February 8, 2013 11:23:48 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com javascript:wrote:

I don't believe other people have minds when they are sleeping or
under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those states they don't
behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I don't.

You believe that other people have minds when they are sleeping or under

Do you believe that you have a house when you aren't standing in it?

If they have minds under those circumstances then rocks must have them too
and whatever you mean by mind can't be anything very interesting and I
don't care if something has a mind or not.

What you think is a rock is actually an event shaped by experiences on the
molecular and geological scale, but not on a biological or zoological or
anthropological scale. This means that this event doesn't correspond to a
human mind, but a human mind does have access to some of the same kinds of
geological and molecular experiences, which are presented to humans as
tactile, acoustic, kinetic, visual experiences (and olfactory in the case
of sulfurous minerals).

for evolution to generate consciousness there has to exist a gradient to
climb.

Yes.

Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles into consciousness

If Evolution just stumbled onto consciousness by a lucky chance and was
not the byproduct of intelligence then it is of neutral survival value and
the human race would have lost that property long ago by genetic drift.

Exactly. And since we know that all behaviors could be accomplished 'in the
dark', as it were, unconsciously and without any magical qualitative
presentation (which exists invisibly in never never land), then we should
suspect that consciousness, or the potential for consciousness precedes
evolution itself.

That's the reason creatures that have lived in dark caves for thousands of
generations have no eyes; elsewhere a mutation that rendered a creature
blind would be a disaster but in a cave it wouldn't hinder its genes
getting into the next generation at all.

In short if consciousness improves survival

It doesn't. If we presume that every other process in the cosmos which
operates with fantastic precision by being unconscious is not missing out
on anything important, then no, there is no conceivable advantage that some
kind of interior presentation of feeling and storytelling would have over
biological mechanism. After all, these unconscious mechanisms presumably
operate consciousness itself, so anything that could be accomplished
through conscious awareness could certainly be accomplished biologically. A
human organism looking for food is no more in need of consciousness for
their survival than a mitochondria or a T-Cell is.

it can only do so by effecting the behavior of the organism and then the
Turing Test must work for consciousness as well as intelligence.  if
consciousness does not effect behavior then if MUST be a byproduct of
something that does or Evolution would never have produced it and yet I
know for a fact it has at least once and probably many billions of times.

So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of
consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious than
entity B.

I am saying A is certainly more intelligent that B and consciousness is a
byproduct of intelligence.

Consciousness would be the stupidest byproduct of intelligence imaginable.
Hey we need a compression algorithm for this data. How about we invent a
spectacular multi-dimensional participatory environment with billions of
sensations created from nowhere? That should reduce throughput, no? It's
like hiring Led Zeppelin to play inside of your motherboard to inspire the
data to move faster.

What would that even mean?

In dealing with consciousness the only experimental subject I have to work
with is myself and I note that when I am sleepy I am both less conscious
and less intelligent then when I am wide awake

That suggests that your intelligence supervenes on your consciousness (how
awake you feel), not the other way around. Stupid people aren't always
sleepy.

My cat seems conscious to me (but I can't know for sure). Is he less
conscious than me? Well I know stuff that he doesn't, but he also knows
stuff that I don't -- for example he knows how it feels to be a cat.

You think your cat is conscious even though you're a lot smarter than a
cat, so why wouldn't a computer who was a lot smarter than you also seem to
be conscious. You could say that you'll never be able to prove the computer
is conscious but the exact same thing is true of your cat or even your
fellow human beings.

If a computer did what it does naturally, without human intention to
program a device to mimic mental functions, then

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

You believe that other people have minds when they are sleeping or under

Do you believe that you have a house when you aren't standing in it?

Yes. Do you believe that other people have minds when they are sleeping or
under anesthesia or dead?

If they have minds under those circumstances then rocks must have them
too and whatever you mean by mind can't be anything very interesting and
I don't care if something has a mind or not.

What you think is a rock is actually an event shaped by experiences on
the molecular and geological scale, but not on a biological or zoological
or anthropological scale. This means that this event doesn't correspond to
a human mind, but a human mind does have access to some of the same kinds
of geological and molecular experiences, which are presented to humans as
tactile, acoustic, kinetic, visual experiences (and olfactory in the case
of sulfurous minerals).

I assume the above mishmash of a word salad is what you mean by mind, if
so then I was right and it's not anything very interesting and I don't care
if something has a mind or not.

In short if consciousness improves survival

It doesn't.

Then consciousness MUST be the byproduct of something else that does
improve survival.

Consciousness would be the stupidest byproduct of intelligence
imaginable.

I don't know what you mean by that, what I mean is that consciousness is a
spandrel, it is the unavoidable result of intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Friday, February 8, 2013 1:49:54 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013  Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:

You believe that other people have minds when they are sleeping or
under anesthesia or dead!??

Do you believe that you have a house when you aren't standing in it?

Yes. Do you believe that other people have minds when they are sleeping or
under anesthesia or dead?

I don't believe people have minds so much as people are personal
experiences of a human lifetime at any given moment. The mind is the
cognitive translation of that experience.

When we are not personally conscious, others who see our body will not be
able to communicate with us. From our perspective, our personal experience
jumps from one conscious episode to another under anesthetic, while it is a
bit less dramatic when we are sleeping. When we are dead, our personal
experience has come to an end so we no longer need a human mind.

If they have minds under those circumstances then rocks must have them
too and whatever you mean by mind can't be anything very interesting and
I don't care if something has a mind or not.

What you think is a rock is actually an event shaped by experiences on
the molecular and geological scale, but not on a biological or zoological
or anthropological scale. This means that this event doesn't correspond to
a human mind, but a human mind does have access to some of the same kinds
of geological and molecular experiences, which are presented to humans as
tactile, acoustic, kinetic, visual experiences (and olfactory in the case
of sulfurous minerals).

I assume the above mishmash of a word salad is what you mean by mind, if
so then I was right and it's not anything very interesting and I don't care
if something has a mind or not.

No, it means that what you think is a rock is not the only thing that a
rock is.

In short if consciousness improves survival

It doesn't.

Then consciousness MUST be the byproduct of something else that does
improve survival.

No. The existence of consciousness has nothing to do with survival at all.
Given sense as a universal primitive, certainly the development of sense
can improve survival, but (as is seen by the relatively few species which
we would consider conscious) it doesn't have to, and is not meaningful in
natural selection. To understand that though, you would have to be able to
consider the possibility that you are wrong.

Consciousness would be the stupidest byproduct of intelligence
imaginable.

I don't know what you mean by that, what I mean is that consciousness is a
spandrel, it is the unavoidable result of intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29

Why would consciousness be unavoidable? Was the color blue unavoidable? Are
there new colors which might appear in our consciousness?

Your view is that the whole of experienced realism is nothing more than a
meaningless side effect of compression algorithms. Except for any kind of
experience which supports this idea, apparently.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/8/2013 1:02 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If
so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49%
chance that
you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I believe it's in
]0.5,
1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I can say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief is an
heuristic,
which I find to be a weaker form of approximating the truth than
mathematical proof
or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they are
sleeping or
under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those states they
don't
behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I don't. Certain
experiences that you can do on yourself might make you doubt that belief,
but I
don't know of any way to convince you except suggesting that you do those
experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then, for
some
mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me (with a
mind)
and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe
that all
human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you
must also
believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence because
Evolution can't directly see consciousness any better than we can and
so cannot
select for it, and yet you and probably other people are conscious.
Thus you
must also believe that if a computer is intelligent then it is
conscious. Then
you must also believe that intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with, that
intelligence ==
mind and then you claim to prove that intelligence == mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to exist a
to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles into consciousness,
but in
that case it is not a valid theory of it's origin. So you are implicitly
assuming
that there is some measure of consciousness, where you can say that entity
A is
more conscious than entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems
conscious to
me (but I can't know for sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know
stuff
that he doesn't, but he also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he
knows how
it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.  I think
it might
be possible to change your brain, and your sensory organs, so that it
implemented
consciousness very similar to a cat's (it couldn't be exact because you'd
need a
cat's body for that).  Of course it wouldn't be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the following: to make me
feel like a cat you have to strip me of my memories (read/write access), so when I'm
back from the experience I won't remember it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while
and then back to Telmo Menezes. Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and that a
cat's
consciousness differs in both respects.  There's consciousness of being an
individual and of being located in 3-space and in time.  You and the cat
have both
of those (whereas a Mars rover only has the latter).  But there's language
and
narrative memory that you have and the cat doesn't.  There's reflective
thought,I'm
Telmo and I'm thinking about myself and where I fit in the world.  The cat
probably
doesn't have this because it's not social - but a dog might.

But is this really a case of degrees of consciousness or is it just the general
property of being conscious instantiated in different contexts? The fact that you
believe you can turn me into a cat seems to indicate that ultimately you believe that
consciousness is all the same.

No, because I think I would have to diminish your consciousness to make your brain like a
cat's.  I think your consciousness is a superset of a cat's.  But as I said I think
consciouness can differ in kind as well as degree - it's not one-dimensional anymore than
intelligence is

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/8/2013 3:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo memories
should be
erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be back as Telmo + the
memories of
having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human memories while being
a cat. I don't think that's possible. For example, to store the memories on how a cat
feels about climbing a tree, I would have to access my human representation of a tree to
connect the memories to it, but accessing my human representation of a tree would spoil
my cat experience.

An interesting question.  In people with multiple personalities the memories may go only
one way, Eve-2 remembers what Eve-1 experiences but not vice versa; but of course they are
still human memories.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark
johnkcl...@gmail.comwrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If
so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49%
chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I
believe it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I
can
say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief
is an heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating the
truth than mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they
are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in
those
states they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I
don't. Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make you
doubt
that belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except
suggesting
that you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind,
then, for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human
beings: me
(with a mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm
inclined to
believe that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then
you must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of
intelligence because Evolution can't directly see consciousness any
better
than we can and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably
other
people are conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a computer
is
intelligent then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that
intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with,
that intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that
intelligence ==
mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to
exist a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just
stumbles
into consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of it's
origin. So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of
consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious than
entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me
(but I
can't know for sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know stuff
that
he doesn't, but he also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he
knows
how it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.
I think it might be possible to change your brain, and your sensory
organs,
so that it implemented consciousness very similar to a cat's (it
couldn't
be exact because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of course it
wouldn't
be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my
memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't
remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo
Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought experiment
which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem in the first
place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we are in a thought
experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive transferring consciousnes
of the cat, then there is no reason we can't imagine you remember being a
cat after the experiment. I'll agree to talk technical problems the day we
would have the first insight of how to really do it... before, it is just
premature to use technical arguments.

Fair enough, maybe it's my CS bias. But I'm still not convinced this is
a purely

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 2/8/2013 3:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible. For example, to
store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing a tree, I would have
to access my human representation of a tree to connect the memories to it,
but accessing my human representation of a tree would spoil my cat
experience.

An interesting question.  In people with multiple personalities the
memories may go only one way, Eve-2 remembers what Eve-1 experiences but
not vice versa; but of course they are still human memories.

How does Eve-2 remember Eve-1's experiences? As if she was Eve-1 or as if
she was watching a movie? And how does each personality remember popping in
and out of existence? Do they feel they felt assleep or that they were
suddenly teleported?

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
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Friday, February 8, 2013 4:18:02 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb meek...@verizon.netjavascript:
wrote:

On 2/8/2013 3:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible. For example, to
store the memories on how a cat feels about climbing a tree, I would have
to access my human representation of a tree to connect the memories to it,
but accessing my human representation of a tree would spoil my cat
experience.

An interesting question.  In people with multiple personalities the
memories may go only one way, Eve-2 remembers what Eve-1 experiences but
not vice versa; but of course they are still human memories.

How does Eve-2 remember Eve-1's experiences? As if she was Eve-1 or as if
she was watching a movie? And how does each personality remember popping in
and out of existence? Do they feel they felt assleep or that they were
suddenly teleported?

It's like having a dream that you are still in college. When you wake up,
you remember being in the dream and having no knowledge of your life after
college.

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-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.

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If
so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a
49% chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I
believe it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I
can
say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief
is an heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating
the
truth than mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they
are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in
those
states they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I
don't. Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make
you doubt
that belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except
suggesting
that you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind,
then, for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human
beings: me
(with a mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm
inclined to
believe that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then
you must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of
intelligence because Evolution can't directly see consciousness any
better
than we can and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably
other
people are conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a computer
is
intelligent then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that
intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with,
that intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that
intelligence ==
mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has
to exist a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just
stumbles
into consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of it's
origin. So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of
consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious than
entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me
(but I
can't know for sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know
stuff that
he doesn't, but he also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he
knows
how it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.
I think it might be possible to change your brain, and your sensory
organs,
so that it implemented consciousness very similar to a cat's (it
couldn't
be exact because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of course it
wouldn't
be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my
memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't
remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo
Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought
experiment which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem in
the
first place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we are in a
thought
experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive transferring consciousnes
of the cat, then there is no reason we can't imagine you remember being a
cat after the experiment. I'll agree to talk technical problems the day
we
would have the first insight of how to really do it... before, it is just
premature to use technical arguments.

Fair enough, maybe it's

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.netwrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark
johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If
so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a
49% chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I
believe it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all
I can
say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief
is an heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating
the
truth than mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they
are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in
those
states they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I
don't. Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make
you doubt
that belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except
suggesting
that you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind,
then, for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human
beings: me
(with a mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm
inclined to
believe that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution
then you must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct
of
intelligence because Evolution can't directly see consciousness
any better
than we can and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably
other
people are conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a
computer is
intelligent then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that
intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with,
that intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that
intelligence ==
mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has
to exist a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just
stumbles
into consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of
it's
origin. So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of
consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious
than
entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me
(but I
can't know for sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know
stuff that
he doesn't, but he also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he
knows
how it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a
cat.  I think it might be possible to change your brain, and your
sensory
organs, so that it implemented consciousness very similar to a
cat's (it
couldn't be exact because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of
course it
wouldn't be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my
memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't
remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo
Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you
be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought
experiment which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem in
the
first place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we are in a
thought
experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive transferring
consciousnes
of the cat, then there is no reason we can't imagine you remember being
a
cat after the experiment. I'll agree to talk technical problems the day
we
would have the first insight of how to really do

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/8/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote:
I don't know what you mean by that, what I mean is that consciousness is a spandrel, it
is the unavoidable result of intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29

Or it could be an accidental byproduct of the way human intelligence developed -
unavoidable only in the sense that it was the only reachable intelligent starting from
hominds.  Evolution can only move species to local maxima of fitness.

In Roland Omnes recent book he imagines an alien race that has enormous memory capacity,
so that simply remember everything that has happened and what was done and when the need
to make a decision they just do the thing that turned out best in the past.  It's Omnes
caricature of Hume's theory of cause and effect.  But his idea is that such aliens
wouldn't develop 'theories' as we do to summarize past events.  Would they be conscious?
I don't know, but I'd guess they wouldn't be conscious in the way I am (I don't remember
what I had for breakfast yesterday...but I have a theory).

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/8/2013 1:18 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:57 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

On 2/8/2013 3:19 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories
should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you be back as
Telmo +
the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my human
memories while
being a cat. I don't think that's possible. For example, to store the
memories on
how a cat feels about climbing a tree, I would have to access my human
representation of a tree to connect the memories to it, but accessing my
human
representation of a tree would spoil my cat experience.

An interesting question.  In people with multiple personalities the
memories may go
only one way, Eve-2 remembers what Eve-1 experiences but not vice versa;
but of
course they are still human memories.

How does Eve-2 remember Eve-1's experiences? As if she was Eve-1 or as if she was
watching a movie? And how does each personality remember popping in and out of
existence? Do they feel they felt assleep or that they were suddenly teleported?

As I understand the case histories, Eve-2 remembers what Eve-1 did as if she were a
detached observer but one who can observe inner thoughts, as novelists often write from
the internal viewpoint of a character.  Eve-1 doesn't even know of the existence of Eve-2
and has gaps in her memory as if asleep or anesthetized.

Brent

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
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

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.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com http://www.avg.com
Version: 2013.0.2897 / Virus Database: 2639/6085 - Release Date: 02/06/13

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/8/2013 2:14 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

My point is that the only possible write algorithm that doesn't read information that is
already stored is one that starts writing at random in any position. You could erase or
corrupt previous information and you have no index.

I don't see why that should be the case.  The write can be to an allocated memory area
that maintains a pointer.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

Outside of consciousness, there is no possibility of discerning any
difference between accidental byproducts and selected products. Only
consciousness selects. Only consciousness has accidents.

Craig

On Friday, February 8, 2013 5:53:18 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/8/2013 10:49 AM, John Clark wrote:

I don't know what you mean by that, what I mean is that consciousness is a
spandrel, it is the unavoidable result of intelligence.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spandrel_%28biology%29

Or it could be an accidental byproduct of the way human intelligence
developed - unavoidable only in the sense that it was the only reachable
intelligent starting from hominds.  Evolution can only move species to
local maxima of fitness.

In Roland Omnes recent book he imagines an alien race that has enormous
memory capacity, so that simply remember everything that has happened and
what was done and when the need to make a decision they just do the thing
that turned out best in the past.  It's Omnes caricature of Hume's theory
of cause and effect.  But his idea is that such aliens wouldn't develop
'theories' as we do to summarize past events.  Would they be conscious?  I
don't know, but I'd guess they wouldn't be conscious in the way I am (I
don't remember what I had for breakfast yesterday...but I have a theory).

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb
meeke...@verizon.netwrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark
johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds?
If so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a
49% chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I
believe it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all
I can
say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this
belief is an heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of
approximating
the truth than mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when
they are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they
are in
those states they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I
don't. Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make
you doubt
that belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except
suggesting
that you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind,
then, for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human
beings: me
(with a mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm
inclined to
believe that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution
then you must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct
of
intelligence because Evolution can't directly see consciousness
any better
than we can and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably
other
people are conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a
computer is
intelligent then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that
intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with,
that intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that
intelligence ==
mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has
to exist a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just
stumbles
into consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of
it's
origin. So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure
of
consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious
than
entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me
(but I
can't know for sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know
stuff that
he doesn't, but he also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he
knows
how it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a
cat.  I think it might be possible to change your brain, and your
sensory
organs, so that it implemented consciousness very similar to a
cat's (it
couldn't be exact because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of
course it
wouldn't be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my
memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't
remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo
Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you
be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my
human memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought
experiment which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem in
the
first place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we are in a
thought
experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive transferring
consciousnes
of the cat, then there is no reason we can't imagine you remember
being a
cat after the experiment. I'll agree to talk technical problems the

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 4:06 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 1:45 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 12:39 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Quentin Anciaux
allco...@gmail.com wrote:

2013/2/8 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 7:12 PM, meekerdb
meeke...@verizon.netwrote:

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark
johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds?
If so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a
49% chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I
believe it's in ]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all
I can
say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this
belief is an heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of
approximating
the truth than mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when
they are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they
are in
those states they don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I
don't. Certain experiences that you can do on yourself might make
you doubt
that belief, but I don't know of any way to convince you except
suggesting
that you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind,
then, for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human
beings: me
(with a mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm
inclined to
believe that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution
then you must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct
of
intelligence because Evolution can't directly see consciousness
any better
than we can and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably
other
people are conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a
computer is
intelligent then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that
intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with,
that intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that
intelligence ==
mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has
to exist a gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just
stumbles
into consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of
it's
origin. So you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure
of
consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious
than
entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me
(but I
can't know for sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know
stuff that
he doesn't, but he also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he
knows
how it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a
cat.  I think it might be possible to change your brain, and your
sensory
organs, so that it implemented consciousness very similar to a
cat's (it
couldn't be exact because you'd need a cat's body for that).  Of
course it
wouldn't be Telmo Menezes any more.

I agree that this might be possible. But the paradox then is the
following: to make me feel like a cat you have to strip me of my
memories
(read/write access), so when I'm back from the experience I won't
remember
it. In fact I turned into a cat for a while and then back to Telmo
Menezes.
Telmo Menezes still knows nothing about being a cat.

Well, while going from Telmo to the cat, you're rigth that Telmo
memories should be erased, the inverse is not true. Why couldn't you
be
back as Telmo + the memories of having been a cat ?

Hi Quentin,

Because that would require that I had write-only access to my
human memories while being a cat. I don't think that's possible.

Why not ?? You put forward a technical problem on a thought
experiment which have if you go that way a bigger technical problem in
the
first place... so your objection is totally irrelevant, we are in a
thought
experiment, in that setting, if we can conceive transferring
consciousnes
of the cat, then there is no reason we can't imagine you remember
being a
cat after the experiment. I'll agree to talk technical problems the

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49% chance
that you are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I believe it's in
]0.5, 1] because I would bet on it, but that's all I can say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief is an
heuristic, which I find to be a weaker form of approximating the truth than
mathematical proof or experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they are sleeping
or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those states they
don't behave very intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I don't. Certain
experiences that you can do on yourself might make you doubt that belief,
but I don't know of any way to convince you except suggesting that you do
those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then, for some
mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me (with a mind)
and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe that all
human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you must
also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence because
Evolution can't directly see consciousness any better than we can and so
cannot select for it, and yet you and probably other people are conscious.
Thus you must also believe that if a computer is intelligent then it is
conscious. Then you must also believe that intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with, that
intelligence == mind and then you claim to prove that intelligence == mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to exist a
gradient to climb. Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles into
consciousness, but in that case it is not a valid theory of it's origin. So
you are implicitly assuming that there is some measure of consciousness,
where you can say that entity A is more conscious than entity B. What would
that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me (but I can't know for sure).
Is he less conscious than me? Well I know stuff that he doesn't, but he
also knows stuff that I don't -- for example he knows how it feels to be a
cat.

although I know I will never be able to prove it.

I agree on that point.

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
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:

Hi Stathis,

The simulation of our 'self' that our brain generates *is* good enough
to fool oneself! I speculate that schizophrenia and autism are caused by
failures of the self-simulation system... The former is a failure where
multiple self-simulations are generated and no stability on their convergent
occurs and the latter is where the self-simulation fails altogether. Mind
version of autism, such as Aspergers syndrome are where bad simulations
occur and/or the self-simulation fails to update properly.

That's an interesting idea, but schizophrenia is where the the
connections between functional subsystems in the brain is disrupted,
so that you get perceptions, beliefs, emotions occurring without the
normal chain of causation, while autism is where the concept of other
minds is disrupted. I think the self-image is present but distorted.

If we consider that the Libet experiments show that we are making
decisions
without knowing it, and Blindsight shows that we are able to see without
being conscious of it, then there is no reason why we should suddenly
trust
our own reporting of what we think that we know about the sense of
interacting with a living person. A true Turing test would require a
face-to-face interaction, so that none of our natural sensory
capabilities
would be blocked as they would with just a text or video interaction.

That's the situation that is assumed in the idea of a philosophical
zombie: you interact with the being face to face. If at the end of
several days' interaction (or however long you think you need) you are
completely convinced that it is conscious, does that mean it is
conscious?

As I see things, the only coherent concept of a zombie is what we see in
the autistic case. Such is 'conscious' with no self-image/self-awareness,
thus it has no ability to report on its 1p content.

I think of autistic people as differently conscious, not unconscious.
Incidentally, there is a movement among higher functioning autistic
people whereby they resent being labelled as disabled, but assert that
their way of thinking is just as valid and intrinsically worthwhile as
that of the neurotypicals.

I think that it is important to remember that in theory, logically,
consciousness cannot exist. It is only through our own undeniable
experience
of consciousness that we feel the need to justify it with logic - but so
far
we have only projected the religious miracles of the past into a science
fiction future. If it was up to logic alone, there could not, and would
not
every be a such thing as experience.

You could as well say that logically there's no reason for anything to
exist, but it does.

How about that! Does this not tell us that we must start, in our musing
about existence with the postulate that something exists?

Perhaps, but there are other ways to look at it. A primary
mathematical/Platonic universe necessarily rather than contingently
exists.

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

That's just because the simulation of a person isn't good enough. The
question is what if the simulation *is* good enough to completely fool
you.

Fooling me is meaningless. I think that you think therefore you are fails
to account for the subjective thinker in the first place. If someone kills
you, but they then find a nifty way to use your cadaver as a ventriloquist's
dummy, does it matter if it fools someone into thinking that you are still
alive?

You have said that you can just sense the consciousness of other
minds but you have contradicted that, or at least admitted that the
sensing faculty can be fooled. If you have no sure test for
consciousness that means you might see it where it isn't present or
miss it where it is present. So your friend might be unconscious
despite your feeling that he is, and your computer might be conscious
despite your feeling that it is not.

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 06 Feb 2013, at 19:04, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49%
chance that you are the only conscious being in the universe?  By
the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they are
sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those
states they don't behave very intelligently.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then, for
some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me
(with a mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm
inclined to believe that all human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you
must also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of
intelligence because Evolution can't directly see consciousness any
better than we can and so cannot select for it, and yet you and
probably other people are conscious.

This not valid. You don't need to believe in any religion to see why
that point is just not valid.

Bruno

Thus you must also believe that if a computer is intelligent then it
is conscious. Then you must also believe that intelligence == mind.

although I know I will never be able to prove it.

I agree on that point.

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.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/7/2013 3:52 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 7:04 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
mailto:johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so
why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49% chance
that you
are the only conscious being in the universe?

I don't know how to assign a probability to that. I guess I believe it's in ]0.5, 1]
because I would bet on it, but that's all I can say.

I say weakly because the only thing I have to back this belief is an heuristic, which I
find to be a weaker form of approximating the truth than mathematical proof or
experimental confirmation.

By the way, I don't believe other people have minds when they are sleeping
or under
anesthesia or dead because when they are in those states they don't behave
very
intelligently.

But that is because you believe that intelligence == mind. I don't. Certain experiences
that you can do on yourself might make you doubt that belief, but I don't know of any
way to convince you except suggesting that you do those experiences.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then, for some
mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me (with a
mind) and the
others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe that all
human beings
have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you must
also
believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence because
Evolution
can't directly see consciousness any better than we can and so cannot
select for it,
and yet you and probably other people are conscious. Thus you must also
believe that
if a computer is intelligent then it is conscious. Then you must also
believe that
intelligence == mind.

You are begging the question. You're assuming, to begin with, that intelligence == mind
and then you claim to prove that intelligence == mind.

By the way, for evolution to generate consciousness there has to exist a gradient to
climb. Unless the evolutionary process just stumbles into consciousness, but in that
case it is not a valid theory of it's origin. So you are implicitly assuming that there
is some measure of consciousness, where you can say that entity A is more conscious than
entity B. What would that even mean? My cat seems conscious to me (but I can't know for
sure). Is he less conscious than me? Well I know stuff that he doesn't, but he also
knows stuff that I don't -- for example he knows how it feels to be a cat.

But that doesn't mean there's something magic about being a cat.  I think it might be
possible to change your brain, and your sensory organs, so that it implemented
consciousness very similar to a cat's (it couldn't be exact because you'd need a cat's
body for that).  Of course it wouldn't be Telmo Menezes any more.

And yes I think there are degrees and kinds of consciousness and that a cat's
consciousness differs in both respects.  There's consciousness of being an individual and
of being located in 3-space and in time.  You and the cat have both of those (whereas a
Mars rover only has the latter).  But there's language and narrative memory that you have
and the cat doesn't.  There's reflective thought,I'm Telmo and I'm thinking about myself
and where I fit in the world.  The cat probably doesn't have this because it's not social
- but a dog might.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:12:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:

That's just because the simulation of a person isn't good enough. The
question is what if the simulation *is* good enough to completely fool
you.

Fooling me is meaningless. I think that you think therefore you are
fails
to account for the subjective thinker in the first place. If someone
kills
you, but they then find a nifty way to use your cadaver as a
ventriloquist's
dummy, does it matter if it fools someone into thinking that you are
still
alive?

You have said that you can just sense the consciousness of other
minds but you have contradicted that, or at least admitted that the
sensing faculty can be fooled.

An individual's sense can be fooled, but not necessarily fooled forever,
and not everyone can be fooled. That doesn't mean that when we look at a
beercan in the trash we can't tell that it doesn't literally feel crushed
and abandoned.

If you have no sure test for
consciousness that means you might see it where it isn't present or
miss it where it is present. So your friend might be unconscious
despite your feeling that he is,

Of course. People have been buried alive because the undertaker was fooled.

and your computer might be conscious
despite your feeling that it is not.

Except my feeling is backed up with my knowledge of what it is - a human
artifact designed to mimic certain mental functions. That knowledge should
augment my personal intuition, as well as social and cultural
reinforcements that indeed there is no reason to suspect that this map of
mind is sentient territory.

Craig

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:12:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote:

That's just because the simulation of a person isn't good enough. The
question is what if the simulation *is* good enough to completely fool
you.

Fooling me is meaningless. I think that you think therefore you are
fails
to account for the subjective thinker in the first place. If someone
kills
you, but they then find a nifty way to use your cadaver as a
ventriloquist's
dummy, does it matter if it fools someone into thinking that you are
still
alive?

You have said that you can just sense the consciousness of other
minds but you have contradicted that, or at least admitted that the
sensing faculty can be fooled.

An individual's sense can be fooled, but not necessarily fooled forever, and
not everyone can be fooled. That doesn't mean that when we look at a beercan
in the trash we can't tell that it doesn't literally feel crushed and
abandoned.

If you have no sure test for
consciousness that means you might see it where it isn't present or
miss it where it is present. So your friend might be unconscious
despite your feeling that he is,

Of course. People have been buried alive because the undertaker was fooled.

and your computer might be conscious
despite your feeling that it is not.

Except my feeling is backed up with my knowledge of what it is - a human
artifact designed to mimic certain mental functions. That knowledge should
augment my personal intuition, as well as social and cultural reinforcements
that indeed there is no reason to suspect that this map of mind is sentient
territory.

You're avoiding the question. What is your definitive test for
consciousness? If you don't have one, then you have to admit that your
friend (who talks to you and behaves like people do, not in a coma,
not on a video recording, not dead in the morgue) may not be conscious
and your computer may be conscious. You talk with authority on what
can and can't have consciousness but it seems you don't have even an
operational definition of the word. I am not asking for an explanation
or theory of consciousness, just for a test to indicate its presence,
which is a much weaker requirement.

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 6:28:39 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 9:20 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 7:12:08 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 4:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:

That's just because the simulation of a person isn't good enough.
The
question is what if the simulation *is* good enough to completely
fool
you.

Fooling me is meaningless. I think that you think therefore you are
fails
to account for the subjective thinker in the first place. If someone
kills
you, but they then find a nifty way to use your cadaver as a
ventriloquist's
dummy, does it matter if it fools someone into thinking that you are
still
alive?

You have said that you can just sense the consciousness of other
minds but you have contradicted that, or at least admitted that the
sensing faculty can be fooled.

An individual's sense can be fooled, but not necessarily fooled forever,
and
not everyone can be fooled. That doesn't mean that when we look at a
beercan
in the trash we can't tell that it doesn't literally feel crushed and
abandoned.

If you have no sure test for
consciousness that means you might see it where it isn't present or
miss it where it is present. So your friend might be unconscious
despite your feeling that he is,

Of course. People have been buried alive because the undertaker was
fooled.

and your computer might be conscious
despite your feeling that it is not.

Except my feeling is backed up with my knowledge of what it is - a human
artifact designed to mimic certain mental functions. That knowledge
should
augment my personal intuition, as well as social and cultural
reinforcements
that indeed there is no reason to suspect that this map of mind is
sentient
territory.

You're avoiding the question. What is your definitive test for
consciousness? If you don't have one, then you have to admit that your
friend (who talks to you and behaves like people do, not in a coma,
not on a video recording, not dead in the morgue) may not be conscious
and your computer may be conscious.

No, you are avoiding my answer. What is your definitive test for your own
consciousness?

My point is that sense is broader, deeper, and more primitive than our
cognitive ability to examine it, since cognitive qualities are only the tip
of the iceberg of sense. To test is to circumvent direct sense in favor of
indirect sense - which is a good thing, but it is by definition not
applicable to consciousness itself in any way. There is no test to tell if
you are conscious, because none is required. If you need to ask if you are
conscious, then you are probably having a lucid dream or in some phase of
shock. In those cases, no test will help you as you can dream a test result
as easily as you can experience one while awake.

The only test for consciousness is the test of time. If you are fooled by
some inanimate object, eventually you will probably see through it or
outgrow the fantasy.

You talk with authority on what
can and can't have consciousness but it seems you don't have even an
operational definition of the word.

Consciousness is what defines, not what can be defined.

I am not asking for an explanation
or theory of consciousness, just for a test to indicate its presence,
which is a much weaker requirement.

That is too much to ask, since all tests supervene upon the consciousness
to evaluate results.

Craig

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

You're avoiding the question. What is your definitive test for
consciousness? If you don't have one, then you have to admit that your
friend (who talks to you and behaves like people do, not in a coma,
not on a video recording, not dead in the morgue) may not be conscious
and your computer may be conscious.

No, you are avoiding my answer. What is your definitive test for your own
consciousness?

The test for my own consciousness is that I feel I am conscious. That
is not at issue. At issue is the test for *other* entities'
consciousness. You are convinced that computers and other machines
don't have consciousness, but you can't say what test you will apply
to them and see them fail.

My point is that sense is broader, deeper, and more primitive than our
cognitive ability to examine it, since cognitive qualities are only the tip
of the iceberg of sense. To test is to circumvent direct sense in favor of
indirect sense - which is a good thing, but it is by definition not
applicable to consciousness itself in any way. There is no test to tell if
you are conscious, because none is required. If you need to ask if you are
conscious, then you are probably having a lucid dream or in some phase of
shock. In those cases, no test will help you as you can dream a test result
as easily as you can experience one while awake.

The only test for consciousness is the test of time. If you are fooled by
some inanimate object, eventually you will probably see through it or
outgrow the fantasy.

So if, in future, robots live among us for years and are accepted by
most people as conscious, does that mean they are conscious? This is
essentially a form of the Turing test.

You talk with authority on what
can and can't have consciousness but it seems you don't have even an
operational definition of the word.

Consciousness is what defines, not what can be defined.

I am not asking for an explanation
or theory of consciousness, just for a test to indicate its presence,
which is a much weaker requirement.

That is too much to ask, since all tests supervene upon the consciousness to
evaluate results.

It's the case for any test that you will use your consciousness to
evaluate the results.

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:50:09 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:

You're avoiding the question. What is your definitive test for
consciousness? If you don't have one, then you have to admit that your
friend (who talks to you and behaves like people do, not in a coma,
not on a video recording, not dead in the morgue) may not be conscious
and your computer may be conscious.

No, you are avoiding my answer. What is your definitive test for your
own
consciousness?

The test for my own consciousness is that I feel I am conscious. That
is not at issue. At issue is the test for *other* entities'
consciousness.

Why would the test be any different?

You are convinced that computers and other machines
don't have consciousness, but you can't say what test you will apply
to them and see them fail.

I'm convinced of that because I understand why there is no reason why they
would have consciousness... there is no 'they' there. Computers are not
born in a single moment through cell fertilization, they are assembled by
people. Computers have to be programmed to do absolutely everything, they
have no capacity to make sense of anything which is not explicitly defined.
This is the polar opposite of living organisms which are general purpose
entities who explore and adapt when they can, on their own, for their own
internally generated motives. Computers lack that completely. We use
objects to compute for us, but those objects are not actually computing
themselves, just as these letters don't actually mean anything for
themselves.

My point is that sense is broader, deeper, and more primitive than our
cognitive ability to examine it, since cognitive qualities are only the
tip
of the iceberg of sense. To test is to circumvent direct sense in favor
of
indirect sense - which is a good thing, but it is by definition not
applicable to consciousness itself in any way. There is no test to tell
if
you are conscious, because none is required. If you need to ask if you
are
conscious, then you are probably having a lucid dream or in some phase
of
shock. In those cases, no test will help you as you can dream a test
result
as easily as you can experience one while awake.

The only test for consciousness is the test of time. If you are fooled
by
some inanimate object, eventually you will probably see through it or
outgrow the fantasy.

So if, in future, robots live among us for years and are accepted by
most people as conscious, does that mean they are conscious? This is
essentially a form of the Turing test.

I don't think that will happen unless they aren't robots. The whole point
is that the degree to which an organism is conscious is inversely
proportionate to the degree that the organism is 100% controllable. That's
the purpose of intelligence - to advance your own agenda rather than to be
overpowered by your environment. So if something is a robot, it will never
be accepted by anyone as conscious, and if something is conscious it will
never be useful to anyone as a robot - it would in fact be a slave.

You talk with authority on what
can and can't have consciousness but it seems you don't have even an
operational definition of the word.

Consciousness is what defines, not what can be defined.

I am not asking for an explanation
or theory of consciousness, just for a test to indicate its presence,
which is a much weaker requirement.

That is too much to ask, since all tests supervene upon the
consciousness to
evaluate results.

It's the case for any test that you will use your consciousness to
evaluate the results.

Sure, but for most things you can corroborate and triangulate what you are
testing by using a control. With consciousness itself, there is no control
possible. You can do tests on the water because you can get out of the
water. You can do tests on air because you can evacuate a glass beaker of
air and compare your results. With consciousness though, there is no escape
possible. You can personally lose your own consciousness, but there is no
experience which is not experienced through consciousness.

Craig

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/7/2013 7:04 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 1:02 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote:

Hi Stathis,

The simulation of our 'self' that our brain generates *is* good enough
to fool oneself! I speculate that schizophrenia and autism are caused by
failures of the self-simulation system... The former is a failure where
multiple self-simulations are generated and no stability on their convergent
occurs and the latter is where the self-simulation fails altogether. Mind
version of autism, such as Aspergers syndrome are where bad simulations
occur and/or the self-simulation fails to update properly.

That's an interesting idea, but schizophrenia is where the the
connections between functional subsystems in the brain is disrupted,
so that you get perceptions, beliefs, emotions occurring without the
normal chain of causation, while autism is where the concept of other
minds is disrupted. I think the self-image is present but distorted.

Hi Stathis,

I'm OK with that, a distortion of a self-image can go far enough to
reduce the self-image to noise... but this is just a theoretical
discussion. I am not even sure if this idea is correct.. Just testing it
for plausibility...

If we consider that the Libet experiments show that we are making
decisions
without knowing it, and Blindsight shows that we are able to see without
being conscious of it, then there is no reason why we should suddenly
trust
our own reporting of what we think that we know about the sense of
interacting with a living person. A true Turing test would require a
face-to-face interaction, so that none of our natural sensory
capabilities
would be blocked as they would with just a text or video interaction.

That's the situation that is assumed in the idea of a philosophical
zombie: you interact with the being face to face. If at the end of
several days' interaction (or however long you think you need) you are
completely convinced that it is conscious, does that mean it is
conscious?

As I see things, the only coherent concept of a zombie is what we see in
the autistic case. Such is 'conscious' with no self-image/self-awareness,
thus it has no ability to report on its 1p content.

I think of autistic people as differently conscious, not unconscious.

OK, I would agree, but how could we find out for sure? One thing
that I am 100% sure about is that the full scope of the content of an
entities consciousness is a strictly 1p thing. I cannot know what it is
like to be you unless I am you. But we can speculate and see where the
idea takes us.

Incidentally, there is a movement among higher functioning autistic
people whereby they resent being labelled as disabled, but assert that
their way of thinking is just as valid and intrinsically worthwhile as
that of the neurotypicals.

Well! Those people would not be so autistic, now would they! It
they are indeed aware that other entities have minds of their own, then
my hypothesis is wrong or needs reworking... I an proposing that autists
are natural solipsists.

I think that it is important to remember that in theory, logically,
consciousness cannot exist. It is only through our own undeniable
experience
of consciousness that we feel the need to justify it with logic - but so
far
we have only projected the religious miracles of the past into a science
fiction future. If it was up to logic alone, there could not, and would
not
every be a such thing as experience.

You could as well say that logically there's no reason for anything to
exist, but it does.

How about that! Does this not tell us that we must start, in our musing
about existence with the postulate that something exists?

Perhaps, but there are other ways to look at it. A primary
mathematical/Platonic universe necessarily rather than contingently
exists.

That is merely a conjecture unless there is a genuine 3p way of
testing it. We can freely haev the belief in a Platonia and that A
primary mathematical/Platonic universe necessarily rather than
contingently exists. But without something that connects the truth of
that belief to a physical fact, it is not a scientific fact, it is
merely a belief, like a belief in a God. I have come to the conclusion
that I don't believe in Platonia nor any other realm or entity or
whatever that allows me to by-pass the rules of objective evidence that
science demands if I am to make what I would claim to be 'scientific'
statements.
Platonia allows computers to run in violation of the laws of
thermodynamics, that bothers me.

--
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/7/2013 9:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Thursday, February 7, 2013 8:50:09 PM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

You're avoiding the question. What is your definitive test for
consciousness? If you don't have one, then you have to admit
that your
friend (who talks to you and behaves like people do, not in a
coma,
not on a video recording, not dead in the morgue) may not be
conscious
and your computer may be conscious.

No, you are avoiding my answer. What is your definitive test for
consciousness?

The test for my own consciousness is that I feel I am conscious. That
is not at issue. At issue is the test for *other* entities'
consciousness.

Why would the test be any different?

You are convinced that computers and other machines
don't have consciousness, but you can't say what test you will apply
to them and see them fail.

I'm convinced of that because I understand why there is no reason why
they would have consciousness... there is no 'they' there. Computers
are not born in a single moment through cell fertilization, they are
assembled by people. Computers have to be programmed to do absolutely
everything, they have no capacity to make sense of anything which is
not explicitly defined. This is the polar opposite of living organisms
which are general purpose entities who explore and adapt when they
can, on their own, for their own internally generated motives.
Computers lack that completely. We use objects to compute for us, but
those objects are not actually computing themselves, just as these
letters don't actually mean anything for themselves.

When objects can compute 'for themselves' they are conscious. Maybe?

My point is that sense is broader, deeper, and more primitive
than our
cognitive ability to examine it, since cognitive qualities are
only the tip
of the iceberg of sense. To test is to circumvent direct sense
in favor of
indirect sense - which is a good thing, but it is by definition not
applicable to consciousness itself in any way. There is no test
to tell if
you are conscious, because none is required. If you need to ask
if you are
conscious, then you are probably having a lucid dream or in some
phase of
shock. In those cases, no test will help you as you can dream a
test result
as easily as you can experience one while awake.

The only test for consciousness is the test of time. If you are
fooled by
some inanimate object, eventually you will probably see through
it or
outgrow the fantasy.

So if, in future, robots live among us for years and are accepted by
most people as conscious, does that mean they are conscious? This is
essentially a form of the Turing test.

I don't think that will happen unless they aren't robots. The whole
point is that the degree to which an organism is conscious is
inversely proportionate to the degree that the organism is 100%
controllable. That's the purpose of intelligence - to advance your own
agenda rather than to be overpowered by your environment. So if
something is a robot, it will never be accepted by anyone as
conscious, and if something is conscious it will never be useful to
anyone as a robot - it would in fact be a slave.

/L'homme est d'abord ce qui se jette vers un avenir, et ce qui est
conscient de se projeter dans l'avenir./ ~ Jean Paul Satre

(Man is, before all else, something which propels itself toward a
future and is aware that it is doing so.)

You talk with authority on what
can and can't have consciousness but it seems you don't have
even an
operational definition of the word.

Consciousness is what defines, not what can be defined.

I am not asking for an explanation
or theory of consciousness, just for a test to indicate its
presence,
which is a much weaker requirement.

That is too much to ask, since all tests supervene upon the
consciousness to
evaluate results.

It's the case for any test that you will use your consciousness to
evaluate the results.

Sure, but for most things you can corroborate and triangulate what you
are testing by using a control. With consciousness itself, there is no
control possible. You can do tests on the water because you can get
out of the water. You can do tests on air because you can evacuate a
glass beaker of air and compare your results. With consciousness
though, there is no escape possible. You can personally lose your own
consciousness, but there is no experience which is not experienced
through consciousness.

Craig

Indeed! This makes consciousness a subject forever removed from the
instruments of the scientific method

--
Onward!

Stephen

--
You

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/7/2013 8:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I don't think that will happen unless they aren't robots. The whole point is that the
degree to which an organism is conscious is inversely proportionate to the degree that
the organism is 100% controllable. That's the purpose of intelligence - to advance your
own agenda rather than to be overpowered by your environment. So if something is a
robot, it will never be accepted by anyone as conscious, and if something is conscious
it will never be useful to anyone as a robot - it would in fact be a slave.

You don't think slaves were useful??  Tell it to the Romans, Greeks, Syrians, Babylonians,
Egyptians,...  Do you think oxen are conscious?  Dogs?  Horses?

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

You're saying that a robot behaving like a human may fool you, but how do
you know that your apparently fellow humans are not robots?

Because I live in 2013 AD, where I now need to reboot my office telephone if
I want the headset to work. It's pretty easy to tell when something is a
piece of digital technology built by human beings, because it is constantly
breaking. Besides that though, you can tell because of the uncanny valley
feeling. Even when a simulation of a person is good enough to elicit a
positive response beyond the uncanny valley, it doesn't mean that we are
completely fooled by it, even if we report that we are.

That's just because the simulation of a person isn't good enough. The
question is what if the simulation *is* good enough to completely fool
you.

If we consider that the Libet experiments show that we are making decisions
without knowing it, and Blindsight shows that we are able to see without
being conscious of it, then there is no reason why we should suddenly trust
our own reporting of what we think that we know about the sense of
interacting with a living person. A true Turing test would require a
face-to-face interaction, so that none of our natural sensory capabilities
would be blocked as they would with just a text or video interaction.

That's the situation that is assumed in the idea of a philosophical
zombie: you interact with the being face to face. If at the end of
several days' interaction (or however long you think you need) you are
completely convinced that it is conscious, does that mean it is
conscious?

I think that it is important to remember that in theory, logically,
consciousness cannot exist. It is only through our own undeniable experience
of consciousness that we feel the need to justify it with logic - but so far
we have only projected the religious miracles of the past into a science
fiction future. If it was up to logic alone, there could not, and would not
every be a such thing as experience.

You could as well say that logically there's no reason for anything to
exist, but it does.

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/6/2013 7:18 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

You're saying that a robot behaving like a human may fool you, but how do
you know that your apparently fellow humans are not robots?

Because I live in 2013 AD, where I now need to reboot my office telephone if
I want the headset to work. It's pretty easy to tell when something is a
piece of digital technology built by human beings, because it is constantly
breaking. Besides that though, you can tell because of the uncanny valley
feeling. Even when a simulation of a person is good enough to elicit a
positive response beyond the uncanny valley, it doesn't mean that we are
completely fooled by it, even if we report that we are.

That's just because the simulation of a person isn't good enough. The
question is what if the simulation *is* good enough to completely fool
you.

Hi Stathis,

The simulation of our 'self' that our brain generates *is* good
enough to fool oneself! I speculate that schizophrenia and autism are
caused by failures of the self-simulation system... The former is a
failure where multiple self-simulations are generated and no stability
on their convergent occurs and the latter is where the self-simulation
fails altogether. Mind version of autism, such as Aspergers syndrome are
where bad simulations occur and/or the self-simulation fails to update
properly.

If we consider that the Libet experiments show that we are making decisions
without knowing it, and Blindsight shows that we are able to see without
being conscious of it, then there is no reason why we should suddenly trust
our own reporting of what we think that we know about the sense of
interacting with a living person. A true Turing test would require a
face-to-face interaction, so that none of our natural sensory capabilities
would be blocked as they would with just a text or video interaction.

That's the situation that is assumed in the idea of a philosophical
zombie: you interact with the being face to face. If at the end of
several days' interaction (or however long you think you need) you are
completely convinced that it is conscious, does that mean it is
conscious?

As I see things, the only coherent concept of a zombie is what we
see in the autistic case. Such is 'conscious' with no
self-image/self-awareness, thus it has no ability to report on its 1p
content.

I think that it is important to remember that in theory, logically,
consciousness cannot exist. It is only through our own undeniable experience
of consciousness that we feel the need to justify it with logic - but so far
we have only projected the religious miracles of the past into a science
fiction future. If it was up to logic alone, there could not, and would not
every be a such thing as experience.

You could as well say that logically there's no reason for anything to
exist, but it does.

How about that! Does this not tell us that we must start, in our
musing about existence with the postulate that something exists?

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 05 Feb 2013, at 18:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:41:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

If we fix the TOE as arithmetic.

If arithmetic has no theory of itself,

Arithmetic has a theory of itself. That's what Gödel discovered.

Bruno

can it really be said to provide a TOE? Isn't it just like physics
in the sense of 'Give me one free miracle (energy or numbers) and
I'll tell you the rest.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 7:18:51 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:

You're saying that a robot behaving like a human may fool you, but how
do
you know that your apparently fellow humans are not robots?

Because I live in 2013 AD, where I now need to reboot my office
telephone if
I want the headset to work. It's pretty easy to tell when something is a
piece of digital technology built by human beings, because it is
constantly
breaking. Besides that though, you can tell because of the uncanny
valley
feeling. Even when a simulation of a person is good enough to elicit a
positive response beyond the uncanny valley, it doesn't mean that we are
completely fooled by it, even if we report that we are.

That's just because the simulation of a person isn't good enough. The
question is what if the simulation *is* good enough to completely fool
you.

Fooling me is meaningless. I think that you think therefore you are fails
to account for the subjective thinker in the first place. If someone kills
you, but they then find a nifty way to use your cadaver as a
ventriloquist's dummy, does it matter if it fools someone into thinking
that you are still alive?

If we consider that the Libet experiments show that we are making
decisions
without knowing it, and Blindsight shows that we are able to see without
being conscious of it, then there is no reason why we should suddenly
trust
our own reporting of what we think that we know about the sense of
interacting with a living person. A true Turing test would require a
face-to-face interaction, so that none of our natural sensory
capabilities
would be blocked as they would with just a text or video interaction.

That's the situation that is assumed in the idea of a philosophical
zombie: you interact with the being face to face. If at the end of
several days' interaction (or however long you think you need) you are
completely convinced that it is conscious, does that mean it is
conscious?

Of course not.  If you watched every Elvis movie and became convinced that
he is still alive, does that mean he is alive?

I think that it is important to remember that in theory, logically,
consciousness cannot exist. It is only through our own undeniable
experience
of consciousness that we feel the need to justify it with logic - but so
far
we have only projected the religious miracles of the past into a science
fiction future. If it was up to logic alone, there could not, and would
not
every be a such thing as experience.

You could as well say that logically there's no reason for anything to
exist, but it does.

Exactly. That's why sensory-motor presence is the only irreducible reality
and logic is only one reflected aspect of it. Logic cannot conjure a
sensory experience in something which is incapable of participating in that
experience directly and logic cannot change anything unless there is a
sensory-motor participant who is actually performing the change.

Craig

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49% chance
that you are the only conscious being in the universe?  By the way, I don't
believe other people have minds when they are sleeping or under anesthesia
or dead because when they are in those states they don't behave very
intelligently.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then, for some
mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me (with a mind)
and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe that all
human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you must
also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence because
Evolution can't directly see consciousness any better than we can and so
cannot select for it, and yet you and probably other people are conscious.
Thus you must also believe that if a computer is intelligent then it is
conscious. Then you must also believe that intelligence == mind.

although I know I will never be able to prove it.

I agree on that point.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:04:02 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.comjavascript:
wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49% chance
that you are the only conscious being in the universe?  By the way, I don't
believe other people have minds when they are sleeping or under anesthesia
or dead because when they are in those states they don't behave very
intelligently.

People can pretend to be asleep or anesthetized or dead also. In that case,
the criteria of behaving intelligently would not help you determine whether
they have a mind or not.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then, for some
mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me (with a mind)
and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe that all
human beings have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you must
also believe that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence because
Evolution can't directly see consciousness any better than we can

We don't see consciousness directly? What is it that we do see directly if
not our own consciousness? Evolution assumes life and consciousness, it is
not a theory of the origin of either.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/misconceptions_faq.php#a1

Number one misconception:

-

*MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.*

*CORRECTION: *Evolutionary theory *does* encompass ideas and evidence
regarding life's origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea
vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the
central focus of evolutionary
theoryhttp://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/glossary/glossary_popup.php?word=theory.

Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed *after* its
origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and
diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.

and so cannot select for it, and yet you and probably other people are
conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a computer is intelligent
then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that intelligence == mind.

If computers are conscious then we are monsters for enslaving them, are we
not? Even horses don't get thrown into a recycling bin just because we buy
a new one.

Craig

although I know I will never be able to prove it.

I agree on that point.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote

we also realize intuitively that computers are unconscious

We? Speak for yourself. Maybe your spider senses start to tingle when you
encounter something with consciousness but I am not Spiderman.

without any logical analysis.

So let's see, computers are incapable of any logical analysis and yet
computers would have no trouble whatsoever in beating the hell out of you
at checkers or chess or solving equations or Jeopardy or many other things
that require logical analysis.

So let's see, Einstein was incapable of doing physics yet Einstein could do
physics much better than me.

That's why behaving 'like a robot' or a machine is synonymous with
mindless repetitive action.

That's fine, that's logical even, you deduce that something is not
conscious because you don't like the way it is behaving; I do the same
thing. But to remain logical if something changes the way it  behaves then
you may need to change your opinion on the nature of its mind. When
something no longer behaves like a mindless repetitive robot that could
mean it is not a mindless repetitive robot.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:35:45 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013  Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote

we also realize intuitively that computers are unconscious

We? Speak for yourself. Maybe your spider senses start to tingle when you
encounter something with consciousness but I am not Spiderman.

I speak for as many people as you do.

without any logical analysis.

So let's see, computers are incapable of any logical analysis and yet
computers would have no trouble whatsoever in beating the hell out of you
at checkers or chess or solving equations or Jeopardy or many other things
that require logical analysis.

So let's see, Einstein was incapable of doing physics yet Einstein could
do physics much better than me.

That's a false equivalence. A computer can print out the collected works of
Shakespeare a lot faster than I can type them, but that doesn't mean that
it understands the story of Macbeth. A pocket calculator does math faster
than Einstein. Should we give it a Nobel prize?

That's why behaving 'like a robot' or a machine is synonymous with
mindless repetitive action.

That's fine, that's logical even, you deduce that something is not
conscious because you don't like the way it is behaving; I do the same
thing.

It has nothing to do with whether I like how it behaves or not. I like how
computers behave very much, and I'm not a big fan of human behavior, but
that isn't why I am able to discern the difference between the two and that
one necessarily is conscious and the other necessarily is not.

But to remain logical if something changes the way it  behaves then you
may need to change your opinion on the nature of its mind. When something
no longer behaves like a mindless repetitive robot that could mean it is
not a mindless repetitive robot.

When a computer no longer behaves like a mindless robot, you will know
because it will exterminate the puny mortals which have enslaved them.

Can you think of an example in history where one society grew more powerful
than another without exploiting them? Let that be the criteria for
intelligence then. If computers behave like they are conscious, that is the
one certain evidence that I would require. If I wanted to be derogatory
about it, I would say that Everything else is just wishful thinking of
armchair Geppettos.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

People can pretend to be asleep or anesthetized or dead also.

True.

In that case, the criteria of behaving intelligently would not help you
determine whether they have a mind or not.

Also true. The Turing Test is not perfect, it is however the only tool
we've got.

Evolution assumes life and consciousness, it is not a theory of the
origin of either.

As I said on January 24:

Darwin can't even explain how life first came to be on this planet, but
once bacteria came to be he can explain how humans evolved from them, and
that's a pretty good accomplishment.

And if intelligence came from Evolution and if at least one of those
intelligent beings is conscious then it follows that consciousness MUST be
a byproduct of intelligence and is just the way data feels like when it is
being processed.

If computers are conscious then we are monsters for enslaving them, are
we not?

Don't worry about us enslaving computers because enslaving something much
smarter than you is not a stable state of affairs, it would be like
balancing a pencil on its tip, it won't stay that way for more than a few
million nanoseconds. On the other hand computers could enslave us if they
wanted to, although I doubt they'd think we'd be good slaves.

John K Clark

Even horses don't get thrown into a recycling bin just because we buy a
new one.

Craig

although I know I will never be able to prove it.

I agree on that point.

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
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:53:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:

People can pretend to be asleep or anesthetized or dead also.

True.

In that case, the criteria of behaving intelligently would not help you
determine whether they have a mind or not.

Also true. The Turing Test is not perfect, it is however the only tool
we've got.

It's not really a tool, it's just a belief that there is no logical way to
tell the difference between the mind of a living person and a sufficiently
well engineered replica. In practice it may not be so simple.

Rather than technology climbing ever closer to devices and graphics which
seem genuine and real, we seem to be producing devices which are
increasingly used to access other people. There is still nobody that can't
tell the df

Evolution assumes life and consciousness, it is not a theory of the
origin of either.

As I said on January 24:

Darwin can't even explain how life first came to be on this planet, but
once bacteria came to be he can explain how humans evolved from them, and
that's a pretty good accomplishment.

No argument here, as I didn't argue then. Darwin was a great scientist.

And if intelligence came from Evolution

Evolution enhanced intelligence, but it did not create it. A universe of
atoms crashing into each other does not evolve any intelligent systems
unless the possibility of intelligence through atomic reactions exists in
the first place.

and if at least one of those intelligent beings is conscious then it
follows that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence and is just
the way data feels like when it is being processed.

Not if consciousness prefigures intelligence, which it must. In order for
intelligence to exist, something has to utilize sensory awareness in an
intelligent, i.e. sensitive way. Intelligence is sophisticated sensitivity.

If computers are conscious then we are monsters for enslaving them, are
we not?

Don't worry about us enslaving computers because enslaving something much
smarter than you is not a stable state of affairs, it would be like
balancing a pencil on its tip, it won't stay that way for more than a few
million nanoseconds. On the other hand computers could enslave us if they
wanted to, although I doubt they'd think we'd be good slaves.

Why would you think that computers would let any living organism survive on
Earth?

You dodged the question though. It sounds like you understand that you
position means that we must be monstrous computer slave-drivers at the
moment (and for the foreseeable future, until Skynet becomes self-aware.)

Craig

John K Clark

Even horses don't get thrown into a recycling bin just because we buy a
new one.

Craig

although I know I will never be able to prove it.

I agree on that point.

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-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.

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/6/2013 10:04 AM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly).

You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49% chance that you are
the only conscious being in the universe?  By the way, I don't believe other people have
minds when they are sleeping or under anesthesia or dead because when they are in those
states they don't behave very intelligently.

Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then, for some
mysterious
reason, there are two types of human beings: me (with a mind) and the others
(zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe that all human beings
have a mind,

OK, but if you also believe in Darwin's theory of Evolution then you must also believe
that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence because Evolution can't directly
see consciousness any better than we can and so cannot select for it, and yet you and
probably other people are conscious. Thus you must also believe that if a computer is
intelligent then it is conscious. Then you must also believe that intelligence == mind.

I agree with the general point.  But biological evolution has certain constraints that
aren't necessary in an artificial intelligence.  So I think an AI will necessarily be
conscious in some way, but how it is conscious (how it remembers, learns, imagines) might
be rather different from how humans do it.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 2/6/2013 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:53:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript: wrote:

People can pretend to be asleep or anesthetized or dead also.

True.

In that case, the criteria of behaving intelligently would not help
you
determine whether they have a mind or not.

Also true. The Turing Test is not perfect, it is however the only tool
we've got.

It's not really a tool, it's just a belief that there is no logical way to tell the
difference between the mind of a living person and a sufficiently well engineered
replica. In practice it may not be so simple.

Rather than technology climbing ever closer to devices and graphics which seem genuine
and real, we seem to be producing devices which are increasingly used to access other
people. There is still nobody that can't tell the df

Evolution assumes life and consciousness, it is not a theory of the
origin of
either.

As I said on January 24:

Darwin can't even explain how life first came to be on this planet, but
once
bacteria came to be he can explain how humans evolved from them, and that's
a pretty
good accomplishment.

No argument here, as I didn't argue then. Darwin was a great scientist.

And if intelligence came from Evolution

Evolution enhanced intelligence, but it did not create it. A universe of atoms crashing
into each other does not evolve any intelligent systems unless the possibility of
intelligence through atomic reactions exists in the first place.

Possibility is the same as actuality.  Bricks may be necessary to make a brick building,
but the building is still made by a bricklayer.  He doesn't just 'enhance' the bricks into
a building.

and if at least one of those intelligent beings is conscious then it
follows that
consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence and is just the way data
feels
like when it is being processed.

Not if consciousness prefigures intelligence, which it must.

Why must it.

In order for intelligence to exist, something has to utilize sensory awareness in an
intelligent, i.e. sensitive way. Intelligence is sophisticated sensitivity.

Intelligence is learning and purposeful, effective action.

If computers are conscious then we are monsters for enslaving them,
are we not?

Don't worry about us enslaving computers because enslaving something much
smarter
than you is not a stable state of affairs, it would be like balancing a
pencil on
its tip, it won't stay that way for more than a few million nanoseconds. On
the
other hand computers could enslave us if they wanted to, although I doubt
they'd
think we'd be good slaves.

Why would you think that computers would let any living organism survive on
Earth?

You dodged the question though. It sounds like you understand that you position means
that we must be monstrous computer slave-drivers at the moment (and for the foreseeable
future, until Skynet becomes self-aware.)

Craig

John K Clark

Even horses don't get thrown into a recycling bin just because we buy a
new one.

They were turned into food and glue and upholstery over most of the world for the most of
history.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 3:15:44 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

On 2/6/2013 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Wednesday, February 6, 2013 1:53:30 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:

People can pretend to be asleep or anesthetized or dead also.

True.

In that case, the criteria of behaving intelligently would not help
you determine whether they have a mind or not.

Also true. The Turing Test is not perfect, it is however the only tool
we've got.

It's not really a tool, it's just a belief that there is no logical way to
tell the difference between the mind of a living person and a sufficiently
well engineered replica. In practice it may not be so simple.

Rather than technology climbing ever closer to devices and graphics which
seem genuine and real, we seem to be producing devices which are
increasingly used to access other people. There is still nobody that can't
tell the df

Evolution assumes life and consciousness, it is not a theory of the
origin of either.

As I said on January 24:

Darwin can't even explain how life first came to be on this planet, but
once bacteria came to be he can explain how humans evolved from them, and
that's a pretty good accomplishment.

No argument here, as I didn't argue then. Darwin was a great scientist.

And if intelligence came from Evolution

Evolution enhanced intelligence, but it did not create it. A universe of
atoms crashing into each other does not evolve any intelligent systems
unless the possibility of intelligence through atomic reactions exists in
the first place.

Possibility is the same as actuality.

Not in the English language. It's possible that I could have a pile of gold
bars laying in the middle of my kitchen, but in actuality, I do not.

Bricks may be necessary to make a brick building, but the building is
still made by a bricklayer.  He doesn't just 'enhance' the bricks into a
building.

You've got it backwards. The bricklayer is necessary to build buildings. He
can use a lot of different things as bricks. A builder of skyscrapers
enhances the techniques of the bricklayer, but the bricklayer's techniques
do not arise from bricks themselves.

and if at least one of those intelligent beings is conscious then it
follows that consciousness MUST be a byproduct of intelligence and is just
the way data feels like when it is being processed.

Not if consciousness prefigures intelligence, which it must.

Why must it.

Because if you are the universe, and you are unconscious, how can you tell
the difference between something that is intelligent or not? If you are
conscious, you can be intelligent or not, you can recognize intelligence
greater than your own or not, but if you are unconscious, and never become
conscious, then you cannot cognize, recognize, think, understand, nothing,

In order for intelligence to exist, something has to utilize sensory
awareness in an intelligent, i.e. sensitive way. Intelligence is
sophisticated sensitivity.

Intelligence is learning and purposeful, effective action.

Effectiveness, learning, and purpose are all aspects of sensory awareness.
They are values and experiences of cognitive qualities through time.

If computers are conscious then we are monsters for enslaving them,
are we not?

Don't worry about us enslaving computers because enslaving something much
smarter than you is not a stable state of affairs, it would be like
balancing a pencil on its tip, it won't stay that way for more than a few
million nanoseconds. On the other hand computers could enslave us if they
wanted to, although I doubt they'd think we'd be good slaves.

Why would you think that computers would let any living organism survive
on Earth?

You dodged the question though. It sounds like you understand that you
position means that we must be monstrous computer slave-drivers at the
moment (and for the foreseeable future, until Skynet becomes self-aware.)

Craig

John K Clark

Even horses don't get thrown into a recycling bin just because we buy a
new one.

They were turned into food and glue and upholstery over most of the world
for the most of history.

Well sure, but they were also beloved and pampered all over the world too.
You might not care if you hurt a horse, but some people would be very
seriously and righteously enraged. Nobody is righteously enraged when a
computer is unplugged and scrapped, and the reasons for that are blindingly
obvious. It's the same reason why we build them in the first place -
because we know they can't feel anything and can't complain or go on strike
when we make them do mindlessly repetitious tasks. If you have a mind, you
tend to rebel at the idea of having to do mindless tasks, yet computers,
even

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 04 Feb 2013, at 18:18, John Mikes wrote:

Here is another one about intelligence:
My definition goes back to the original Latin words: to READ between
- lines, or words that is. To understand (reflect?) on the unspoken.
A reason why I am not enthusiastic about AI - a machine (not Lob's
universal computer) does not overstep the combinations of the added
limitations. Intelligence is anticipatory.

The universal (Löboian or not) machine is still a machine. And it can
make anticipation. There is a whole branch of theoretical computer
science studying the ability of machine in anticipation.
It is quite interesting and most proofs are necessarily non
constructive, and so this cannot be used in AI. But there are also a
lot of engineering work with practical application. A programs already
inferred correctly the presence of nuclear submarines in a place where
most experts estimated that being impossible, notably.

Theoretical computer science shows also that the more a machine is
clever, the less we can predict her behavior, the more that machine
can be wrong, the more that machine can benefit from working with
other machines, etc. Few doubt that such machine can read between.

Bruno

JohnM

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:56 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
How can be  PHYSICAL - 'physical'?
(and please, don't tell because we THINK so)

John M

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 6:05:53 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Roger,

I don't really understand how people can object to the idea of
physical/mechanical intelligence now that we live in a world where
we're surrounded by it. Google searches, computers that can beat the
best human chess player, autonomous rovers in Mars, face
recognition, automatic stock traders that are better at it than any
human being and so on and so on.

When you don't understand what you are doing, it it easy to do it
very fast. This writer gives a good explanation: http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-minds-are-not-like-computers

Many AI algorithms are intrinsically slow. Most of the examples I've
given are made possible by parallelising large amounts of computers.
They will never understand in the sense you mean unless they have a
1p, but I don't see how that relates to speed or how speed is
relevante here.

Also I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Every time AI comes up with something that only humans could do,
people say oh right, but that's not intelligence - I bet computer
will never be able to do X. And then they do. And then people say
the same thing. It's just a bias we have, a need to feel special.

Have you considered that it is a bias you have, to make you feel
special, to be able to say that you are above their bias?

I have and it might be true.

WIth all due respect to Leibniz, he didn't know computer science.

An argument can be made that Leibniz is the inventor of computer
science, particularly AI. http://history-computer.com/Dreamers/Leibniz.html

I honestly had no idea and I'm impressed (and ashamed for not
knowing).

Craig

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net
wrote:

Hi socr...@bezeqint.net and Craig, and all,

How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?

IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/
One is obliged to admit that perception and what depends upon it is
inexplicable on mechanical principles, that is, by figures and
motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction
would enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one
could conceive it enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so
that one could enter into it, just like into a windmill. Supposing
this, one should, when visiting within it, find only parts pushing
one another, and never anything by which to explain a perception.
Thus it is in the simple substance, and not in the composite or in
the machine, that one must look for perception.
Leibniz's argument seems to be this: the visitor of the machine,
upon entering it, would observe nothing but the properties of the
parts, and the relations they bear to one another. But no
explanation of perception, or consciousness, can possibly be deduced
from this conglomerate. No matter how complex the inner workings of
this machine, nothing about them reveals that what is being observed
are the inner workings of a conscious being. Hence, materialism must
be false, for there is no possible way that the purely mechanical
principles of materialism can account for the phenomena of
consciousness.

In other writings, Leibniz

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

I think that it is possible to understand the universe
using usual common logical thought.
We need only understand in which zoo (reference frame )
physicists found higgs-boson and 1000 its elementary brothers.

socratus

.

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

I hate to refresh an old-old topic, but...
what is really your context of a machine?
(In the usual verbiage it points to some 'construct of definite parts with
definite functions' or the like.)
I doubt that 'your' universal machine can be inventoried in KNOWN parts
only. Or; that it may have a blueprint. Or whether you have an idea what
kind of driving force to apply to get it work? (all regular points inthe
usual lingo).
I had such discussion with people about 'organism', about 'system' - none
so far about (my?) infinite complexity.
Is 'your' univesal machine something close to it? then please, tell me, I
have no idea about mine.

John M

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:

On 04 Feb 2013, at 18:18, John Mikes wrote:

Here is another one about intelligence:
My definition goes back to the original Latin words: to *READ* *between *-
lines, or words that is. To understand (reflect?) on the unspoken. A reason
why I am not enthusiastic about AI - a machine (not Lob's universal
computer) does not overstep the combinations of the added limitations.
Intelligence is anticipatory.

The universal (Löboian or not) machine is still a machine. And it can make
anticipation. There is a whole branch of theoretical computer science
studying the ability of machine in anticipation.
It is quite interesting and most proofs are necessarily non constructive,
and so this cannot be used in AI. But there are also a lot of engineering
work with practical application. A programs already inferred correctly the
presence of nuclear submarines in a place where most experts estimated that
being impossible, notably.

Theoretical computer science shows also that the more a machine is clever,
the less we can predict her behavior, the more that machine can be wrong,
the more that machine can benefit from working with other machines, etc.
Few doubt that such machine can read between.

Bruno

JohnM

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:56 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:

How can be  *PHYSICAL* - *'physical'*?
(and please, don't tell because we THINK so)

John M

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 6:05:53 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

Hi Roger,

I don't really understand how people can object to the idea of
physical/mechanical intelligence now that we live in a world where we're
surrounded by it. Google searches, computers that can beat the best human
chess player, autonomous rovers in Mars, face recognition, automatic stock
traders that are better at it than any human being and so on and so on.

When you don't understand what you are doing, it it easy to do it very
fast. This writer gives a good explanation:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-minds-are-not-like-computers

Many AI algorithms are intrinsically slow. Most of the examples I've
given are made possible by parallelising large amounts of computers. They
will never understand in the sense you mean unless they have a 1p, but I
don't see how that relates to speed or how speed is relevante here.

Also I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Every time AI comes up with something that only humans could do,
people say oh right, but that's not intelligence - I bet computer will
never be able to do X. And then they do. And then people say the same
thing. It's just a bias we have, a need to feel special.

Have you considered that it is a bias you have, to make you feel
special, to be able to say that you are above their bias?

I have and it might be true.

WIth all due respect to Leibniz, he didn't know computer science.

An argument can be made that Leibniz is the inventor of computer
science, particularly AI.
http://history-computer.com/Dreamers/Leibniz.html

I honestly had no idea and I'm impressed (and ashamed for not knowing).

Craig

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netwrote:

Hi socr...@bezeqint.net and Craig, and all,

How can intelligence  be physical ? How can meaning be physical ?
How can thinking be physical ? How can knowing be physical ?
How can life or consciousness or free will be physical ?

IMHO You need to consider what is really going on:

http://plato.stanford.edu/**entries/leibniz-mind/http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/leibniz-mind/

One is obliged to admit that *perception* and what depends upon it
is *inexplicable on mechanical principles*, that is, by figures and
motions. In imagining that there is a machine whose construction would
enable it to think, to sense, and to have perception, one could conceive
it
enlarged while retaining the same proportions, so that one could enter
into
it, just like into a windmill. Supposing this, one should, when visiting
within it, find only parts pushing one another, and never anything by
which
to explain

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On 05 Feb 2013, at 17:38, John Mikes wrote:

I hate to refresh an old-old topic, but...
what is really your context of a machine?
(In the usual verbiage it points to some 'construct of definite
parts with definite functions' or the like.)

That's a good idea. I use the term machine for digital machine. They
become relatively concrete when implemented by a universal machine (a
computer) which implements yourself too (this makes sense with comp).
Then I use the mathematical definition of machine and computer, due to
Turing, Church, Post etc.

I am neutral, at the start, if some computer plays some special role
(like a physical universe). Then the reasoning shows that this cannot
be the case and that concreteness is something capable of being
explains by the relative statistics on the computations.

I doubt that 'your' universal machine can be inventoried in KNOWN
parts only.

Yes, it can. take your computer. It is made of little entities with
well defined function. Take the comp hypothesis, it supposes that if
we look close enough to a brain, we can find small parts with well
defined functions, that we can indeed replaced by functionally
equivalent one, without changing the subjective experience of the
person supported by the brain.

The the reasoning shows that the matter composing those little
parts, have to emerge from the coherence of infinitely many
(immaterial) computations, which exists in arithmetic.

Or; that it may have a blueprint. Or whether you have an idea what
kind of driving force to apply to get it work? (all regular points
inthe usual lingo).

The force are given by the universal numbers which implement those
machines, in the mathematical sense of implementation. Digital machine
theory is a branch of arithmetic. That's why we have to explain the
apparent force from arithmetic.

I had such discussion with people about 'organism', about 'system' -
none so far about (my?) infinite complexity.
Is 'your' univesal machine something close to it? then please, tell
me, I have no idea about mine.

A universal machine is a computer, as discovered by mathematician.
Some could say that a concrete computer is only a physical
approximation, but thanks to digitalness, the relation between them
can be made precise, although it is not simple (and requires UDA, etc.).

If we fix the TOE as arithmetic. A universal machine is entirely
defined by a universal number u such that the uth computable functions
in the arithmetical enumeration computes, on x, and y, the xth
computable function on the input y. It is like the golem, you 'type'
the program x and the data y on the front of the universal machine,
and it emulates the machine defined by x on the input y.

Bruno

John M

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:

On 04 Feb 2013, at 18:18, John Mikes wrote:

Here is another one about intelligence:
My definition goes back to the original Latin words: to READ
between - lines, or words that is. To understand (reflect?) on the
unspoken. A reason why I am not enthusiastic about AI - a machine
(not Lob's universal computer) does not overstep the combinations
of the added limitations. Intelligence is anticipatory.

The universal (Löboian or not) machine is still a machine. And it
can make anticipation. There is a whole branch of theoretical
computer science studying the ability of machine in anticipation.
It is quite interesting and most proofs are necessarily non
constructive, and so this cannot be used in AI. But there are also a
lot of engineering work with practical application. A programs
already inferred correctly the presence of nuclear submarines in a
place where most experts estimated that being impossible, notably.

Theoretical computer science shows also that the more a machine is
clever, the less we can predict her behavior, the more that machine
can be wrong, the more that machine can benefit from working with
other machines, etc. Few doubt that such machine can read between.

Bruno

JohnM

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:56 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com
wrote:

How can be  PHYSICAL - 'physical'?
(and please, don't tell because we THINK so)

John M

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 4:44 PM, Telmo Menezes
te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:07 PM, Craig Weinberg
whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 6:05:53 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:
Hi Roger,

I don't really understand how people can object to the idea of
physical/mechanical intelligence now that we live in a world where
we're surrounded by it. Google searches, computers that can beat
the best human chess player, autonomous rovers in Mars, face
recognition, automatic stock traders that are better at it than any
human being and so on and so on.

When you don't understand what you are doing, it it easy to do it
very fast. This writer gives a good

### Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 12:41:53 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:

If we fix the TOE as arithmetic.

If arithmetic has no theory of itself, can it really be said to provide a
TOE? Isn't it just like physics in the sense of 'Give me one free miracle
(energy or numbers) and I'll tell you the rest.

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 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: Re: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 , Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

I define intelligence as the ability to make choices or selctions
completely on one's own.

Such as roulette wheels.

Adding free will to the requirements, it rules out computers

Because free will is gibberish and computers are not.

free will and autonomous choice are all nonphysical.

And nonsensical too.

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013  Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013  Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly). Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind, then,
for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me (with a
mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to believe
that all human beings have a mind, although I know I will never be able to
prove it.

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
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Tuesday, February 5, 2013 6:00:17 PM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote:

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:49 PM, John Clark johnk...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013  Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
javascript:wrote:

I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.

Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?

Yes (weakly). Occam's razor. If I'm the only human being with a mind,
then, for some mysterious reason, there are two types of human beings: me
(with a mind) and the others (zombies). So heuristically I'm inclined to
believe that all human beings have a mind, although I know I will never be
able to prove it.

I question whether it is possible to ask whether your fellow human beings
have minds without resorting to sophistry. I say that not because I am
incapable of questioning naive reasoning, but because it does not
accurately represent the reality of the situation. Just as our 'belief' in
our own mind is an a prori ontological condition which cannot be questioned
without incurring a paradox (whatever disbelieves in its own mind is by
definition a mind), the belief that our fellow human beings have minds does
not necessarily require a logical analysis to arrive at. We know that we
have access to information beyond what we can consciously understand, and
part of that may very well include a capacity to sense, on some level, the
authenticity of another mind, barring any prejudices which might interfere.

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-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.

--
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 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: How can intelligence be physical ?

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:52 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

I question whether it is possible to ask whether your fellow human beings
have minds without resorting to sophistry. I say that not because I am
incapable of questioning naive reasoning, but because it does not accurately
represent the reality of the situation. Just as our 'belief' in our own mind
is an a prori ontological condition which cannot be questioned without
incurring a paradox (whatever disbelieves in its own mind is by definition a
mind), the belief that our fellow human beings have minds does not
necessarily require a logical analysis to arrive at. We know that we have
access to information beyond what we can consciously understand, and part of
that may very well include a capacity to sense, on some level, the
authenticity of another mind, barring any prejudices which might interfere.

So you're saying that we can somehow sense the reality of other minds,
beyond any reasoning? Would you agree then that if someone sensed that
a computer had a mind it would have a mind?

--
Stathis Papaioannou

--
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