Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 29 Jul 2014, at 14:50, David Nyman wrote: On 28 July 2014 19:16, Bruno Marchal wrote: This makes clearer my "apprehension" of Hoyle's heuristic, which might, if taken too much seriously, be on the slope of a reductionism of something 1p to something 3p. Perhaps. I do appreciate the p

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 28 July 2014 19:16, Bruno Marchal wrote: This makes clearer my "apprehension" of Hoyle's heuristic, which might, if > taken too much seriously, be on the slope of a reductionism of something 1p > to something 3p. Perhaps. > > I do appreciate the picture and your attempt to use it for helping p

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 28 Jul 2014, at 13:43, David Nyman wrote: On 28 July 2014 11:25, Kim Jones wrote: Actually, comp is terrifying. Rest assured, it terrifies me too. I think the terror stems, in a sense, from the persistent (and I guess, at the terrestrial level, essential) illusion of control. The idea

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 28 Jul 2014, at 13:18, David Nyman wrote: On 27 July 2014 16:15, Bruno Marchal wrote: This tacit supernumerary assumption is what may make it seem plausible that there is no need of a knower for such a distinction to be relevant (i.e. that realism about Deep Blue is justified in the abs

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 28 Jul 2014, at 12:14, LizR wrote: On 28 July 2014 22:07, Kim Jones wrote: So do we recognise this thing called a "self" or a "subject" or a "person" or a "soul" or an "I" or a whatever as something that is TOTALLY independent of the hosting apparatus? Why should I put up with the rid

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 28 Jul 2014, at 12:25, Kim Jones wrote: On 28 Jul 2014, at 8:14 pm, LizR wrote: On 28 July 2014 22:07, Kim Jones wrote: So do we recognise this thing called a "self" or a "subject" or a "person" or a "soul" or an "I" or a whatever as something that is TOTALLY independent of the hos

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 28 Jul 2014, at 12:07, Kim Jones wrote: So do we recognise this thing called a "self" or a "subject" or a "person" or a "soul" or an "I" or a whatever as something that is TOTALLY independent of the hosting apparatus? I don't think so for the 3-self, which *is* the hosting apparatus. It

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 28 July 2014 11:25, Kim Jones wrote: Actually, comp is terrifying. Rest assured, it terrifies me too. I think the terror stems, in a sense, from the persistent (and I guess, at the terrestrial level, essential) illusion of control. The idea that "I" could be precipitated into any experience

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 27 July 2014 16:15, Bruno Marchal wrote: This tacit supernumerary assumption is what may make it seem plausible that there is no need of a knower for such a distinction to be relevant (i.e. that realism about Deep Blue is justified in the absence of any possible knower). I can make sense of t

Re: It Knows That It Knows

> On 28 Jul 2014, at 8:14 pm, LizR wrote: > >> On 28 July 2014 22:07, Kim Jones wrote: >> So do we recognise this thing called a "self" or a "subject" or a "person" >> or a "soul" or an "I" or a whatever as something that is TOTALLY independent >> of the hosting apparatus? >> >> Why should

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 28 July 2014 22:07, Kim Jones wrote: > So do we recognise this thing called a "self" or a "subject" or a "person" > or a "soul" or an "I" or a whatever as something that is TOTALLY > independent of the hosting apparatus? > > Why should I put up with the ridiculous notion that my brain secretes

Re: It Knows That It Knows

So do we recognise this thing called a "self" or a "subject" or a "person" or a "soul" or an "I" or a whatever as something that is TOTALLY independent of the hosting apparatus? Why should I put up with the ridiculous notion that my brain secretes my mind which somehow projects my "person"? I

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 25 Jul 2014, at 17:37, David Nyman wrote: On 24 July 2014 22:18, Bruno Marchal wrote: To put it another way, there is nobody present for whom it could represent a difference. It still exist, or the difference 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... will need itself a knower to make sense. But> with

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 24 Jul 2014, at 23:44, meekerdb wrote: On 7/24/2014 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote: On 7/23/2014 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/22/2014 12:08 AM, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 2:55 am, Joh

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 24 July 2014 22:44, meekerdb wrote: > So I think you just saying I am "missing" the "qualia" - but that's the part > that I think it is unreasonable to ask for an explanation of. In what terms > can it be explained - I'd say none. And I don't think your explanation in > terms of computation,

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 24 July 2014 22:18, Bruno Marchal wrote: > To put it another way, there is nobody present for whom it could represent a difference. > > It still exist, or the difference 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... will need itself a knower to make sense. But> with comp, we don't need more than the elementary

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 7/24/2014 1:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote: On 7/23/2014 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/22/2014 12:08 AM, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 2:55 am, John Clark > wrote:

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 23 Jul 2014, at 21:59, David Nyman wrote: On 23 July 2014 18:25, Bruno Marchal wrote: You miss, and perhaps David's too (?), the fact that above a threshold of relative complexity, the lower level is not relevant for the description of the higher level. It would be like asking "why O

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:35, meekerdb wrote: On 7/23/2014 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/22/2014 12:08 AM, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 2:55 am, John Clark wrote: > What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that a

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 23 Jul 2014, at 20:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/23/2014 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Intelligence is more simple. It is, I think the natural state of the virgin universal machine. What's a UTM with no program? A Gift of God. It is a universal machine virgin of any program. A computer wit

Re: It Knows That It Knows

ach"? Brent -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: Tue, Jul 22, 2014 5:57 pm Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/22/2014 2:45 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: Ant colonies are not hooked together by neurons

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Kim Jones wrote: > I don't think the ability to say "I know (or believe) I am awake" has > anything to do with intelligence. > If so then it MUST be a byproduct of intelligence because otherwise it would not have evolved, and yet it did at least once. And by the

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 23 July 2014 18:25, Bruno Marchal wrote: You miss, and perhaps David's too (?), the fact that above a threshold of > relative complexity, the lower level is not relevant for the description of > the higher level. It would be like asking "why Obama has been elected?", > and getting back the ans

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 7/23/2014 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/22/2014 12:08 AM, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 2:55 am, John Clark > wrote: > What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that allows you to

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 23 Jul 2014, at 07:18, Kim Jones wrote: On 23 Jul 2014, at 4:38 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Is the following true: Self-awareness = self-consciousness (?) OK. Both involves the 1p. But the []p gives a notion of 3p self- awareness, plausibly not conscious, like a machine which can asser

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 7/23/2014 9:20 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Intelligence is more simple. It is, I think the natural state of the virgin universal machine. What's a UTM with no program? Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe f

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 22 Jul 2014, at 20:57, John Mikes wrote: Bruno and Kim: what "SELF" would you consider in e.g. ants? if we realize the highly merged (individualized?) group-self - the answer is different from taking the present individual (simplified DOWN to functional minimum composition units) 'ant

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 22 Jul 2014, at 18:14, meekerdb wrote: On 7/22/2014 12:08 AM, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 2:55 am, John Clark wrote: > What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that allows you to say "I know"? I'm just guessing but maybe the Neocortex because it's the bigge

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 22 Jul 2014, at 09:08, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 2:55 am, John Clark wrote: > What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that allows you to say "I know"? I'm just guessing but maybe the Neocortex because it's the biggest anatomical difference between a cat

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 21 Jul 2014, at 18:55, John Clark wrote: On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 Kim Jones wrote: > OK. So what separates us then, from dolphins and elephants Intelligence I would have said here that what separate us from dolphins and elephants is typically more competence, notably in the degrees of

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 4:16:07 AM UTC-4, Kim Jones wrote: > > > > On 23 Jul 2014, at 4:33 am, Craig Weinberg > wrote: > > > > To be unconscious is not merely to lose the faculties which make our > quality of life human, but to lose all faculties. > > Perhaps, but I doubt that you lose y

Re: It Knows That It Knows

> On 23 Jul 2014, at 4:33 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > To be unconscious is not merely to lose the faculties which make our quality > of life human, but to lose all faculties. Perhaps, but I doubt that you lose your 'self'. A self is immortal. Just like you wake up from the anaesthetic after

Re: It Knows That It Knows

> On 23 Jul 2014, at 9:19 am, LizR wrote: > > Ant Hillary is (at least in DRH's fable) roughly comparable to a human brain. > Clearly the level of integration is (almost certainly) looser - our neurons > don't wander around, but maintain (more or less) fixed relationships to each > other, a

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 23 Jul 2014, at 4:38 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Is the following true: >> >> Self-awareness = self-consciousness (?) > > OK. Both involves the 1p. But the []p gives a notion of 3p self-awareness, > plausibly not conscious, like a machine which can assert simple (correct) > belief about

Re: It Knows That It Knows

Ant Hillary is (at least in DRH's fable) roughly comparable to a human brain. Clearly the level of integration is (almost certainly) looser - our neurons don't wander around, but maintain (more or less) fixed relationships to each other, at least on the timescale of holding a conversation (the brai

Re: It Knows That It Knows

would they be? Could we communicate with such phenomenal minds? -Original Message- From: meekerdb To: everything-list Sent: 22-Jul-2014 16:27:08 +0000 Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/22/2014 11:57 AM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno and Kim: what "SELF" would you consider i

Re: It Knows That It Knows

-- 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@googlegrou

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 7/22/2014 11:57 AM, John Mikes wrote: Bruno and Kim: what "SELF" would you consider in e.g. ants? if we realize the highly merged (individualized?) */group-self/* - the answer is different from taking the present individual (simplified DOWN to functional minimum composition units) *'ant'* a

Re: It Knows That It Knows

Bruno and Kim: what "SELF" would you consider in e.g. ants? if we realize the highly merged (individualized?) *group-self* - the answer is different from taking the present individual (simplified DOWN to functional minimum composition units) *'ant'* and trying to assign a *'self*' to such *partial

Re: It Knows That It Knows

I will send a longer comment. here are just some precision. On 22 Jul 2014, at 11:28, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 10:54 pm, Kim Jones, then Bruno Marchal > wrote: I don't think, along with Russell Standish, that ants are conscious, for example - but individuals may share in a grou

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On Saturday, July 19, 2014 11:26:13 PM UTC-4, Kim Jones wrote: > > A good thinking habit to cultivate is simplicity. Try and make it as > simple as you can. > > Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): > > 1. I know > > 2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembe

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 3:08 AM, Kim Jones wrote: > Are you saying that there is no consciousness without intelligence? > No, I'm saying there is no intelligence without consciousness. For all I know rocks and cadavers are conscious even though they don't behave intelligently, although I rather

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 7/22/2014 12:08 AM, Kim Jones wrote: On 22 Jul 2014, at 2:55 am, John Clark > wrote: > What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that allows you to say "I know"? I'm just guessing but maybe the Neocortex because it's the biggest ana

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 20 Jul 2014, at 10:54 pm, Kim Jones, then Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I don't think, along with Russell Standish, that ants are conscious, for >> example - but individuals may share in a group 'self'. Selfhood is >> independent of minds or of contents of minds or the precision or mental >>

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 22 Jul 2014, at 2:55 am, John Clark wrote: >> > What part of your brain is more evolved than a cat's brain that allows you >> > to say "I know"? > > I'm just guessing but maybe the Neocortex because it's the biggest anatomical > difference between a cat's brain and mine. But I do know one

Re: It Knows That It Knows

Hey, thanks for the book recommendation guys! Kim > On 20 Jul 2014, at 11:03 pm, David Nyman wrote: > > Have you read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of > the Bicameral Mind"? > > Great book! Even if they are impossible to verify in detail, Jaynes's ideas > are a

Re: It Knows That It Knows

Brent: I am not so sure about the langauge part. animals communicate in more ways than we can 'understand' in humanese, we don't always even understand what peoples communicate in humanese... (even in our own mother tongues). Then there is math (I heard about it when I was young). Now I am not so s

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 Kim Jones wrote: > OK. So what separates us then, from dolphins and elephants > Intelligence > You aren't allowed to respond "Intelligence" > Sorry. Please don't call the cops. > because intelligence is what makes introspection possible in the first > place. > If that's

Re: It Knows That It Knows

Have you read Julian Jaynes "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"? Great book! Even if they are impossible to verify in detail, Jaynes's ideas are a terrific stimulus to thinking about both the function and the origin of consciousness (in the 3p sense). By the way, I

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 20 Jul 2014, at 08:37, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:51 pm, LizR wrote: It could be that language constructs the self (or perhaps more precisely that using language allowed us to create the concept of a self as one amongst many linguistic concepts). I don't grok this thing

Re: It Knows That It Knows

ilto:everything-list@googlegroups.com ] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:49 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 P

Re: It Knows That It Knows

erdb Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:49 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > Consciousness comes in two flavours

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 7/19/2014 11:37 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:51 pm, LizR wrote: It could be that language constructs the self (or perhaps more precisely that using language allowed us to create the concept of a self as one amongst many linguistic concepts). I don't grok this thing of the sel

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 20 Jul 2014, at 06:48, meekerdb wrote: On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): 1. I know 2. I know that I know. (Presumably someth

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 20 Jul 2014, at 05:26, Kim Jones wrote: A good thinking habit to cultivate is simplicity. Try and make it as simple as you can. Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): 1. I know 2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembering that you knew.) I agree

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 20 July 2014 18:37, Kim Jones wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:51 pm, LizR wrote: > > > > It could be that language constructs the self (or perhaps more precisely > that using language allowed us to create the concept of a self as one > amongst many linguistic concepts). > > I don't grok thi

RE: It Knows That It Knows

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones Sent: Sunday, July 20, 2014 12:44 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 20 Jul 2014, at 5:22 pm, "'Chris de Morsella' via

RE: It Knows That It Knows

-Original Message- From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 11:37 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows > On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:51 pm, LizR wrote: >

Re: It Knows That It Knows

> On 20 Jul 2014, at 5:22 pm, "'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List" > wrote: > > Are you suggesting that language, or our superb mastery of tool-making had > little or no effect on how our own human “self” evolved? > > Chris > Not on how it evolved after it switched on, no. I am saying

RE: It Knows That It Knows

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 10:48 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/19/2014 10:11 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything

RE: It Knows That It Knows

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Kim Jones Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 10:38 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:11 pm, "'Chris de Morsella'

Re: It Knows That It Knows

> On 20 Jul 2014, at 3:51 pm, LizR wrote: > > It could be that language constructs the self (or perhaps more precisely that > using language allowed us to create the concept of a self as one amongst many > linguistic concepts). I don't grok this thing of the self 'evolving' like brains and th

Re: It Knows That It Knows

t;>> From: everything-list@googlegroups.com >>> [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb >>> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:49 PM >>> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com >>> Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows >>> >&g

Re: It Knows That It Knows

thing-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb *Sent:* Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:49 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com> *Subject:* Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Cla

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 20 July 2014 17:38, Kim Jones wrote: > > How do language and/or opposable thumbs construct an experiencing subject? > Clearly the subject precedes the existence of these things. Where does the > self come from? What is it? A self constructs language and sees the value > of opposable thumbs. Th

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 7/19/2014 10:11 PM, 'Chris de Morsella' via Everything List wrote: *From:*everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *meekerdb *Sent:* Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:49 PM *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com *Subject:* Re: It Knows Tha

Re: It Knows That It Knows

everything-list@googlegroups.com > Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows > > On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > > > On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > > > Consciousness comes in

RE: It Knows That It Knows

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:49 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: It Knows That It Knows On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On 7/19/2014 9:25 PM, Kim Jones wrote: On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark > wrote: On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones > wrote: > Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): 1. I know 2. I know th

Re: It Knows That It Knows

> On 20 Jul 2014, at 1:44 pm, John Clark wrote: > >> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones wrote: >> >> > Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): >> 1. I know >> 2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembering that you >> knew.) >> Are there any others

Re: It Knows That It Knows

On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:26 PM, Kim Jones wrote: > Consciousness comes in two flavours (that I know of): > 1. I know > 2. I know that I know. (Presumably something to do with remembering that > you knew.) > Are there any others? > Well, do you know that you know that you know? Even if the answ