Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 02 Sep 2012, at 19:10, meekerdb wrote:


On 9/2/2012 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's all I mean morals; having values about your own actions so  
that you can recognize that sometimes you do stupid or bad things  
- by your own standards - but which are not unethical because they  
have little or no effect on other people.


OK. May be it is a difference between english and french, where, at  
least in my country, moral is just a common term for ethical.



Yes, it is in english too.


Thanks for telling me.



But I'm trying to change that. :-)


Hmm  You might read again what Humpty Dumpty say about the price  
of giving too much work to words :)









Maybe you can suggest a different word, but the morals/ethics  
distinction I suggest seems close to common usage.  And even if  
you want to keep the two words as coextensive, it's still useful  
when someone refers to immoral to think whether he means  
something he would regard as bad in himself (like enjoying some pot)


?
(I can understand but I have to replace pot by alcohol, for which  
statistics exists that it is bad in himself).




or he means it harms other people and should be discouraged by  
society.


I appreciate that you seem to think that the society can only  
discouraged behavior which harms the others.




And that's the main reason I think the distinction is useful.  When  
a politician says X is immoral and we should pass a law against X.  
his audience thinks, Yes. He's right. I would feel badly if I did X  
or my child did X.   Sometimes X is also bad for other people, i.e.  
unethical and society should discourage it. But other times it is  
just personally repugnant to the audience (like homosexuality or  
getting drunk) and the audience should think, Well I think it's  
immoral - but it's not unethical. We don't need such a law.   By  
not making the distinction they allow the inference immoral- 
unethical-illegal.


I certainly appreciate your intention. Not sure changing the words can  
help. We should just stick to don't harm the others, and do as you  
want as long as no one complain, or something like that.


Bruno


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



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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 02 Sep 2012, at 19:32, Craig Weinberg wrote:


On Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:59:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona  
wrote:
 Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and  
shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not  
found in the banal evils of game theory.


In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of  
sentiments. Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious  
processing. See for example the cheating detection mechanism in  
this book, which has been subject to an extensive set of test. and  
there are many papers about cheater detection. cheater detection is  
a module of logical reasoning specialized for situations where a  
deal can be broken.  It exist because cheater detection is critical  
in some situations and it must necessary to react quickly. Its  
effect is perceived by the conscious as anger of fear, depending on  
the situation.


That's not the point. It doesn't matter how tightly the incidence  
of sentiment or emotion is bound with evolutionary function, I  
would expect that given the fact of emotion's existence. The  
problem that needs to be answered is given a universe of nothing  
but evolutionary functions, why would or how could anything like an  
emotion arise?


When an amoeba detects a gradient of salinity and moves in the less  
saline direction does it have a feeling?


I imagine that it does. Not much like a feeling we could relate to  
as human beings, but there is an experience there and it has more  
qualitative depth to it than when a steel needle interacts with a  
gradient of salinity, but less depth than when an animal's tongue  
encounters salinity.


I am kind of OK with this, but I tend to consider that amoeba have a  
tongue; a one cell tongue which is itself. The amoeba has only one  
cell, so that cell is simultaneously a muscle, a tongue, a neuron, a  
liver, a digestive cells, even a sort of bone when the conditions are  
bad and that the amoeba solidifies for a while. The amoebas lost  
universality and freedom when they developed the collectivist quasi  
communist pluricellular organisations, known as pluricellular  
organism, somehow. They even lost their potential immortality except  
for some gamete cells.
Obviously, pluricellularity has strong local advantages, and you can't  
stop evolution which takes advantage of any improvement of the economy.
Note that the unicellular organism have not disappeared, they are as  
much successful with respect to evolution than us, and they have still  
some big advantage for possible future environmental changes. If all  
mammals disappear, the bacteria and amoebas will not care at all. If  
bacteria and amoebas disappear, we disappear immediately.


Bruno






Craig



Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/P1BsfrVWQZIJ 
.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


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



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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:57:40 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

  On 9/2/2012 12:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 



 On Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:28:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 

 On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote: 
  6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of 
 all. 
  A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give 
 you a 
  prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it 
 while 
  the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, 
 and you 
  must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves 
  the operation 
  of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some 
  sort, but it 
  wouldn't look anything like a jet. 

 Good exposition.  But it's not the case every small step must be an 
 improvement.  It's 
 sufficient that it not be a degradation. 

  
 It seems like both of you are attributing to evolution some kind of 
 universal fitness. 


 Not at all.  In fact John was, in part, explaining why evolution often 
 comes up with poor designs - because it's constrained by evolving what 
 already exists and it can't go thru intermediate designs that are inferior 
 at reproducing.


The whole premise that you start out with a prop engine and that there 
exists the possibility of improving it until it is a jet is about purpose. 
My point is that evolution can't come up with any designs. There is no 'it' 
there to tell the difference between one design and another. There is only 
the fact of reproductive outcomes in hindsight. It can and does go through 
states which are inferior at reproducing. Homo sapiens have faced near 
extinction several times. 
 


  The terms improvement and degradation superimpose a pseudo-teleology on 
 evolution. 


 No they are just relative to reproductive fitness.


Not in the long term. What makes something successfully reproduce in one 
environment is precisely what may cause its extinction when that 
environment changes.
 


  In reality, if your island is suddenly underwater, whoever happens to 
 have the leftover semi-gills stands a better chance of surviving and 
 reproducing than the otherwise superior other species. It has nothing to do 
 with improvement, it's just an accumulation of environmental shakeouts. 
 Survival of the lucky. 
  

 That's the natural selection.  The other part is the random variation.


They are both random with respect to the organisms, so what would be the 
difference?

Craig
 


 Brent
 And to think of this great country in danger of being dominated 
 by people ignorant enough to take a few ancient Babylonian legends 
 as the canons of modern culture. Our scientific men are paying for 
 their failure to speak out earlier. There is no use now talking 
 evolution to these people. Their ears are stuffed with Genesis.
 --- Luther Burbank, on the Scopes trial
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-thtlAOBE8sJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi meekerdb 

The world is contingent and therefore not perfect.
I don't see the problem.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: meekerdb 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-02, 15:28:15
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote:
 6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all.
 A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a
 prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
 the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you
 must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves
 the operation
 of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some
 sort, but it
 wouldn't look anything like a jet.

Good exposition. But it's not the case every small step must be an improvement. 
It's 
sufficient that it not be a degradation.

Brent
What designer would put a recreational area between two waste disposal sites?
--- Woody Allen, on Intelligent Design

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

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Monday, September 3, 2012 4:37:54 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Sep 2012, at 19:32, Craig Weinberg wrote:

 On Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:59:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

  On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 



 On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 

  *Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and 
 shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the 
 banal evils of game theory. ** * 

  In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of 
 sentiments. Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious processing. See 
 for example the cheating detection mechanism in this book, which has been 
 subject to an extensive set of test. and there are many papers about 
 cheater detection. cheater detection is a module of logical reasoning 
 specialized for situations where a deal can be broken.  It exist because 
 cheater detection is critical in some situations and it must necessary to 
 react quickly. Its effect is perceived by the conscious as anger of fear, 
 depending on the situation.
  
  
 That's not the point. It doesn't matter how tightly the incidence of 
 sentiment or emotion is bound with evolutionary function, I would expect 
 that given the fact of emotion's existence. The problem that needs to be 
 answered is given a universe of nothing but evolutionary functions, why 
 would or how could anything like an emotion arise? 


 When an amoeba detects a gradient of salinity and moves in the less 
 saline direction does it have a feeling?


 I imagine that it does. Not much like a feeling we could relate to as 
 human beings, but there is an experience there and it has more qualitative 
 depth to it than when a steel needle interacts with a gradient of salinity, 
 but less depth than when an animal's tongue encounters salinity.


 I am kind of OK with this, but I tend to consider that amoeba have a 
 tongue; a one cell tongue which is itself. The amoeba has only one cell, so 
 that cell is simultaneously a muscle, a tongue, a neuron, a liver, a 
 digestive cells, even a sort of bone when the conditions are bad and that 
 the amoeba solidifies for a while. 


Exactly, although I tend to assume that the undifferentiated sense palette 
that corresponds to the undifferentiated utility of the amoeba body is 
qualitatively weaker than a large multicellular organism. There are other 
possibilities though, and it is even worse than pure speculation to try to 
guess since our own consciousness inherently prejudices our guesses. It 
could be the case that the amoeba's relative lack of structure allows it 
full access to more of the totality of all sense experience, that its every 
moment is poetry and symphony. It could also be the case that every amoeba 
in the universe is really the same amoeba experience. Or it could be that 
in the amoeba's universe it could be the human being and we are the 
petroleum deposits or whatever.

I tend to go with an Occam's razor conservatism on this. While I feel like 
our naive realism overstates the unconsciousness of non-human entities, I 
tend to trust the panoramic spread of the continuum from inorganic 
structure to our own thoughts and feelings. I think that the relative 
distance in qualities we perceive between animals, amoeba, and rocks, is 
honoring an underlying reality, if not an absolute caste ranking. I think 
that one of the main advantages for single celled organisms to want to 
'level up' to multicellular might in fact be for the better tasting food 
and the more exciting reproduction.


 

 The amoebas lost universality and freedom when they developed the 
 collectivist quasi communist pluricellular organisations, known as 
 pluricellular organism, somehow. They even lost their potential immortality 
 except for some gamete cells. 
 Obviously, pluricellularity has strong local advantages, and you can't 
 stop evolution which takes advantage of any improvement of the economy.
 Note that the unicellular organism have not disappeared, they are as much 
 successful with respect to evolution than us, and they have still some big 
 advantage for possible future environmental changes. If all mammals 
 disappear, the bacteria and amoebas will not care at all. If bacteria and 
 amoebas disappear, we disappear immediately.


I tend to agree, although this argument biases the bullet over the Bible. 
Bottom up process has it's trump card of material support, but Top down 
processes have the polar opposite sort of influence. The universe of cold 
hard facts could exist in theory without warm soft fiction, but in reality, 
that is not what we see. We see that fiction triumphs over fact all the 
time. We see people spend money on looking good instead of being healthy, 
or risking their lives to have an adventurous feeling, etc. So it is not 
clear that, especially if amoeba have sense in a more exotically rich 
manifestation than we might guess, that they would 

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-03 Thread Roger Clough
Hi John Clark 

IMHO Since it is inextended, intelligence (needed for design or 
change or life, etc.) is omnipresent in the universe to various degrees

It always has been, is now, and ever shall be.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
9/3/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-09-02, 12:09:41
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:

 There are greath differences between evolutionary designs and rational design.

Yes there are big differences, rational designs are, well, rational, but
evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow
and stupid
tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it
couldn't even
come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees!
Rational designers had less difficulty coming up with the wheel. The
only advantage
Evolution had is that until it managed to invent brains it was the
only way complex
objects could get built.

 I can think of a few reasons for natures poor design:

1) Time Lags: Evolution is so slow the animal is adapted to conditions that may
   no longer exist, that's why moths have an instinct to fly into candle
   flames. I have no doubt that if you just give them a million years or so,
   evolution will give hedgehogs a better defense than rolling up into a
   ball when confronted by their major predator, the automobile. The only
   problem is that by then there won't be any automobiles.

2) Historical Constraints: The eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards,
   the connective tissue of the retina is on the wrong side so light must
   pass through it before it hits the light sensitive cells. There's no doubt
   this degrades vision and we would be better off if the retina was
reversed as
   it is in squids whose eye evolved independently, however It's too late for
   that to happen now because all the intermediate forms would not be viable.

   Once a standard is set, with all its interlocking mechanisms it's very
   difficult to abandon it completely, even when much better methods are
   found. That's why we still have inches and yards even though the metric
   system is clearly superior. That's why we still have Windows. Nature is
   enormously conservative, it may add new things but it doesn't abandon the
   old because the intermediate stages must also work. That's also why humans
   have all the old brain structures that lizards have as well as new ones.

3) Lack of Genetic Variation: Mutations are random and you might not get the
   mutation you need when you need it. Feathers work better for flight than
   the skin flaps bats use, but bats never produced the right mutations for
   feathers and skin flaps are good enough.

4) Constraints of Costs and Materials: Life is a tangle of trade offs and
   compromises.

5) An Advantage on one Level is a Disadvantage on Another: One gene can give
   you resistance to malaria, a second identical gene will give you sickle
   cell anemia.

6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all.
   A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a
   prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
   the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you
   must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves
the operation
   of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some
sort, but it
   wouldn't look anything like a jet.

   If the tire on your car is getting worn you can take it off and put a
   new one on, but evolution could never do something like that, because when
   you take the old tire off you have temporally made things worse, now you
   have no tire at all. With evolution EVERY step (generation), no matter
   how many, MUST be an immediate improvement over the previous one. it
   can't think more than one step ahead, it doesn't understand one step
   backward two steps forward.

And that's why there are no 100 ton supersonic birds. Yes I know, such a
creature would use a lot of energy, but if we can afford to do so why
can't nature?
Being slow, weak, and cheap is not my idea a an inspired design.

 John K Clark

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

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

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread Stathis Papaioannou
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill friendly
 cells. That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar
 molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a
 metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense -
 everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other way
 around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other way?

Panpsychism is not inconsistent with functionalism. David Chalmers is
a functionalist and panpsychist.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

  *Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and 
 shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the 
 banal evils of game theory. ** *

 In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of 
 sentiments. Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious processing. See 
 for example the cheating detection mechanism in this book, which has been 
 subject to an extensive set of test. and there are many papers about 
 cheater detection. cheater detection is a module of logical reasoning 
 specialized for situations where a deal can be broken.  It exist because 
 cheater detection is critical in some situations and it must necessary to 
 react quickly. Its effect is perceived by the conscious as anger of fear, 
 depending on the situation.

 
That's not the point. It doesn't matter how tightly the incidence of 
sentiment or emotion is bound with evolutionary function, I would expect 
that given the fact of emotion's existence. The problem that needs to be 
answered is given a universe of nothing but evolutionary functions, why 
would or how could anything like an emotion arise? If you admit that 
feeling performs some function that could not be generated otherwise, then 
you have invalidated functionalism, since the presumed epiphenomenon of 
conscious experience could not be reduced to the physical interaction of 
mechanisms. One way or the other you have to explain why everything in the 
universe seems to function perfectly well being (presumably) unconscious, 
but that human bodies can only function if an entire universe of subjective 
experiences is invented out of thin air.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/5ZB6JHdlRosJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Sunday, September 2, 2012 7:18:14 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:

 On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript: 
 wrote: 

  That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill 
 friendly 
  cells. That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar 
  molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a 
  metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense - 
  everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other 
 way 
  around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other 
 way? 

 Panpsychism is not inconsistent with functionalism. David Chalmers is 
 a functionalist and panpsychist. 


True, but panpsychism isn't inconsistent with pre-functionalism either. To 
me it's pretty straightforward. It is easy to see the possibility of 
function as an experience in all cases, but it doesn't make sense to see 
experience as purely a function in any case. Of course subjectivity can be 
imagined as having a function after the fact, but if you start by imagining 
a universe without any possibility of subjectivity first, there is 
certainly no way that it could, should, or would be conjured from nowhere 
to accomplish something that could not be accomplished already, with more 
efficiency, by a Turing emulable mechanism.

Craig
 


 -- 
 Stathis Papaioannou 


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/fB67of1Ae0wJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 01 Sep 2012, at 19:26, meekerdb wrote:


On 9/1/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me  
recommend a distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.   
Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in  
their interactions with other people.  They of course tend to  
overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone,  
so it's both immoral and unethical.  But they are not the  
same.  If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be  
disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral  
either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral?


In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to  
work.  It's personal.  It doesn't imply that it would be immoral  
for you to not work. But it would be unethical for you to not  
work and to be supported by others.  That's the point of making  
a distinction between moral (consistent with personal values,  
1P) and ethical (consistent with social values, 3p).


OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you).
By OK with you I mean you are free to use personal definition  
orthogonal to the use of the majority.

By orthogonal I mean ...
Hmm...


But it's not orthogonal, it's just at an slight angle.  Do you see  
no distinction between standards by which you judge yourself and  
those which by which society may judge you?


i just don't understand what is moral or immoral in the fact of  
eating too much pizza and not doing work. It might be stupid, but I  
don't see anything immoral.


To call it stupid is a value judgement.


Not necessarily.



That's all I mean morals; having values about your own actions so  
that you can recognize that sometimes you do stupid or bad things -  
by your own standards - but which are not unethical because they  
have little or no effect on other people.


OK. May be it is a difference between english and french, where, at  
least in my country, moral is just a common term for ethical.




Maybe you can suggest a different word, but the morals/ethics  
distinction I suggest seems close to common usage.  And even if you  
want to keep the two words as coextensive, it's still useful when  
someone refers to immoral to think whether he means something he  
would regard as bad in himself (like enjoying some pot)


?
(I can understand but I have to replace pot by alcohol, for which  
statistics exists that it is bad in himself).




or he means it harms other people and should be discouraged by  
society.


I appreciate that you seem to think that the society can only  
discouraged behavior which harms the others.


Bruno


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



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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 02 Sep 2012, at 13:17, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com 
 wrote:


That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill  
friendly

cells. That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar
molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a
metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense -
everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the  
other way
around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any  
other way?


Panpsychism is not inconsistent with functionalism. David Chalmers is
a functionalist and panpsychist.



To use this as argument, you have to convince us that David Chalmers  
is consistent.

I already provide evidence that he is not.
In case he is consistent, then, as a human being having a complexity  
close to you and me, you cannot prove consistently that he is  
consistent.

You are using an inconsistent argument per authority here.

Also, what is pan in panpsychism?

His physicalist computationalism is already inconsistent with its own  
functionalism.
Like its dualist interpretation of Everett was inconsistent with  
Everett monistic motivation to abandon the collapse. Not sure he still  
defend that view though.


Bruno


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



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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread John Clark
Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com Wrote:

 There are greath differences between evolutionary designs and rational design.

Yes there are big differences, rational designs are, well, rational, but
evolutionary designs are idiotic. Mother Nature (Evolution) is a slow
and stupid
tinkerer, it had over 3 billion years to work on the problem but it
couldn't even
come up with a macroscopic part that could rotate in 360 degrees!
Rational designers had less difficulty coming up with the wheel. The
only advantage
Evolution had is that until it managed to invent brains it was the
only way complex
objects could get built.

 I can think of a few reasons for natures poor design:

1) Time Lags: Evolution is so slow the animal is adapted to conditions that may
   no longer exist, that's why moths have an instinct to fly into candle
   flames. I have no doubt that if you just give them a million years or so,
   evolution will give hedgehogs a better defense than rolling up into a
   ball when confronted by their major predator, the automobile. The only
   problem is that by then there won't be any automobiles.

2) Historical Constraints: The eye of all vertebrate animals is backwards,
   the connective tissue of the retina is on the wrong side so light must
   pass through it before it hits the light sensitive cells. There's no doubt
   this degrades vision and we would be better off if the retina was
reversed as
   it is in squids whose eye evolved independently, however It's too late for
   that to happen now because all the intermediate forms would not be viable.

   Once a standard is set, with all its interlocking mechanisms it's very
   difficult to abandon it completely, even when much better methods are
   found. That's why we still have inches and yards even though the metric
   system is clearly superior. That's why we still have Windows. Nature is
   enormously conservative, it may add new things but it doesn't abandon the
   old because the intermediate stages must also work. That's also why humans
   have all the old brain structures that lizards have as well as new ones.

3) Lack of Genetic Variation: Mutations are random and you might not get the
   mutation you need when you need it. Feathers work better for flight than
   the skin flaps bats use, but bats never produced the right mutations for
   feathers and skin flaps are good enough.

4) Constraints of Costs and Materials: Life is a tangle of trade offs and
   compromises.

5) An Advantage on one Level is a Disadvantage on Another: One gene can give
   you resistance to malaria, a second identical gene will give you sickle
   cell anemia.

6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all.
   A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a
   prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
   the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you
   must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves
the operation
   of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some
sort, but it
   wouldn't look anything like a jet.

   If the tire on your car is getting worn you can take it off and put a
   new one on, but evolution could never do something like that, because when
   you take the old tire off you have temporally made things worse, now you
   have no tire at all. With evolution EVERY step (generation), no matter
   how many, MUST be an immediate improvement over the previous one. it
   can't think more than one step ahead, it doesn't understand one step
   backward two steps forward.

And that's why there are no 100 ton supersonic birds. Yes I know, such a
creature would use a lot of energy, but if we can afford to do so why
can't nature?
Being slow, weak, and cheap is not my idea a an inspired design.

 John K Clark

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread meekerdb

On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

/Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the 
deep and
violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game 
theory. ///

In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of sentiments.
Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious processing. See for example 
the
cheating detection mechanism in this book, which has been subject to an 
extensive
set of test. and there are many papers about cheater detection. cheater 
detection is
a module of logical reasoning specialized for situations where a deal can 
be broken.
 It exist because cheater detection is critical in some situations and it 
must
necessary to react quickly. Its effect is perceived by the conscious as 
anger of
fear, depending on the situation.


That's not the point. It doesn't matter how tightly the incidence of sentiment or 
emotion is bound with evolutionary function, I would expect that given the fact of 
emotion's existence. The problem that needs to be answered is given a universe of 
nothing but evolutionary functions, why would or how could anything like an emotion arise?


When an amoeba detects a gradient of salinity and moves in the less saline direction does 
it have a feeling?


Brent

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread meekerdb

On 9/2/2012 5:45 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
That's all I mean morals; having values about your own actions so that you can 
recognize that sometimes you do stupid or bad things - by your own standards - but 
which are not unethical because they have little or no effect on other people.


OK. May be it is a difference between english and french, where, at least in my country, 
moral is just a common term for ethical.



Yes, it is in english too.  But I'm trying to change that. :-)





Maybe you can suggest a different word, but the morals/ethics distinction I suggest 
seems close to common usage.  And even if you want to keep the two words as 
coextensive, it's still useful when someone refers to immoral to think whether he 
means something he would regard as bad in himself (like enjoying some pot)


?
(I can understand but I have to replace pot by alcohol, for which statistics exists that 
it is bad in himself).





or he means it harms other people and should be discouraged by society.


I appreciate that you seem to think that the society can only discouraged behavior which 
harms the others.




And that's the main reason I think the distinction is useful.  When a politician says X 
is immoral and we should pass a law against X. his audience thinks, Yes. He's right. I 
would feel badly if I did X or my child did X.   Sometimes X is also bad for other 
people, i.e. unethical and society should discourage it. But other times it is just 
personally repugnant to the audience (like homosexuality or getting drunk) and the 
audience should think, Well I think it's immoral - but it's not unethical. We don't need 
such a law.   By not making the distinction they allow the inference 
immoral-unethical-illegal.


Brent

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Sunday, September 2, 2012 12:59:54 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

  On 9/2/2012 5:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 



 On Saturday, September 1, 2012 12:43:50 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: 

  *Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and 
 shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the 
 banal evils of game theory. ** * 

  In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of 
 sentiments. Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious processing. See 
 for example the cheating detection mechanism in this book, which has been 
 subject to an extensive set of test. and there are many papers about 
 cheater detection. cheater detection is a module of logical reasoning 
 specialized for situations where a deal can be broken.  It exist because 
 cheater detection is critical in some situations and it must necessary to 
 react quickly. Its effect is perceived by the conscious as anger of fear, 
 depending on the situation.
  
  
 That's not the point. It doesn't matter how tightly the incidence of 
 sentiment or emotion is bound with evolutionary function, I would expect 
 that given the fact of emotion's existence. The problem that needs to be 
 answered is given a universe of nothing but evolutionary functions, why 
 would or how could anything like an emotion arise? 


 When an amoeba detects a gradient of salinity and moves in the less saline 
 direction does it have a feeling?


I imagine that it does. Not much like a feeling we could relate to as human 
beings, but there is an experience there and it has more qualitative depth 
to it than when a steel needle interacts with a gradient of salinity, but 
less depth than when an animal's tongue encounters salinity.

Craig

 


 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/P1BsfrVWQZIJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread meekerdb

On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote:

6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all.
A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give you a
prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it while
the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and you
must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves
the operation
of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some
sort, but it
wouldn't look anything like a jet.


Good exposition.  But it's not the case every small step must be an improvement.  It's 
sufficient that it not be a degradation.


Brent
What designer would put a recreational area between two waste disposal sites?
   --- Woody Allen, on Intelligent Design

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:28:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

 On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote: 
  6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all. 
  A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give 
 you a 
  prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it 
 while 
  the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, 
 and you 
  must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves 
  the operation 
  of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some 
  sort, but it 
  wouldn't look anything like a jet. 

 Good exposition.  But it's not the case every small step must be an 
 improvement.  It's 
 sufficient that it not be a degradation. 


It seems like both of you are attributing to evolution some kind of 
universal fitness. The terms improvement and degradation superimpose a 
pseudo-teleology on evolution. In reality, if your island is suddenly 
underwater, whoever happens to have the leftover semi-gills stands a better 
chance of surviving and reproducing than the otherwise superior other 
species. It has nothing to do with improvement, it's just an accumulation 
of environmental shakeouts. Survival of the lucky. 

Craig 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/5wfAX0iBmGYJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-02 Thread meekerdb

On 9/2/2012 12:36 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Sunday, September 2, 2012 3:28:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

On 9/2/2012 9:09 AM, John Clark wrote:
 6) Evolution has no foresight: This is the most important reason of all.
 A jet engine works better than a prop engine in an airplane. I give 
you a
 prop engine and tell you to turn it into a jet, but you must do it 
while
 the engine is running, you must do it in one million small steps, and 
you
 must do it so every one of those small steps immediately improves
 the operation
 of the engine. Eventually you would get an improved engine of some
 sort, but it
 wouldn't look anything like a jet.

Good exposition.  But it's not the case every small step must be an 
improvement.  It's
sufficient that it not be a degradation.


It seems like both of you are attributing to evolution some kind of universal 
fitness.


Not at all.  In fact John was, in part, explaining why evolution often comes up with poor 
designs - because it's constrained by evolving what already exists and it can't go thru 
intermediate designs that are inferior at reproducing.



The terms improvement and degradation superimpose a pseudo-teleology on 
evolution.


No they are just relative to reproductive fitness.

In reality, if your island is suddenly underwater, whoever happens to have the leftover 
semi-gills stands a better chance of surviving and reproducing than the otherwise 
superior other species. It has nothing to do with improvement, it's just an accumulation 
of environmental shakeouts. Survival of the lucky.


That's the natural selection.  The other part is the random variation.

Brent
And to think of this great country in danger of being dominated
by people ignorant enough to take a few ancient Babylonian legends
as the canons of modern culture. Our scientific men are paying for
their failure to speak out earlier. There is no use now talking
evolution to these people. Their ears are stuffed with Genesis.
--- Luther Burbank, on the Scopes trial

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me  
recommend a distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.   
Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in  
their interactions with other people.  They of course tend to  
overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so  
it's both immoral and unethical.  But they are not the same.  If  
I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed  
in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral  
either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral?


In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to  
work.  It's personal.  It doesn't imply that it would be immoral  
for you to not work. But it would be unethical for you to not work  
and to be supported by others.  That's the point of making a  
distinction between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P)  
and ethical (consistent with social values, 3p).


OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you).
By OK with you I mean you are free to use personal definition  
orthogonal to the use of the majority.

By orthogonal I mean ...
Hmm...


But it's not orthogonal, it's just at an slight angle.  Do you see  
no distinction between standards by which you judge yourself and  
those which by which society may judge you?


i just don't understand what is moral or immoral in the fact of eating  
too much pizza and not doing work. It might be stupid, but I don't see  
anything immoral.


Bruno


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



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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-01 Thread Alberto G. Corona
 *Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the
deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils
of game theory. ** *

In the book I referred, it is described the evolutionary role of
sentiments. Sentiments are the result of mostly unconscious processing. See
for example the cheating detection mechanism in this book, which has been
subject to an extensive set of test. and there are many papers about
cheater detection. cheater detection is a module of logical reasoning
specialized for situations where a deal can be broken.  It exist because
cheater detection is critical in some situations and it must necessary to
react quickly. Its effect is perceived by the conscious as anger of fear,
depending on the situation.


2012/8/30 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.

  in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired
 programs.

 codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic program,
 which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an amazing
 homogeneity for a single specie).

 These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a
 social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash
 equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for
 all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are
 the moral code.

 These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according
 with the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These
 maximums are know by our intuition because we have suffered social
 selection, so a knowledge of them are intuitive.  That we have suffered
 social selection means that the groups of hominids or the individual
 hominids whose conducts were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared.
  To be near these equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired
 intuitions, that the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.

 What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the
 expression of the same moral code operating in different circunstances
 where the optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies,
 for example in foundational book of evolutionary psychology The adapted
 mind

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**The_Adapted_Mindhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind

 about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in
 extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the
 extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close
 to ours, the rules are quite normal. Both the normal behaviour or the
 extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of
 individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way
 (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a
 normal society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system.  Thanks to
 the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game
 theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that
 await  a development of evolutionary morals


 Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality.
 Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the
 anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different than how the
 equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines whether I inhale or
 exhale.

 This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and
 instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a
 universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the
 revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the deep and
 violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game
 theory.

 To understand morals we must look at sense and motive, and how the
 association of transgressive motives (criminality) is associated fairly and
 unfairly with transgressive sense (images, characters worthy of disgust,
 shame, etc). We must understand how super-signifying images are telegraphed
 socially through and second-hand exaggeration and dramatization, of
 story-telling and parenting, demagoguery, religious authority, etc.
 Morality is politics. It is the subjective topology which elevates and
 lowers events, objects, people, places, behaviors, etc so that we enforce
 our own behavioral control before outside authorities need to. It isn't
 only a mathematical system of rules, it is a visceral drama. Consciousness
 computes, but consciousness itself has almost nothing to do with
 computation. It is experience. That is all there is. One can experience the
 computation of other experiences, but without experience, there is no
 access to computation.

  Craig

 --
 You received this message because you are 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-01 Thread Alberto G. Corona
2012/8/31 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.

   in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired
 programs.

  codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic
 program, which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an
 amazing homogeneity for a single specie).

  These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in
 a social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash
 equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for
 all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are
 the moral code.


 In general they are not Nash equilibra.  Evolution doesn't settle on Nash
 equilibra because in many cases they are unstable for finitely repeated
 games, c.f. Ginitis Bounds of Reason.


Game theory , and in concrete, evolutionary game theory is at the core of
evolutionary biology in the study of social behaviour in animals and men.
It is very important  in any science informed by evolutionary science, In
economy for example. Nash equilibria is the most important concept of it.
Read about evolutionary game theory. and in special about the pioneer:
Robert Axelrod

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/game-evolutionary/





  These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according
 with the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These
 maximums are know by our intuition because we have suffered social
 selection, so a knowledge of them are intuitive.  That we have suffered
 social selection means that the groups of hominids or the individual
 hominids whose conducts were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared.
  To be near these equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired
 intuitions, that the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.


 That doesn't seem like something individual that will survive dissolution
 of the body.

 That is the role of the genetic code, that transmit  innate behaviours as
well as body structure. It is so for all kind of animals, including us.



  What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the
 expression of the same moral code operating in different circunstances
 where the optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies,
 for example in foundational book of evolutionary psychology The adapted
 mind

  
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**The_Adapted_Mindhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind

  about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in
 extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the
 extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close
 to ours, the rules are quite normal. Both the normal behaviour or the
 extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of
 individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way
 (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a
 normal society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system.  Thanks to
 the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game
 theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that
 await  a development of evolutionary morals


 I don't think biological evolution has been nearly fast enough to give us
 hardwired ethics suited to modern industrial nation states.  That's why
 diverse cultures have evolved; Different ways of trying to satisfy the
 moral instincts that evolved for life in a small tribe.  In theory the
 interaction of these cultures would eventually pick a winner (cultural
 selection), but in practice technology and other factors (e.g. global
 warming, oil depletion, war) may change things on a much shorter time scale.


 Yes  the hardwired ethics or moral developed during millions of years.
10.000 years or agriculture and. 2 centuries of industry are nothing and
even maybe will not extend much more. That is why the innate human sense of
moral is universal.



 Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality.
 Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the
 anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different than how the
 equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines whether I inhale or
 exhale.


 It also depends on what you want.  No decision problem can be solved with
 values.  The values that evolved biologically are common and don't change
 very fast; so it's a good bet you love your children more than yourself.



 This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and
 instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a
 universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the
 revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-09-01 Thread meekerdb

On 9/1/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Aug 2012, at 19:42, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a 
distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.  Ethics is what I do and what I 
hope other people will do in their interactions with other people.  They of course 
tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both 
immoral and unethical.  But they are not the same.  If I spent my time smoking pot 
and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, 
yes, but immoral?


In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to work.  It's 
personal.  It doesn't imply that it would be immoral for you to not work. But it 
would be unethical for you to not work and to be supported by others.  That's the 
point of making a distinction between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and 
ethical (consistent with social values, 3p).


OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you).
By OK with you I mean you are free to use personal definition orthogonal to the use 
of the majority.

By orthogonal I mean ...
Hmm... 


But it's not orthogonal, it's just at an slight angle.  Do you see no distinction 
between standards by which you judge yourself and those which by which society may 
judge you?


i just don't understand what is moral or immoral in the fact of eating too much pizza 
and not doing work. It might be stupid, but I don't see anything immoral.


To call it stupid is a value judgement.  That's all I mean morals; having values about 
your own actions so that you can recognize that sometimes you do stupid or bad things - by 
your own standards - but which are not unethical because they have little or no effect on 
other people.  Maybe you can suggest a different word, but the morals/ethics distinction I 
suggest seems close to common usage.  And even if you want to keep the two words as 
coextensive, it's still useful when someone refers to immoral to think whether he means 
something he would regard as bad in himself (like enjoying some pot) or he means it harms 
other people and should be discouraged by society.


Brent

Brent

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me  
recommend a distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.   
Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their  
interactions with other people.  They of course tend to overlap  
since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both  
immoral and unethical.  But they are not the same.  If I spent my  
time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself,  
but it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral  
either. Disappointing, yes, but immoral?


In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to  
work.  It's personal.  It doesn't imply that it would be immoral for  
you to not work. But it would be unethical for you to not work and  
to be supported by others.  That's the point of making a distinction  
between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and ethical  
(consistent with social values, 3p).


OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you).
By OK with you I mean you are free to use personal definition  
orthogonal to the use of the majority.

By orthogonal I mean ...
Hmm...








BTW:
I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and  
smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some  
people smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew  
smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies  
early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the  
most prestigious post in the US.


But a single example doesn't tell one much about social policy.  I  
certainly wouldn't conclude that smoking lots of pot will improve  
your academic production.


You are right (in the usual sense of the words).






As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not  
been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize  
that they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation  
for study. It is so easy.


Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a  
while the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably  
diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not this product or  
that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by  
treating adults like children. I think.


It's also encouraged by being drunk.


True, but I don't see the relevance.

Bruno


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



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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Hi Craig,

 Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like
 a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were
 unnecessary.


 Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

 Craig


 Hi Craig,

 Umm, the Marxists have an analogue...  
 classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society,
 moneyless, and stateless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society
  social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order 
 structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure
  upon common ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership of
 the means of productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production,
 as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, 
 politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political
  and econom**ic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology that
 aims at the establishment of this social order.


 When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk
 about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie
 Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid of money
 and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should pay
 teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying
 private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless
 drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies,
 and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never -
 ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political
 context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from
 Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.


Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who
would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an
anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules,
that is anomie.

Quentin



 Craig


  --
 Onward!

 Stephen
 http://webpages.charter.net/**stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html 
 http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

   --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Bruno Marchal 

I would answer by saying that even unconscious entities, such as
an immune system,  can enhance life, and so IMHO are good
(moral) while cancer, which tends to deminish life, is bad or evil.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Bruno Marchal 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 15:03:20
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Hi Roger


On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Seeming to be aware is not the same as actually being aware,
just as seeming to be alive is not the same as actually being alive.

And my view is that comp, since it must operate in (objective) code,
can only create entities that might seem to be alive, not actually be alive.

Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
which seem to be alive but are not actually so.




The problem is that you cannot know that.


In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to something 
non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something conscious, as 
that can generate suffering.


There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot looking very 
much like humans. 
An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive people who 
might believe that such machine is alive.
He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that they 
have no problem with such question.


As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but can your 
daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a digital brain 
transplant).


When will machine get the right to vote?


When the Lutherans will baptize machines?


Etc.


Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical mirror. 
If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect for you.




Bruno











Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that  it's functionality is 
computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of 
awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
Awareness = I see X.
 or I am X. 
or some similar statement.
 
There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Roger, 
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner 
computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the 
consequences of this inner computation.


  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS 
 the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and 
matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the 
paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net 
Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Hi:


Awareness can  be functionally (we do not know if experientially)  computable. 
A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on 
its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in 
computer science and these programs are called interpreters. 


 The lack of  understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any 
turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why  it is said that the 
brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do.  We humans can manage 
concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the 
result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. 


For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions 
because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know  
our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. 
When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired  to mean being redundant

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03:32 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
which seem to be alive but are not actually so.



The problem is that you cannot know that.

Then you can't know that he can't know that either. Maybe he does  
know it? Maybe he can tell in his bones that this is true? You are  
arbitrarily being conservative in your attribution of the veracity  
of human sense and liberal in your attribution of machine sense.



Oh? may be Hitler knew in his bones that Jewish were a problem. You  
have weird argument.







In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness  
to something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to  
something conscious, as that can generate suffering.


It could generate suffering either way. If an android tells you that  
you can sing and you believe it, you could be brainwashed by an  
advertisement. You could choose to save a machine programmed to yell  
in a fire while other real people burn alive.


I don't see why saving a machine from fire would prevents me to save  
children and woman first, as I feel closer to them. But then if I can,  
after, save a machine, why not. You are the one talking like if you  
knew that machines are forever zombies/puppets.







There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot  
looking very much like humans.
An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive  
people who might believe that such machine is alive.
He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so  
that they have no problem with such question.


As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but  
can your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a  
digital brain transplant).


When will machine get the right to vote?

When will the machine demand the right to vote?


?
In the year 4024. Perhaps. Or in the year 4024. I don't care. It  
is not relevant for the issue. With the comp theory, some machines,  
us,  have already the right to vote.






When the Lutherans will baptize machines?

When will they demand to be baptized?


When Lutherans will listen to them, and become sensible to their  
delicate souls.







Etc.

Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal  
dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't  
develop respect for you.


Not even remotely persuasive to me. Sorry Bruno, but It sounds like  
you are selling me a pet rock. It's not scientific - has there ever  
been a case where a universal machine has developed respect for  
someone? Can a machine tell the difference between respect and  
disrespect? Nah.


In the comp theory we are machines, so all this already happened. You  
just reiterate your non-comp assumption, presenting it as a truth, but  
in science we never do that.


Bruno





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that  it′s  
functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with  
this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability  
of _being_ aware


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net
Hi Alberto G. Corona
 
Awareness = I see X.
 or I am X.
or some similar statement.
 
There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Roger,
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is  
that a inner computation can affect an external computation which  
is aware of the consequences of this inner computation.


  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not  
say that this IS  the experience of awareness, but given the  
duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that  
the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the  
mind experiences awareness


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net
Hi Alberto G. Corona
 
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
 
 
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi:

Awareness can

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 30 Aug 2012, at 23:19, Craig Weinberg wrote:




On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with  
invariants.


 in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired  
programs.
codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic  
program, which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this  
is an amazing homogeneity for a single specie).


These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact  
in a social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there  
are Nash equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of  
well being for all withing the constraints of human nature called  
nash equilibriums are the moral code.


These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly  
according with the social coordinates. They are lines of surface  
maximums. These maximums are know by our intuition because we have  
suffered social selection, so a knowledge of them are intuitive.   
That we have suffered social selection means that the groups of  
hominids or the individual hominids whose conducts were away from  
the nash equilibriums dissapeared.  To be near these equilibriums  
was an advantage so we have these hardwired intuitions, that the  
greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.


What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the  
expression of the same moral code operating in different  
circunstances where the optimum has been displaced. There are very  
interesting studies, for example in foundational book of  
evolutionary psychology The adapted mind


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind

about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child  
in extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would  
be at the extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a  
affluent society close to ours, the rules are quite normal. Both  
the normal behaviour or the extreme behaviour is created by the same  
basic algoritm of individual/social optimization. No matter if we  
see this from a dynamic way (contemplating the variations and  
extremes) or a static one contemplating a normal society, the  
moral is a unique, universal rule system.  Thanks to the research on  
evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game theory, It  
is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that await   
a development of evolutionary morals



Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of  
morality.



I agree with this. But we must not confuse compuational analogies,  
which can be inspiring but are analogies only, and the comp  
hypothesis, where we bet we digitally truncable at some level. the  
second assertion does indeed break many computer analogies, like it  
breaks down digital physics, or the idea that consciousness is a  
program or a computation.


Bruno





Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on  
the anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different  
than how the equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines  
whether I inhale or exhale.


This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies  
and instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a  
person or a universe based on this description, what would we get?  
Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and  
shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found  
in the banal evils of game theory.


To understand morals we must look at sense and motive, and how the  
association of transgressive motives (criminality) is associated  
fairly and unfairly with transgressive sense (images, characters  
worthy of disgust, shame, etc). We must understand how super- 
signifying images are telegraphed socially through and second-hand  
exaggeration and dramatization, of story-telling and parenting,  
demagoguery, religious authority, etc. Morality is politics. It is  
the subjective topology which elevates and lowers events, objects,  
people, places, behaviors, etc so that we enforce our own behavioral  
control before outside authorities need to. It isn't only a  
mathematical system of rules, it is a visceral drama. Consciousness  
computes, but consciousness itself has almost nothing to do with  
computation. It is experience. That is all there is.


Consciousness, as a first person experience, is provably not a  
computable phenomenon. This is a consequence of comp, not an argument  
against it.




One can experience the computation of other experiences, but without  
experience, there is no access to computation.


That is arithmetical solipsism, and is wrong in the comp theory.

Bruno




 Craig

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/5ukgWqsvjuUJ 
.


Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Roger Clough


Progressivism is another word for Utopianism.
Their utopias sound good but as of yet have never worked,
or worked for long.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 14:23:33
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary




On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics: indiividual 
versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus rational etc.  The 
whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we can, under the 
impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or more precisely that 
there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is such crap as the 
separation of facts and values (as if values (and in particular universal 
values) where not social facts).


Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in theoretical 
and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern gnosticism,  called 
progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases, that believes possible 
in a certain future a society with a perfect harmony of individual desires and 
social needs, making moral unnecessary. 

I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left wing 
opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect anything or 
that morals were unnecessary.

 
Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 31 Aug 2012, at 11:05, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Bruno Marchal

I would answer by saying that even unconscious entities, such as
an immune system,  can enhance life, and so IMHO are good
(moral) while cancer, which tends to deminish life, is bad or evil.


Sure.

Bruno





Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-30, 15:03:20
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi Roger

On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Alberto G. Corona

Seeming to be aware is not the same as actually being aware,
just as seeming to be alive is not the same as actually being alive.

And my view is that comp, since it must operate in (objective) code,
can only create entities that might seem to be alive, not actually  
be alive.


Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
which seem to be alive but are not actually so.



The problem is that you cannot know that.

In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness  
to something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to  
something conscious, as that can generate suffering.


There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot  
looking very much like humans.
An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive  
people who might believe that such machine is alive.
He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so  
that they have no problem with such question.


As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but  
can your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a  
digital brain transplant).


When will machine get the right to vote?

When the Lutherans will baptize machines?

Etc.

Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal  
dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't  
develop respect for you.



Bruno







Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that  it′s  
functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with  
this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability  
of _being_ aware


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Alberto G. Corona
 
Awareness = I see X.
 or I am X.
or some similar statement.
 
There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Roger,
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is  
that a inner computation can affect an external computation which  
is aware of the consequences of this inner computation.


  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not  
say that this IS  the experience of awareness, but given the  
duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that  
the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the  
mind experiences awareness


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Alberto G. Corona
 
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi:

Awareness can  be functionally (we do not know if experientially)  
 computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and  
do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real  
time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs  
are called interpreters.


 The lack of  understanding, of this capability of  
metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the  
reason why  it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a  
computer can never do.  We humans can manage concepts in two  
ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result  
of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation.


For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or  
our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted  
programs. We can not know  our deep thinking structures because  
they are not exposed as metacomputations. When

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:30:30 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:


  Hi Craig,

 They never state it explicitly, but it is the logical implication of 
 their arguments.  We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen 
 less implies all are paid the same regardless of skill, no? We should 
 stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on 
 meaningless drug charges implies? Most people simply don't try to explain 
 their ideologies to themselves or others, whether libertarian, republican, 
 progressive or whatever, they are simply not curious to know. 



It's only the logical implication of their arguments if your logic is that 
there must be some reason why they are wrong to begin with. Paying teaches 
more (than they are paid now 
http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/teacher-salary-data.html) and useless 
businessmen less (than they are paid now 
http://current.com/green/89118297_fortune-500-ceos-relative-to-the-average-wage-in-the-united-states.htm)
 
has nothing to do with all people or skill. It has only to do with 
executives making more and more money without contributing positively to 
anything outside of their own interests. Not imprisoning people for no 
reason implies nothing other than it is a terrible idea to allow people to 
make imprisoning people a for-profit enterprise. 

Craig


-- 
 Onward!

 Stephen
 http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/WP4beotR9rIJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: 

 Hi Craig,

 Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like 
 a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were 
 unnecessary.
  

 Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

 Craig 
  

 Hi Craig,

 Umm, the Marxists have an analogue...  
 classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, 
 moneyless, and statelesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society
  social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order 
 structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure
  upon common ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership of 
 the means of productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, 
 as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, 
 politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political
  and econom**ic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology that 
 aims at the establishment of this social order.


 When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich 
 talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like 
 Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid 
 of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should 
 pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying 
 private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless 
 drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, 
 and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - 
 ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political 
 context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from 
 Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.


 Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who 
 would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an 
 anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules, 
 that is anomie.


What does where I live have to do with anything? Are you saying that only 
people who want to see the US paved over and sold to WalMart are real 
Americans? When I say that people I have known are anarchists I mean that 
they have anarchic sympathies - not that they advocate a permanent 
realization of total anarchy. 

Craig


 Quentin
  


 Craig


  -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen
 http://webpages.charter.net/**stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html 
 http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

   -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit 
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ.

 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




 -- 
 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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/uL-e1u4uJA8J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Hi Craig,

 Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much
 like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were
 unnecessary.


 Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

 Craig


 Hi Craig,

 Umm, the Marxists have an analogue...  
 classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society,
 moneyless, and statelesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society
  social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order 
 structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure
  upon common ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership of
 the means of productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production,
 as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, 
 politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political
  and economic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology that
 aims at the establishment of this social order.


 When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich
 talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like
 Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid
 of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should
 pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying
 private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless
 drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies,
 and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never -
 ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political
 context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from
 Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.


 Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who
 would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an
 anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules,
 that is anomie.


 What does where I live have to do with anything?


Because if you had come to europe, you would have seen people advocating
communism, anarchism, socialism... but you'll had hard time finding
libertarian.

Quentin


 Are you saying that only people who want to see the US paved over and sold
 to WalMart are real Americans? When I say that people I have known are
 anarchists I mean that they have anarchic sympathies - not that they
 advocate a permanent realization of total anarchy.

 Craig


 Quentin



 Craig


  --
 Onward!

 Stephen
 http://webpages.charter.net/**st**ephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html 
 http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

   --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/**
 msg/everything-list/-/-**We2MSfPkrkJhttps://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ
 .

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

 For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/**
 group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
 .




 --
 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 view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/uL-e1u4uJA8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:17:57 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 30 Aug 2012, at 21:23, Craig Weinberg wrote:


 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03:32 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
 which seem to be alive but are not actually so.



 The problem is that you cannot know that.


 Then you can't know that he can't know that either. Maybe he does know it? 
 Maybe he can tell in his bones that this is true? You are arbitrarily being 
 conservative in your attribution of the veracity of human sense and liberal 
 in your attribution of machine sense.



 Oh? may be Hitler knew in his bones that Jewish were a problem. You have 
 weird argument.


I'm not the one arguing that we must accept the unacceptable because we 
can't prove it isn't true. With sense, we don't need to prove what we 
already know. We can disprove things we think we know, but we can't 
disprove ourselves or thinking that we know. We can sense that words are 
not going to evolve by themselves in a book. We can sense that a computer 
sitting in a box is not going to start writing screenplays by itself. To 
argue these things can only be naive ambition or sophistry.
 




  


 In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to 
 something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something 
 conscious, as that can generate suffering.


 It could generate suffering either way. If an android tells you that you 
 can sing and you believe it, you could be brainwashed by an advertisement. 
 You could choose to save a machine programmed to yell in a fire while other 
 real people burn alive.


 I don't see why saving a machine from fire would prevents me to save 
 children and woman first, as I feel closer to them. But then if I can, 
 after, save a machine, why not. You are the one talking like if you knew 
 that machines are forever zombies/puppets.


I am giving you a what if scenario, that it isn't necessarily harmless to 
give non-living machines the benefit of the doubt. In my scenario there is 
only time to save one or the other, and since the machine is programmed to 
authentically yell for help, the fireman saves the machine while the family 
suffocates to death in the basement. They would have been found first had 
they not been distracted by the machine.
 




  


 There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot 
 looking very much like humans. 
 An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive 
 people who might believe that such machine is alive.
 He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that 
 they have no problem with such question.

 As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but can 
 your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a digital 
 brain transplant).

 When will machine get the right to vote?


 When will the machine demand the right to vote?


 ?
 In the year 4024. Perhaps. Or in the year 4024. I don't care. It is 
 not relevant for the issue. With the comp theory, some machines, us,  have 
 already the right to vote.


Then we can worry about it then.
 



  


 When the Lutherans will baptize machines?


 When will they demand to be baptized?


 When Lutherans will listen to them, and become sensible to their delicate 
 souls.


Lutherans have email addresses. The internet works both ways... 




  


 Etc.

 Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical 
 mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect 
 for you.


 Not even remotely persuasive to me. Sorry Bruno, but It sounds like you 
 are selling me a pet rock. It's not scientific - has there ever been a case 
 where a universal machine has developed respect for someone? Can a machine 
 tell the difference between respect and disrespect? Nah.


 In the comp theory we are machines, so all this already happened. You just 
 reiterate your non-comp assumption, presenting it as a truth, but in 
 science we never do that. 


The theory that non-comp is an assumption is your assumption. When dealing 
with consciousness, we don't have to justify our own non-comp experience to 
a comp conditionality within that experience. Who would we justify it to?

Craig

 

 Bruno




 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona 
 *Receiver:* everything-list 
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

  I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that it′s functionality is 
 computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of 
 awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware

 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net

  Hi Alberto G. Corona 
  Awareness = I see X.
  or I am X. 
 or some similar

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Stephen P. King

On 8/31/2012 8:23 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:30:30 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:


Hi Craig,

They never state it explicitly, but it is the logical
implication of their arguments.  We should pay teachers more and
useless businessmen less implies all are paid the same regardless
of skill, no? We should stop paying private contractors so much
to imprison more and more people on meaningless drug charges
implies? Most people simply don't try to explain their ideologies
to themselves or others, whether libertarian, republican,
progressive or whatever, they are simply not curious to know.



It's only the logical implication of their arguments if your logic is 
that there must be some reason why they are wrong to begin with. 
Paying teaches more (than they are paid now 
http://www.teachersalaryinfo.com/teacher-salary-data.html) and useless 
businessmen less (than they are paid now 
http://current.com/green/89118297_fortune-500-ceos-relative-to-the-average-wage-in-the-united-states.htm) 
has nothing to do with all people or skill. It has only to do with 
executives making more and more money without contributing positively 
to anything outside of their own interests. Not imprisoning people for 
no reason implies nothing other than it is a terrible idea to allow 
people to make imprisoning people a for-profit enterprise.


Craig


ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could 
endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but I 
thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My mistake. My 
opinion is that whatever the particular intensions might be, we can 
judge by the results whether or not a policy is worth keeping. Our 
current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even possible?


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

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



Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:57:54 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

   
  
 Progressivism is another word for Utopianism.
 Their utopias sound good but as of yet have never worked,
 or worked for long.
  

Has Regressivism and Dystopianism fared much better?

Craig 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/VYEIpZZfmq8J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:30:50 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:



 On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King 
 wrote: 

 Hi Craig,

 Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much 
 like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were 
 unnecessary.
  

 Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

 Craig 
  

 Hi Craig,

 Umm, the Marxists have an analogue...  
 classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, 
 moneyless, and statelesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society
  social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order 
 structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure
  upon common ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership
  of the means of 
 productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, 
 as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, 
 politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political
  and economic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology 
 that aims at the establishment of this social order.


 When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich 
 talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like 
 Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid 
 of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We 
 should 
 pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop 
 paying 
 private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on 
 meaningless 
 drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, 
 and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never 
 - 
 ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political 
 context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from 
 Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.


 Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist who 
 would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an 
 anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules, 
 that is anomie.


 What does where I live have to do with anything? 


 Because if you had come to europe, you would have seen people advocating 
 communism, anarchism, socialism... but you'll had hard time finding 
 libertarian.


I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to 
find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political 
diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of 
diversity?

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/QrEm2qQw4PYJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:39:12 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:


 ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could 
 endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but I 
 thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My mistake. My 
 opinion is that whatever the particular intensions might be, we can judge 
 by the results whether or not a policy is worth keeping. 


I agree, but how can you tell what isn't working when everything that 
matters is getting worse? I say we should experiment with different 
policies in different regions and compare them scientifically. Let people 
move to where they feel most at home.
 

 Our current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even 
 possible? 


That was the point, I don't think that anyone is suggesting perfection at 
all. Progressive views are just that: progress-ive. Try to make things less 
horrible for more people.

Craig
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Y6f3b7St7k0J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg 

Where today is Regressivism and Dystopianism ?
Or maybe that was just an ironic comment.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/31/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him 
so that everything could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-31, 08:43:41
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On Friday, August 31, 2012 5:57:54 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:


Progressivism is another word for Utopianism.
Their utopias sound good but as of yet have never worked,
or worked for long.



Has Regressivism and Dystopianism fared much better?

Craig 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/VYEIpZZfmq8J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:30:50 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com



 On Friday, August 31, 2012 4:14:37 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King
 wrote:

 Hi Craig,

 Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much
 like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were
 unnecessary.


 Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

 Craig


 Hi Craig,

 Umm, the Marxists have an analogue...  
 classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society,
 moneyless, and statelesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society
  social order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order 
 structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure
  upon common ownershiphttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership
  of the means of 
 productionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production,
 as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, 
 politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political
  and econom**ic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology
 that aims at the establishment of this social order.


 When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich
 talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like
 Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid
 of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We 
 should
 pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop 
 paying
 private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on 
 meaningless
 drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies,
 and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never 
 -
 ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political
 context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from
 Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.


 Well you're not living in the right country then... And an anarchist
 who would not talk about about a classless goal... well cannot be an
 anarchist which means without hierarchy/authority not without rules,
 that is anomie.


 What does where I live have to do with anything?


 Because if you had come to europe, you would have seen people advocating
 communism, anarchism, socialism... but you'll had hard time finding
 libertarian.


 I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to
 find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political
 diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of
 diversity?


You were the one saying I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists,
hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and *have
never - ever - heard* anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of
political context at all.
.


 Craig

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/QrEm2qQw4PYJ.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:57:15 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to 
 find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political 
 diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of 
 diversity?


 You were the one saying I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, 
 hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and *have 
 never - ever - heard* anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of 
 political context at all.


Yes, so? What's the disconnect? I grew up in California talking to all 
kinds of left leaning radicals, so I know they don't discuss hopes of a 
'perfect society'.  I live in North Carolina now, where people don't trust 
nature (for good reason) but trust businessmen (for not so good reasons).

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/qQBhCy7-Je8J.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2012/8/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:57:15 AM UTC-4, Quentin Anciaux wrote:



 I have 'come to Europe' several times but I don't need to move there to
 find political diversity. I grew up in California. Where political
 diversity is needed the most is where it is absent. Isn't that the point of
 diversity?


 You were the one saying I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists,
 hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and *have
 never - ever - heard* anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of
 political context at all.


 Yes, so? What's the disconnect? I grew up in California talking to all
 kinds of left leaning radicals, so I know they don't discuss hopes of a
 'perfect society'.  I live in North Carolina now, where people don't trust
 nature (for good reason) but trust businessmen (for not so good reasons).


And my answer to that was that somehow you were not living in the right
country, because *here* it's not the case... Anarchist  advocates discuss
that... What's the point calling yourself an anarchist if it's not even
your goal... Same oxymoron as non-practicing Catholic...

Quentin


 Craig

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/qQBhCy7-Je8J.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




-- 
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 post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Bruno Marchal
 the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that  it′s  
functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with  
this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the  
capability of _being_ aware


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net
Hi Alberto G. Corona
 
Awareness = I see X.
 or I am X.
or some similar statement.
 
There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Roger,
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is  
that a inner computation can affect an external computation which  
is aware of the consequences of this inner computation.


  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do  
not say that this IS  the experience of awareness, but given the  
duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that  
the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind,  
the mind experiences awareness


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net
Hi Alberto G. Corona
 
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
 
 
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi:

Awareness can  be functionally (we do not know if experientially)  
 computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram)  
and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his  
real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these  
programs are called interpreters.


 The lack of  understanding, of this capability of  
metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the  
reason why  it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a  
computer can never do.  We humans can manage concepts in two  
ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result  
of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation.


For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or  
our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not  
interpreted programs. We can not know  our deep thinking  
structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When  
we use metaphorically the verb to be fired  to mean being  
redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware of  
it.  Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with  
the observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of  
it by means of an adquired metacomputation.


The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of  
a woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that  
produces this intuition. In the other side, we can appreciate the  
fact that the process  of diagonalization by G del  makes the  
Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be reached by  
a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program.  
(see my post about the G del theorem).



Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of  
free will nor in any other existential question.


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net
Hi Craig Weinberg
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
 
QED
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary

This sentence does not speak English.

These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

s l u     ,u     s   



If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help  
illustrate that form is not inherently informative.


The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far  
as ascertaining the origin of awareness.


Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a  
meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we  
presume that computation can and does exist independently of all  
awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is  
what we call awareness.


Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding  
of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy  
and/or non comp contents, Platonic number

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Stephen P. King

On 8/31/2012 8:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:


On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:39:12 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:


ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could
endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but
I thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My
mistake. My opinion is that whatever the particular intensions
might be, we can judge by the results whether or not a policy is
worth keeping.


I agree, but how can you tell what isn't working when everything that 
matters is getting worse? I say we should experiment with different 
policies in different regions and compare them scientifically. Let 
people move to where they feel most at home.


Hi Craig,

The places that have fences around them to keep people in stand 
out as the failures.



Our current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even
possible?


That was the point, I don't think that anyone is suggesting perfection 
at all. Progressive views are just that: progress-ive. Try to make 
things less horrible for more people.


Sure, I can speak only to what I have seen for myself. Most 
policies that I see so-called progressives proposing are not satisfying 
your definition. Thus my remarks.




Craig


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, August 31, 2012 12:22:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 8/31/2012 8:56 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  

 On Friday, August 31, 2012 8:39:12 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: 


 ACK! I do not ever wish to get into this briar-patch! We could 
 endlessly site particular studies of particular circumstances, but I 
 thought that we where considering big picture concepts. My mistake. My 
 opinion is that whatever the particular intensions might be, we can judge 
 by the results whether or not a policy is worth keeping. 


 I agree, but how can you tell what isn't working when everything that 
 matters is getting worse? I say we should experiment with different 
 policies in different regions and compare them scientifically. Let people 
 move to where they feel most at home.
  

 Hi Craig,

 The places that have fences around them to keep people in stand out 
 as the failures. 


If you have a high population and low ownership of resources, you don't 
need fences to fail. You can find examples of success and failure 
regardless of the economic system.

Uruguay, Armenia, El Salvador, Botswana, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Albania, 
Belize, Uganda, Guatemala, have capitalist economies while Sweden is 
socialist and China is Communist.


   

  Our current system is obviously imperfect, but is perfection even 
 possible? 
  

 That was the point, I don't think that anyone is suggesting perfection at 
 all. Progressive views are just that: progress-ive. Try to make things less 
 horrible for more people.
  

 Sure, I can speak only to what I have seen for myself. Most policies 
 that I see so-called progressives proposing are not satisfying your 
 definition. Thus my remarks.


My view is that the Democrats tend to tell you they are going to do good 
things and then not do them while the Republicans will do bad things and 
tell you it is actually good. I don't think either party is progressive.  
If Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders could agree on a candidate, I would vote for 
them.

Craig 

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/nMoBc8R2xwIJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread meekerdb

On 8/31/2012 1:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 30 Aug 2012, at 19:19, meekerdb wrote:


On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a 
distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.  Ethics is what I do and what I hope 
other people will do in their interactions with other people.  They of course tend to 
overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral 
and unethical.  But they are not the same.  If I spent my time smoking pot and not 
working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, 
yes, but immoral?


In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to work.  It's personal.  
It doesn't imply that it would be immoral for you to not work. But it would be 
unethical for you to not work and to be supported by others.  That's the point of 
making a distinction between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and ethical 
(consistent with social values, 3p).


OK, then I disagree (by which I mean that I am OK with you).
By OK with you I mean you are free to use personal definition orthogonal to the use of 
the majority.

By orthogonal I mean ...
Hmm... 


But it's not orthogonal, it's just at an slight angle.  Do you see no distinction between 
standards by which you judge yourself and those which by which society may judge you?


Brent

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread meekerdb

On 8/31/2012 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Uruguay, Armenia, El Salvador, Botswana, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Albania, Belize, 
Uganda, Guatemala, have capitalist economies while Sweden is socialist and China is 
Communist.


But Sweden isn't socialist - the government doesn't own the major means of production.  
Sweden's economy is regulated capitalism plus lots of social services (which conservatives 
in the U.S. call socialist).  China has a mixed economy with government owned 
enterprises and privately owned ones.  It is not communist as Marx envisioned, it is only 
communist in that is what the ruling party calls itself and it allows no opposition parties.


Brent

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-31 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Friday, August 31, 2012 2:48:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

  On 8/31/2012 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 

 Uruguay, Armenia, El Salvador, Botswana, Peru, Columbia, Mexico, Albania, 
 Belize, Uganda, Guatemala, have capitalist economies while Sweden is 
 socialist and China is Communist.


 But Sweden isn't socialist - the government doesn't own the major means of 
 production.  Sweden's economy is regulated capitalism plus lots of social 
 services (which conservatives in the U.S. call socialist).  China has a 
 mixed economy with government owned enterprises and privately owned ones.  
 It is not communist as Marx envisioned, it is only communist in that is 
 what the ruling party calls itself and it allows no opposition parties.


 Why isn't it deregulated socialism plus lots of entrepreneurial support? 
My point is that these labels are not especially relevant and that the 
underlying conditions of population and ownership of resources are what 
matter, not the supposed ideology or system of bookkeeping. If you look at 
the skyline of any major city, you can't see any difference between the 
more capitalist, socialist, democratic, theocratic, etc political systems. 
It can work well or terribly in any mode - even monarchy.

Craig


 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/1tuWzGuWFxkJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me  
recommend a distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.  Ethics  
is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their  
interactions with other people.  They of course tend to overlap  
since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both  
immoral and unethical.  But they are not the same.  If I spent my  
time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but  
it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either.  
Disappointing, yes, but immoral?


BTW:
I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and  
smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people  
smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot  
from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood,  
was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post  
in the US.


As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not  
been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that  
they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for  
study. It is so easy.


Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while  
the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a  
lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior,  
but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like  
children. I think.


Bruno




On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


Not only to lie. In order  to commerce and in general to interact,  
we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to  
know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself  
in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material  
expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of  
reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning..


2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.   
That's why something having human like intelligence and  
consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in  
it's environment.  Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is  
an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for  
almost everything we do.  Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did  
not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in  
inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie.


Brent



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en 
.


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



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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread meekerdb

On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a 
distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.  Ethics is what I do and what I hope 
other people will do in their interactions with other people.  They of course tend to 
overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and 
unethical.  But they are not the same.  If I spent my time smoking pot and not working 
I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes, 
but immoral?


In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to work.  It's personal.  It 
doesn't imply that it would be immoral for you to not work. But it would be unethical for 
you to not work and to be supported by others.  That's the point of making a distinction 
between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and ethical (consistent with social 
values, 3p).




BTW:
I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then 
blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only 
researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early 
childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US.


But a single example doesn't tell one much about social policy.  I certainly wouldn't 
conclude that smoking lots of pot will improve your academic production.




As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for 
justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to 
themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy.


Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car 
accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not 
this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating 
adults like children. I think.


It's also encouraged by being drunk.

Brent




Bruno




On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Not only to lie. In order  to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know 
what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. 
So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and 
material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective 
individuality, that is moral from the beginning..


2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.  That's 
why
something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot,
something that can act wordlessly in it's environment.  Evolutionarily 
speaking,
conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is
responsible for almost everything we do.  Julian Jaynes theorized that 
humans did
not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal
commerce and it became important to learn to lie.

Brent




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Alberto G. Corona
I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
particular universal values) where not social facts).

Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
unnecessary. They also believe that the current social reality is a
demiurgic creation of repressive social forces that hinder an era
of Wisdom and Peace

But this is impossible. Not only it is against judeochristian traditions,
but against the theorical basis of the progressive ideology: the theory of
evolution (natural selection). Men are social individuals and therefore
moral is deep in his hardwired (instintive) nature, as multilevel selection
theory can demonstrate.

So let´s call moral what is: moral.

2012/8/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

  From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend
 a distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.  Ethics is what I do and
 what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people.
 They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat
 someone, so it's both immoral and unethical.  But they are not the same.
 If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in
 myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.


 I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either.
 Disappointing, yes, but immoral?

 BTW:
 I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke
 pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot
 and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early
 morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who
 published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US.

 As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been
 allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were
 using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy.

 Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the
 number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot,
 because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but
 irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I
 think.

 Bruno



 On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

 Not only to lie. In order  to commerce and in general to interact, we need
 to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the
 others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in
 the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have
 about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral
 from the beginning..

 2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.
 That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must
 be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment.
 Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of
 subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do.
 Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern
 sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important
 to learn to lie.

 Brent



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


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



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


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics: 
 indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus 
 rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we 
 can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or 
 more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is 
 such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in 
 particular universal values) where not social facts).

 Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in 
 theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern 
 gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases, 
 that believes possible in a certain future a society with a 
 perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral 
 unnecessary. 


I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left wing 
opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect 
anything or that morals were unnecessary.

 
Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread meekerdb

On 8/30/2012 11:01 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics: indiividual versus 
social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus rational etc.  The whole point is to 
obviate the m*** world as much as we can, under the impression that moral is subjective 
and not objetive, or more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An 
there is such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in 
particular universal values) where not social facts).


That some societies value the education of women and some value their ignorance are both 
certainly facts.




Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in theoretical and 
practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern gnosticism,  called progressivism 
of which positivism is one of the phases, that believes possible in a certain future a 
society with a perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral 
unnecessary. They also believe that the current social reality is a demiurgic creation 
of repressive social forces that hinder an era of Wisdom and Peace


But this is impossible. Not only it is against judeochristian traditions, but against 
the theorical basis of the progressive ideology: the theory of evolution (natural 
selection). Men are social individuals and therefore moral is deep in his hardwired 
(instintive) nature, as multilevel selection theory can demonstrate.


All the above is an example of using 'moral' where 'ethics' would be more accurate.  
Morals (standards of self-evaluations) are subjective even though some of them are 
hardwired by evolution, ethics are intersubjective (standards of public, social 
evaluation) even though some of them are selected by cultural evolution.


I would ask Alberto how he defines morals and ethics.  Are they rules?  feelings?  
opinions?  what?


The point is not to separate them, in the sense of eliminating overlap, but to recognize 
that ethics and morals are not coextensive and it is often useful to distinguish them.  
Many people believe it is immoral not to worship God in church on Sunday - and as an 
evaluation of their own behavoir that's fine.  But that doesn't mean it is unethical to 
think differently or that public policy should force or encourage church attendance (as it 
did in earlier times).


Brent



So let´s call moral what is: moral.

2012/8/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be


On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:


From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a
distinction.  Moral is what I expect of myself.  Ethics is what I do and 
what I
hope other people will do in their interactions with other people.  They of 
course
tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so 
it's both
immoral and unethical.  But they are not the same.  If I spent my time 
smoking pot
and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical.


I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. 
Disappointing,
yes, but immoral?

BTW:
I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke 
pot, and
then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work 
very well.
The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, 
everyday,
since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the 
most
prestigious post in the US.

As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been 
allowed for
justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to 
lie to
themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy.

Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the 
number of
car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the 
real culprit
is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is 
encouraged by
treating adults like children. I think.

Bruno




On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Not only to lie. In order  to commerce and in general to interact, we need 
to know
what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect 
form
me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of 
the moral
and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of
reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning..

2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net

But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.  
That's why
something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a 
robot,
something that can act wordlessly in it's environment.  Evolutionarily
speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious 
thought
which 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:54, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

Not only to lie. In order  to commerce and in general to interact,  
we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know  
what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in  
order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material  
expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of  
reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning..


I agree, and it is plausibly related to the origin of self- 
consciousness.
But consciousness itself is also plausibly more primitive. You don't  
need another to feel pain, but you might still need two universal  
machines in front of each other, and some other one (the computable  
part of the probable environment). Perhaps.


Bruno





2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words.   
That's why something having human like intelligence and  
consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in  
it's environment.  Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is  
an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for  
almost everything we do.  Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did  
not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter- 
tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie.


Brent


On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:


That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that  
you perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information  
craig says that he perceive..


From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith

What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the  
same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from  
my side.


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Alberto G. Corona

The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.

For example, consider:

I see the cat.Here:

I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.

When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is  
personal, as are all subjective

states and all experiences.

However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has  
translated the experience
into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal  
experience into a

publicly accessible statement.

All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in  
words are objective.

Any statement is then objective.

Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are  
objective,
so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is  
wordless (codeless).



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It  
has memory because it is   
intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs  
memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others.


Hi Albert,

    Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content  
of memory and how it is sequentially ordered  that matters. I am  
what I remember myself to be.



in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted  
computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this  
metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about  
the moral Albert that others see on me.


This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same  
life of ourselves.


    No, because we could never know that for sure. It is  
singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me  
is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I  
cannot know what it is like to be you.


That′s why this uniqueness is not  essential

But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed  
to other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self.  
We  could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently  
created clones. Although this probably will never happen.


    Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it  
might occur. There is something important to this!


This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of  
uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person  
indeterminacy).  But probably the cloning machine would never  
exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net
On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Bruno Marchal

Hi Roger

On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:


Hi Alberto G. Corona

Seeming to be aware is not the same as actually being aware,
just as seeming to be alive is not the same as actually being alive.

And my view is that comp, since it must operate in (objective) code,
can only create entities that might seem to be alive, not actually  
be alive.


Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
which seem to be alive but are not actually so.



The problem is that you cannot know that.

In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to  
something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to  
something conscious, as that can generate suffering.


There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot  
looking very much like humans.
An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive  
people who might believe that such machine is alive.
He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so  
that they have no problem with such question.


As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but  
can your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a  
digital brain transplant).


When will machine get the right to vote?

When the Lutherans will baptize machines?

Etc.

Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal  
dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't  
develop respect for you.



Bruno







Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that  it′s  
functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with  
this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability  
of _being_ aware


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Alberto G. Corona
 
Awareness = I see X.
 or I am X.
or some similar statement.
 
There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Roger,
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is  
that a inner computation can affect an external computation which is  
aware of the consequences of this inner computation.


  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not  
say that this IS  the experience of awareness, but given the  
duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the  
brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind  
experiences awareness


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Alberto G. Corona
 
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: Alberto G. Corona
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

Hi:

Awareness can  be functionally (we do not know if experientially)  
 computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and  
do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real  
time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs  
are called interpreters.


 The lack of  understanding, of this capability of  
metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the  
reason why  it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a  
computer can never do.  We humans can manage concepts in two ways :  
a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an  
analysis of the first trough a metacomputation.


For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our  
intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted  
programs. We can not know  our deep thinking structures because  
they are not exposed as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically 
 the verb to be fired  to mean being redundant, we are using  
category theory but we can not be aware of it.  Only after research  
that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of  
humans, we can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired  
metacomputation.


The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a  
woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces  
this intuition. In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that  
the process  of diagonalization by G del  makes

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg

On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03:32 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
 which seem to be alive but are not actually so.



 The problem is that you cannot know that.


Then you can't know that he can't know that either. Maybe he does know it? 
Maybe he can tell in his bones that this is true? You are arbitrarily being 
conservative in your attribution of the veracity of human sense and liberal 
in your attribution of machine sense.
 


 In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to 
 something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something 
 conscious, as that can generate suffering.


It could generate suffering either way. If an android tells you that you 
can sing and you believe it, you could be brainwashed by an advertisement. 
You could choose to save a machine programmed to yell in a fire while other 
real people burn alive.
 


 There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot looking 
 very much like humans. 
 An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive people 
 who might believe that such machine is alive.
 He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that 
 they have no problem with such question.

 As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but can 
 your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a digital 
 brain transplant).

 When will machine get the right to vote?


When will the machine demand the right to vote?
 


 When the Lutherans will baptize machines?


When will they demand to be baptized?
 


 Etc.

 Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical 
 mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect 
 for you.


Not even remotely persuasive to me. Sorry Bruno, but It sounds like you are 
selling me a pet rock. It's not scientific - has there ever been a case 
where a universal machine has developed respect for someone? Can a machine 
tell the difference between respect and disrespect? Nah.

Craig



 Bruno





  
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript:
 8/29/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
 *Subject:* Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

  I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that it′s functionality is 
 computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of 
 awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware

 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript:

  Hi Alberto G. Corona 
  Awareness = I see X.
  or I am X. 
 or some similar statement.
  There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript:
 8/29/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.

  - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
 *Subject:* Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
  
  Roger, 
 I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a 
 inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the 
 consequences of this inner computation.

  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that 
 this IS the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and 
 matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in 
 the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness

 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 

  Hi Alberto G. Corona 
  What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
 It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
 way to hook it to my brain.
Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript:
 8/29/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.

  - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

   Hi:

 Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially) 
 computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things 
 depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This 
 is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters. 

  The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that 
 any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the 
 brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage 
 concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the 
 result of an analysis of the first trough

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Alberto G. Corona
So you haven´t lived in the XX century perhaps.

2012/8/30 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
 indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
 rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
 can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
 more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
 such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
 particular universal values) where not social facts).

 Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
 theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
 gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
 that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
 perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
 unnecessary.


 I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left wing
 opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect
 anything or that morals were unnecessary.


 Craig

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Alberto G. Corona
Anyway this is tangential to the everything list, so I will not continue
discussions like this. I will only highlight these fact whenever the
question sufaces from other subjects, such is individuality.

2012/8/30 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com

 So you haven´t lived in the XX century perhaps.

 2012/8/30 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
 indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
 rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
 can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
 more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
 such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
 particular universal values) where not social facts).

 Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
 theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
 gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
 that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
 perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
 unnecessary.


 I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left
 wing opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect
 anything or that morals were unnecessary.


 Craig

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To view this discussion on the web visit
 https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ.

 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.




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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Alberto G. Corona
There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.

 in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired
programs. codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic
program, which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an
amazing homogeneity for a single specie).

These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a
social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash
equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for
all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are
the moral code.

These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according with
the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These maximums
are know by our intuition because we have suffered social selection, so a
knowledge of them are intuitive.  That we have suffered social selection
means that the groups of hominids or the individual hominids whose conducts
were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared.  To be near these
equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired intuitions, that
the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.

What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the expression
of the same moral code operating in different circunstances where the
optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies, for example
in foundational book of evolutionary psychology The adapted mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind

about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in
extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the
extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close
to ours, the rules are quite normal. Both the normal behaviour or the
extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of
individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way
(contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a
normal society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system.  Thanks to
the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game
theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that
await  a development of evolutionary morals


2012/8/30 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 8/30/2012 11:01 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

 I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
 indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
 rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
 can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
 more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
 such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
 particular universal values) where not social facts).


 That some societies value the education of women and some value their
 ignorance are both certainly facts.



  Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
 theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
 gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
 that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
 perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
 unnecessary. They also believe that the current social reality is a
 demiurgic creation of repressive social forces that hinder an era
 of Wisdom and Peace

  But this is impossible. Not only it is against judeochristian
 traditions, but against the theorical basis of the progressive ideology:
 the theory of evolution (natural selection). Men are social individuals and
 therefore moral is deep in his hardwired (instintive) nature, as multilevel
 selection theory can demonstrate.


 All the above is an example of using 'moral' where 'ethics' would be more
 accurate.  Morals (standards of self-evaluations) are subjective even
 though some of them are hardwired by evolution, ethics are intersubjective
 (standards of public, social evaluation) even though some of them are
 selected by cultural evolution.

 I would ask Alberto how he defines morals and ethics.  Are they
 rules?  feelings?  opinions?  what?

 The point is not to separate them, in the sense of eliminating overlap,
 but to recognize that ethics and morals are not coextensive and it is often
 useful to distinguish them.  Many people believe it is immoral not to
 worship God in church on Sunday - and as an evaluation of their own
 behavoir that's fine.  But that doesn't mean it is unethical to think
 differently or that public policy should force or encourage church
 attendance (as it did in earlier times).

 Brent



  So let´s call moral what is: moral.

 2012/8/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


  On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

  From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me
 recommend a distinction.  Moral is what I expect of 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.

  in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired 
 programs. 

codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic program, 
 which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an amazing 
 homogeneity for a single specie).

 These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a 
 social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash 
 equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for 
 all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are 
 the moral code. 

 These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according with 
 the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These maximums 
 are know by our intuition because we have suffered social selection, so a 
 knowledge of them are intuitive.  That we have suffered social selection 
 means that the groups of hominids or the individual hominids whose conducts 
 were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared.  To be near these 
 equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired intuitions, that 
 the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.

 What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the 
 expression of the same moral code operating in different circunstances 
 where the optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies, 
 for example in foundational book of evolutionary psychology The adapted 
 mind  

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind 

 about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in 
 extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the 
 extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close 
 to ours, the rules are quite normal. Both the normal behaviour or the 
 extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of 
 individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way 
 (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a 
 normal society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system.  Thanks to 
 the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game 
 theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that 
 await  a development of evolutionary morals

  
Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality.  
Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the 
anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different than how the 
equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines whether I inhale or 
exhale.

This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and 
instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a 
universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the 
revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the deep and 
violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game 
theory. 

To understand morals we must look at sense and motive, and how the 
association of transgressive motives (criminality) is associated fairly and 
unfairly with transgressive sense (images, characters worthy of disgust, 
shame, etc). We must understand how super-signifying images are telegraphed 
socially through and second-hand exaggeration and dramatization, of 
story-telling and parenting, demagoguery, religious authority, etc. 
Morality is politics. It is the subjective topology which elevates and 
lowers events, objects, people, places, behaviors, etc so that we enforce 
our own behavioral control before outside authorities need to. It isn't 
only a mathematical system of rules, it is a visceral drama. Consciousness 
computes, but consciousness itself has almost nothing to do with 
computation. It is experience. That is all there is. One can experience the 
computation of other experiences, but without experience, there is no 
access to computation.
 
 Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/5ukgWqsvjuUJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Stephen P. King

On 8/30/2012 2:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional
versus rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world
as much as we can, under the impression that moral is subjective
and not objetive, or more precisely that there is no moral that
can be objective.  An there is such crap as the separation of
facts and values (as if values (and in particular universal
values) where not social facts).

Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed
in theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of
 modern gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is
one of the phases, that believes possible in a certain future a
society with a perfect harmony of individual desires and social
needs, making moral unnecessary.


I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left 
wing opinions state that they believe in a future society with a 
perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary.


Craig

Hi Craig,

Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like 
a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were 
unnecessary.


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

 Hi Craig,

 Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like a 
 a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary.


Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

Craig
 


 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen
 http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/4uOV61ss6poJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Stephen P. King

On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

Hi Craig,

Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much
like a a future society with a perfect anything or that morals
were unnecessary.


Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

Craig


Hi Craig,

Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... classless 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, moneyless, 
andstateless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_societysocial 
order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_orderstructured 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructureuponcommon 
ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownershipof the means of 
production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, as well 
as asocial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social,political 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicalandeconomic 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyideology that aims at the 
establishment of this social order.


--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread meekerdb

On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 4:47:19 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.

 in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired 
programs.

codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic program, 
which
incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an amazing 
homogeneity for a
single specie).

These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a 
social
environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash 
equilibriums among
these human players. These optimums of well being for all withing the 
constraints of
human nature called nash equilibriums are the moral code.



In general they are not Nash equilibra.  Evolution doesn't settle on Nash equilibra 
because in many cases they are unstable for finitely repeated games, c.f. Ginitis Bounds 
of Reason.




These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according with 
the
social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These maximums are 
know by
our intuition because we have suffered social selection, so a knowledge of 
them are
intuitive.  That we have suffered social selection means that the groups of 
hominids
or the individual hominids whose conducts were away from the nash 
equilibriums
dissapeared.  To be near these equilibriums was an advantage so we have 
these
hardwired intuitions, that the greeks called Nous and the chistians call 
soul.



That doesn't seem like something individual that will survive dissolution of 
the body.



What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the expression 
of the
same moral code operating in different circunstances where the optimum has 
been
displaced. There are very interesting studies, for example in foundational 
book of
evolutionary psychology The adapted mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind

about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in 
extreme cases
(In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the extreme of 
the social
spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close to ours, the rules 
are quite
normal. Both the normal behaviour or the extreme behaviour is created by 
the same
basic algoritm of individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this 
from a
dynamic way (contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one
contemplating a normal society, the moral is a unique, universal rule 
system.
 Thanks to the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science 
and game
theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that 
await  a
development of evolutionary morals



I don't think biological evolution has been nearly fast enough to give us hardwired ethics 
suited to modern industrial nation states.  That's why diverse cultures have evolved; 
Different ways of trying to satisfy the moral instincts that evolved for life in a small 
tribe.  In theory the interaction of these cultures would eventually pick a winner 
(cultural selection), but in practice technology and other factors (e.g. global warming, 
oil depletion, war) may change things on a much shorter time scale.




Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality.  Should I eat 
my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the anticipation of statistical 
probabilities, etc...no different than how the equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood 
determines whether I inhale or exhale.


It also depends on what you want.  No decision problem can be solved with values.  The 
values that evolved biologically are common and don't change very fast; so it's a good bet 
you love your children more than yourself.




This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and instrumental 
knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a universe based on this 
description, what would we get? Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma 
and shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal 
evils of game theory.


They're found in your the banal neurons of your brain, so they could be part of the morals 
of a robot if we chose to build it that way.  From our perspective as citizens in a very 
diverse and interconnected world of billions of people, we can see ways in which we might 
give a robot better, more adaptive, values than biology has given us.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
  


 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: 

 Hi Craig,

 Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very much like a 
 a future society with a perfect anything or that morals were unnecessary.
  

 Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

 Craig 
  

 Hi Craig,

 Umm, the Marxists have an analogue...  
 classlesshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, 
 moneyless, and stateless http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_society 
 social 
 order http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_order 
 structuredhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructure
  upon common ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownership of 
 the means of production http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, 
 as well as a social http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social, 
 politicalhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political
  and economic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy ideology that aims 
 at the establishment of this social order.


When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich talk 
about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists like Bernie 
Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must get rid of money 
and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives is We should pay 
teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We should stop paying 
private contractors so much to imprison more and more people on meaningless 
drug charges. I have hung out with many anarchists, feminists, hippies, 
and rabid left wing ideologues socially throughout my life and have never - 
ever - heard anyone mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political 
context at all. Most of what I know about Marxism has come from 
Libertarians and Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.

Craig


 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen
 http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/-We2MSfPkrkJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:38:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

  On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

  
  Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of 
 morality.  Should I eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends 
 on the anticipation of statistical probabilities, etc...no different than 
 how the equilibrium of oxygen and CO2 in my blood determines whether I 
 inhale or exhale.
  

 It also depends on what you want.  No decision problem can be solved with 
 values.  The values that evolved biologically are common and don't change 
 very fast; so it's a good bet you love your children more than yourself.


It's a good bet to metabolize carbohydrates before protein too, but that 
doesn't imply that a moral dimension could or would be conjured out of 
nowhere to somehow assist that decision.
 


  
 This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and 
 instrumental knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a 
 universe based on this description, what would we get? Where is the 
 revulsion, disgust, and blame - the stigma and shaming...the deep and 
 violent prejudices? Surely they are not found in the banal evils of game 
 theory. 
  

 They're found in your the banal neurons of your brain, 


Not necessarily. All that we find in neurons so far is molecules. No sign 
of any disgust. We have only our own word to take for the fact that such a 
thing as disgust even exists. TV shows aren't in the banal pixels of a TV 
screen. The internet isn't in my computer.
 

 so they could be part of the morals of a robot if we chose to build it 
 that way.  From our perspective as citizens in a very diverse and 
 interconnected world of billions of people, we can see ways in which we 
 might give a robot better, more adaptive, values than biology has given us.

 Brent


If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible 
purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience 
on top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical 
scripts? Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only 
conceivable in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?

Craig 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/27rt0ahEiUwJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread meekerdb

On 8/30/2012 4:51 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 7:38:27 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

On 8/30/2012 2:19 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



Computational analogies can only provide us with a toy model of morality.  
Should I
eat my children, or should I order a pizza? It depends on the anticipation 
of
statistical probabilities, etc...no different than how the equilibrium of 
oxygen
and CO2 in my blood determines whether I inhale or exhale.


It also depends on what you want.  No decision problem can be solved with values. 
The values that evolved biologically are common and don't change very fast; so it's

a good bet you love your children more than yourself.


It's a good bet to metabolize carbohydrates before protein too, but that doesn't imply 
that a moral dimension could or would be conjured out of nowhere to somehow assist that 
decision.





This kind of modeling may indeed offer some predictive strategies and 
instrumental
knowledge of morality, but if we had to build a person or a universe based 
on this
description, what would we get? Where is the revulsion, disgust, and blame 
- the
stigma and shaming...the deep and violent prejudices? Surely they are not 
found in
the banal evils of game theory.


They're found in your the banal neurons of your brain,


Not necessarily. All that we find in neurons so far is molecules. No sign of any 
disgust. We have only our own word to take for the fact that such a thing as disgust 
even exists. TV shows aren't in the banal pixels of a TV screen. The internet isn't in 
my computer.


so they could be part of the morals of a robot if we chose to build it that way. 
From our perspective as citizens in a very diverse and interconnected world of

billions of people, we can see ways in which we might give a robot better, 
more
adaptive, values than biology has given us.

Brent


If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible purpose could 
be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience on top of the perfectly 
efficient and simple execution of neurochemical scripts? Don't you see that the proposed 
usefulness of such a thing is only conceivable in hindsight - after the fact of its 
existence?


We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's random.  It takes 
advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach after eating rotten food is 
a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff like that again.  So what feeling would work 
to guide you not harm a child? - how about that 'sick at your stomach' feeling.


Brent

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:



 If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible 
 purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience 
 on top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical 
 scripts? Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only 
 conceivable in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?
  

 We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's 
 random. 


Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write 
here, they will never evolve into something that writes by itself.

 

 It takes advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach 
 after eating rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff 
 like that again.


No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such 
thing as 'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree 
algorithms. This is what I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a 
possibility unless you are looking back on it in hindsight after the fact. 
Sure, to you it seems like nausea is a good adaptation, but that's naive 
realism. You assume nausea is possible because you have experienced it. You 
would have to use evolution to explain the possibility of feeling in the 
first place, and it cannot.
 

   So what feeling would work to guide you not harm a child? - how about 
 that 'sick at your stomach' feeling. 


That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill friendly 
cells. That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar 
molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a 
metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense - 
everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other way 
around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other way?

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/54ZG4n6uzCcJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread meekerdb

On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:




If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible 
purpose
could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience on top 
of the
perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical scripts? Don't 
you see
that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only conceivable in 
hindsight -
after the fact of its existence?


We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's 
random.


Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write here, they will 
never evolve into something that writes by itself.


Exactly. Randomness is more likely to kludge up an adaptation than create an efficient 
design from scratch.  Your words don't evolve because they don't move around and recombine 
randomly - except in your head.  Are you an Intelligent Design creationist?





It takes advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach 
after eating
rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff like that again.


No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such thing as 
'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree algorithms. This is what 
I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a possibility unless you are looking back on it 
in hindsight after the fact. Sure, to you it seems like nausea is a good adaptation, but 
that's naive realism. You assume nausea is possible because you have experienced it.


That's not an assumption - that's empiricism.  An assumption would be that a brain can't 
instantiate feelings.


You would have to use evolution to explain the possibility of feeling in the first 
place, and it cannot.


  So what feeling would work to guide you not harm a child? - how about 
that 'sick
at your stomach' feeling.


That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill friendly 
cells.


No it doesn't.  T-cells are not social animals who need to care for their young.

That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar molecules. If you believe 
in functionalism, then all feeling is a metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite 
makes more sense - everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other 
way around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other way?


But then you have no way to explain why they feel this instead of that.

Brent

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

  On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 

  
  
 If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What possible 
 purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of experience 
 on top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical 
 scripts? Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only 
 conceivable in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?
  

 We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's 
 random. 


 Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write 
 here, they will never evolve into something that writes by itself.
  

 Exactly. Randomness is more likely to kludge up an adaptation than create 
 an efficient design from scratch.  Your words don't evolve because they 
 don't move around and recombine randomly - except in your head.  


Are you suggesting that if I add a randomizer that the words being spit out 
will eventually learn to become an author? Of course 
 

 Are you an Intelligent Design creationist?


Of course not. Are you an Darwinian supremacist?
 

  
  
  
  It takes advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach 
 after eating rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff 
 like that again.


 No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such 
 thing as 'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree 
 algorithms. This is what I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a 
 possibility unless you are looking back on it in hindsight after the fact. 
 Sure, to you it seems like nausea is a good adaptation, but that's naive 
 realism. You assume nausea is possible because you have experienced it. 


 That's not an assumption - that's empiricism.  An assumption would be that 
 a brain can't instantiate feelings.


Ok, then you *know* nausea is possible because you have experienced it. 
That doesn't change the fact that nausea has no business being possible in 
a universe driven only by bottom up evolution.


  You would have to use evolution to explain the possibility of feeling in 
 the first place, and it cannot.
  

   So what feeling would work to guide you not harm a child? - how about 
 that 'sick at your stomach' feeling. 

  
 That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill 
 friendly cells. 


 No it doesn't.  T-cells are not social animals who need to care for their 
 young. 


T-cells are social organisms who need to care for the other cells of the 
body. What's the difference?
 


  That H2O needs a feeling to guide it not to dissolve non-polar 
 molecules. If you believe in functionalism, then all feeling is a 
 metaphysical epiphenomenon. I think the opposite makes more sense - 
 everything is feeling, function is the result of sense, not the other way 
 around. T-cells do feel. Molecules do feel. How could it be any other way?
  

 But then you have no way to explain why they feel this instead of that.


They feel what makes sense for them to feel in relation to the entirety of 
the cosmos. They feel what it is to experience the thing that they are in 
the context that is meaningful to the history of experiences that have 
developed through them.

Craig
 


 Brent
  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rvbmmBIPeYAJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread meekerdb

On 8/30/2012 6:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:




If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What 
possible
purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of 
experience on
top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of neurochemical 
scripts?
Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a thing is only 
conceivable
in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?


We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's 
random.


Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write 
here, they
will never evolve into something that writes by itself.


Exactly. Randomness is more likely to kludge up an adaptation than create an
efficient design from scratch.  Your words don't evolve because they don't 
move
around and recombine randomly - except in your head.


Are you suggesting that if I add a randomizer that the words being spit out will 
eventually learn to become an author?


That would be necessary but not sufficient.  You'd need an editor (or natural selection) 
to find something coherent.




Are you an Intelligent Design creationist?


Of course not.


Then why can't you accept that living systems are not designed, don't 'need' be they way 
they are, are just formed by random variation and natural selection.







It takes advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach 
after
eating rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff like 
that again.


No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such 
thing as
'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree algorithms. 
This is
what I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a possibility unless you are 
looking
back on it in hindsight after the fact. Sure, to you it seems like nausea 
is a good
adaptation, but that's naive realism. You assume nausea is possible because 
you
have experienced it.


That's not an assumption - that's empiricism.  An assumption would be that 
a brain
can't instantiate feelings.


Ok, then you /know/ nausea is possible because you have experienced it. That doesn't 
change the fact that nausea has no business being possible in a universe driven only by 
bottom up evolution.


IT'S RANDOM!  Having business assumes a goal, foresight.





You would have to use evolution to explain the possibility of feeling in 
the first
place, and it cannot.

  So what feeling would work to guide you not harm a child? - how about 
that
'sick at your stomach' feeling.


That implies that T-cells need a feeling to guide them not to kill friendly 
cells.


No it doesn't.  T-cells are not social animals who need to care for their 
young.


T-cells are social organisms who need to care for the other cells of the body. What's 
the difference?


For one the T-cells don't have young.  Their 'feelings' are simple and don't need to rise 
to level of being expressible or to be resolved with conflicting feelings.  You are again 
asking why some biological system 'needs' to be the way it is, as though there is a 
designer who can explain his choice.


Brent

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:04:28 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:

  On 8/30/2012 6:23 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:00:12 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 

  On 8/30/2012 5:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: 



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:19:32 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: 

  
  
 If morals didn't exist, why would we choose to invent them? What 
 possible purpose could be served by some additional qualitative layer of 
 experience on top of the perfectly efficient and simple execution of 
 neurochemical scripts? Don't you see that the proposed usefulness of such a 
 thing is only conceivable in hindsight - after the fact of its existence?
  

 We didn't invent them.  They evolved.  Evolution has no foresight, it's 
 random. 


 Randomness is not omnipotence. It doesn't matter how many words I write 
 here, they will never evolve into something that writes by itself.
  

 Exactly. Randomness is more likely to kludge up an adaptation than create 
 an efficient design from scratch.  Your words don't evolve because they 
 don't move around and recombine randomly - except in your head.  
  

 Are you suggesting that if I add a randomizer that the words being spit 
 out will eventually learn to become an author?
  

 That would be necessary but not sufficient.  You'd need an editor (or 
 natural selection) to find something coherent.


No, you'd need the possibility of 'coherence' first. Then you would need an 
agent which cares whether something is coherent or not. Then you would need 
that agent to be causally empowered to execute their preference in a 
materially effective way. In other words, you would need an author. Once 
you have an author, then an editor or natural selection could certainly 
introduce specialization and diversification into the quality and quantity 
of authors, but authorship itself has no basis to be considered as a 
possible option to be selected by any means - natural selection, divine 
selection, whatever...not happening. My conclusion is that there is only 
one possible way that consciousness can exist, and that is if nothing else 
has ever existed but consciousness (not human consciousness, obviously, but 
awareness; sense.).
 


   
  
  Are you an Intelligent Design creationist?


 Of course not.
  

 Then why can't you accept that living systems are not designed, don't 
 'need' be they way they are, are just formed by random variation and 
 natural selection.


I'm not talking about the design of specific living systems, I am talking 
about the possibility of order and experience in the first place. These are 
not possible results of arithmetic permutation and probability. Probability 
and evolution themselves are not systems which could have evolved (or 
created). Sense is the ground of being. Probability, order, awareness, 
evolution all occur as a subordinate limited conditionality within sense. 
Not everything evolves. The relation between blue and red doesn't evolve. 
The notion of an omnipotent designer adds nothing for the same reason, it 
doesn't explain itself. If the universe needs a designer then why doesn't 
the designer need a designer.

All you need is sense.



   
  
  
  
  
  It takes advantage of what is available.  Feeling sick at your stomach 
 after eating rotten food is a good adaptation to teach you not eat stuff 
 like that again.


 No, it isn't a possible adaptation at all. There would not be any such 
 thing as 'feeling' or 'sick' - only memory locations and branching tree 
 algorithms. This is what I am saying, feeling makes no sense as a 
 possibility unless you are looking back on it in hindsight after the fact. 
 Sure, to you it seems like nausea is a good adaptation, but that's naive 
 realism. You assume nausea is possible because you have experienced it. 


 That's not an assumption - that's empiricism.  An assumption would be 
 that a brain can't instantiate feelings.
  

 Ok, then you *know* nausea is possible because you have experienced it. 
 That doesn't change the fact that nausea has no business being possible in 
 a universe driven only by bottom up evolution.
  

 IT'S RANDOM!  Having business assumes a goal, foresight.


Random within what range? A magic hat of infinite phenomenological 
possibilities? Left, right, nausea, laughter, donkey smoke... just any old 
unexplainable comes into being whenever it is needed? And this is better 
than Creationism how? Randomism. Whatever is clearly 
unexplainable...evolution did it. Goal-lessness itself did it. It is a 
cosmic Willy Wonka of meaningless delights like passion, terror, and misery 
to be randomly attached to the oh-so-important cockroach-like functions of 
survival and reproduction. This is the reason that science never develops 
before religion, because common sense readily exposes it's instrumental 
reasoning as absurd when applied to cosmology. We need to move beyond this 
Emperor's New Clothes glamor of insignificance and see that this too is a 
simplistic 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-30 Thread Stephen P. King

On 8/30/2012 7:41 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:55:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 8/30/2012 6:35 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 6:16:14 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King
wrote:

Hi Craig,

Umm, ever hear of the concept of Heaven? It sounds very
much like a a future society with a perfect anything or that
morals were unnecessary.


Sure, but when does the Left Wing ever talk about Heaven?

Craig


Hi Craig,

Umm, the Marxists have an analogue... classless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classless_society, moneyless,
andstateless
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_societysocial order
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_orderstructured
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base_and_superstructureuponcommon
ownership http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_ownershipof the
means of production
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Means_of_production, as well as
asocial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social,political
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politicalandeconomic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economyideology that aims at the
establishment of this social order.


When does the Left Wing ever talk about Marxism? Does Dennis Kucinich 
talk about a stateless social order? Even self described socialists 
like Bernie Sanders or activists like Michael Moore don't say we must 
get rid of money and class!. All I have ever heard from progressives 
is We should pay teachers more and useless businessmen less. and We 
should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and 
more people on meaningless drug charges. I have hung out with many 
anarchists, feminists, hippies, and rabid left wing ideologues 
socially throughout my life and have never - ever - heard anyone 
mention communism or Marxism in any kind of political context at all. 
Most of what I know about Marxism has come from Libertarians and 
Republicans holding up its ghost in effigy.


Craig


Hi Craig,

They never state it explicitly, but it is the logical implication 
of their arguments.  We should pay teachers more and useless 
businessmen less implies all are paid the same regardless of skill, no? 
We should stop paying private contractors so much to imprison more and 
more people on meaningless drug charges implies? Most people simply 
don't try to explain their ideologies to themselves or others, whether 
libertarian, republican, progressive or whatever, they are simply not 
curious to know.



--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Craig Weinberg 

I agree.

Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:

Cs = subject + object

The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.

QED


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary


This sentence does not speak English.
These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.
s l u ,u s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that 
form is not inherently informative.
The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
ascertaining the origin of awareness. 

Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless 
epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can 
and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of 
meta-computation is what we call awareness.
Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno 
includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, 
Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the 
completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) 
are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed 
it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the 
sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't 
have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I 
do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a 
dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume 
consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic 
logic.
Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It 
is not enough to say *that* awareness fits into this or that category of 
programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question 
of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed 
at all.
As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to 
demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion 
of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. 
Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an 
acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from 
quanta.
Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of 
sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared 
sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be 
construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to 
encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique 
significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the totality.

Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from either 
physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences, for direct 
participation?
Craig



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/OP7M4cmbaCIJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Craig Weinberg
Hi Roger,

Yes, and its indeterminacy and non-computability is only the beginning. Any 
system whose output is unreadable to another system will be indeterminate 
and non-computable to it, but that doesn't imply subjectivity. Subjectivity 
can only be an inherent possibility in all possible universes - and, I 
suggest is is perpetually the least likely possibility in any given 
universe. This means that subjectivity itself is the alpha and omega 
continuum, the band which underlies all possibility, from which the 
illusion of objectivity arises as consensus of wavefrorm perturbations in 
the frequency band.

I know that sounds crazy, but I think that it reconciles physics, 
information theory, consciousness, and religion.

Entropy is not an infinite, open ended quantity, but range of infinitely 
divisible states of disconnection within a single monad of 0.00...1% 
entropy (99.99...% signal). Note the ellipsis (...) means it is a floating 
constant. The singularity of the band, the monad, perpetually defines the 
extremes of signal and entropy possibilities while the objects form at the 
public center of space and the subjects inform at the private edge of 
'time'.

I call this cosmology a 'Sole Entropy Well' and the quality of accumulating 
qualitative significance attributed to the totality (monad) which balances 
the observed inflation of entropy in the universe of public space I call 
solitropy. The universe is a significance machine that excretes public 
entropy (space) as exhaust.

Craig


On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 I agree.
  
 Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
  
 Cs = subject + object
  
 The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
  
 QED
  
  
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript:
 8/29/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

   This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not 锟斤拷refer锟斤拷 to themselves.

 s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷l u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷,u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷


 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate 
 that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
 ascertaining the origin of awareness. 

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless 
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation 
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular 
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what 
 Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp 
 contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively 
 assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G锟斤拷del 
 (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course 
 agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be 
 complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect 
 that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, 
 but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that 
 this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining 
 consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a 
 priori and independently of any arithmetic logic.

 Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of 
 awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or 
 that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary 
 indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place 
 and *why* is has not been addressed at all.

 As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to 
 demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative 
 assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another 
 thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure 
 up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not 
 follow from quanta.

 Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of 
 sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining 
 shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would 
 necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between 
 channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial 
 frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the 
 entropy of the totality.

 Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from 
 either physics or arithmetic? Any need 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Alberto G. Corona
Hi:

Awareness can  be functionally (we do not know if experientially)
 computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do
things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time
status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called
interpreters.

 The lack of  understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any
turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why  it is said that the
brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do.  We humans can
manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second
is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation.

For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our
intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs.
We can not know  our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed
as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired  to
mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware
of it.  Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the
observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means
of an adquired metacomputation.

The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman
for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition.
In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process  of
diagonalization by Gödel  makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same
conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive
mathematical program. (see my post about the Gödel theorem).

Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free will
nor in any other existential question.

2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Craig Weinberg

 I agree.

 Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:

 Cs = subject + object

 The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.

 QED


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

   This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s


 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate
 that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as
 ascertaining the origin of awareness.

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what
 Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp
 contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively
 assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G
 del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of
 course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be
 complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect
 that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this,
 but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that
 this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining
 consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a
 priori and independently of any arithmetic logic.

 Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of
 awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or
 that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary
 indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place
 and *why* is has not been addressed at all.

 As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to
 demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative
 assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another
 thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure
 up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not
 follow from quanta.

 Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of
 sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining
 shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would
 necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between
 channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial
 frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the
 entropy of the 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Stephen P. King

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
I agree.
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
Cs = subject + object
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
QED

Hi Roger,

It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not 
restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) 
while the object is possibly singular.



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
everything could function.


- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com
*Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
*Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

This sentence does not speak English.

These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

s l u     ,u     s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help
illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far
as ascertaining the origin of awareness.

Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a
meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we
presume that computation can and does exist independently of all
awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is
what we call awareness.

Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding
of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy
and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of
these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic
truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to
support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed
it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete,
especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect
that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding
of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough
to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead
end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume
consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any
arithmetic logic.

Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of
awareness. It is not enough to say /*that*/ awareness fits into
this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically
necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is
in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all.

As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried
to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a
negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of
cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a
symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic
vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow
from quanta.

Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a
method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy
while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels.
These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to
insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to encourage the
coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique
significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the totality.

Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived
from either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings
and experiences, for direct participation?

Craig


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



--
Onward!

Stephen

http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

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



Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Craig Weinberg
Hi Stephen,

Actually what you're saying makes me think of something new. Maybe the 
assumed singularity of the subject comes only through objectivity. Think of 
the dreamstate, or dementia, or infancy, where subjectivity is most 
directly exposed. The nature of the subject by itself is neither one nor 
many but orthogonal to quantity. It is a non-specific 
quasi-multiplicity/singularity of possible qualities and experiences.

It is the experience of objects that divides the self into a hypothetical 
'one' as it internalizes its own place in the world of discrete objects. 
Deprive it of sleep or give it a good movie to watch in a dark theater and 
the subject goes right back to (non-zero/non-infinity). This affirms my 
sense of quantity on the outside, quality on the inside.

Craig

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:23:59 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
  
 Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 I agree.
  
 Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
  
 Cs = subject + object
  
 The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
  
 QED

 Hi Roger,

 It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not 
 restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) 
 while the object is possibly singular. 

   
  
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript:
 8/29/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.
  
 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

  This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s 


  If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help 
 illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
 ascertaining the origin of awareness. 
  
 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless 
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation 
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular 
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what 
 Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp 
 contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively 
 assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G 
 del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of 
 course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be 
 complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect 
 that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, 
 but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that 
 this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining 
 consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a 
 priori and independently of any arithmetic logic.

 Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of 
 awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or 
 that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary 
 indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place 
 and *why* is has not been addressed at all.

 As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to 
 demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative 
 assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another 
 thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure 
 up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not 
 follow from quanta.

 Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of 
 sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining 
 shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would 
 necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between 
 channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial 
 frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the 
 entropy of the totality.
  
 Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from 
 either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences, 
 for direct participation?

 Craig
  
  -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 .
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
 everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 For more options, visit this group at 
 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



 -- 
 Onward!

 Stephen
 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Alberto G. Corona
the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory
because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it
needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others.

This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of
ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed
to other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could
come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones.
Although this probably will never happen.

2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

  On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Craig Weinberg

 I agree.

 Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:

 Cs = subject + object

 The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.

 QED

 Hi Roger,

 It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not
 restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity)
 while the object is possibly singular.



 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

  This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s


  If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help
 illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as
 ascertaining the origin of awareness.

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what
 Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp
 contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively
 assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G
 del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of
 course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be
 complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect
 that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this,
 but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that
 this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining
 consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a
 priori and independently of any arithmetic logic.

 Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of
 awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or
 that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary
 indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place
 and *why* is has not been addressed at all.

 As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to
 demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative
 assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another
 thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure
 up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not
 follow from quanta.

 Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of
 sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining
 shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would
 necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between
 channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial
 frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the
 entropy of the totality.

 Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from
 either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences,
 for direct participation?

 Craig

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



 --
 Onward!

 Stephen
 http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 For more options, visit 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Craig Weinberg
Hi Alberto,

Yes, all good points. We don't have access to our non-metacomputational 
layers, but that still doesn't mean that computation implies any sort of 
awareness. A string of dominoes falling is a computation but there need not 
be an experience there if all there was to the event was the 
geometric-gravitational sequence of object relation playing out that we 
experience as observers.

Whether awareness is truly non-computational or just inaccessible to our 
computation makes no difference as far as the point I am making. Neither 
descriptor implies experience. They are neither necessary nor sufficient to 
explain consciousness. Just because we have a physiological description 
within our own collective human experience doesn't mean that we should be 
able to reverse engineer awareness itself from that description alone. 
Doing so may be a catastrophic distortion.

Craig

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:21:49 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 Hi:

 Awareness can  be functionally (we do not know if experientially) 
  computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do 
 things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time 
 status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called 
 interpreters.

  The lack of  understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that 
 any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why  it is said that 
 the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do.  We humans can 
 manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second 
 is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation.

 For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our 
 intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. 
 We can not know  our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed 
 as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired  to 
 mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware 
 of it.  Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the 
 observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means 
 of an adquired metacomputation.

 The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman 
 for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. 
 In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process  of 
 diagonalization by Gödel  makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same 
 conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive 
 mathematical program. (see my post about the Gödel theorem).

 Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free 
 will nor in any other existential question.

 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript:

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 I agree.
  
 Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
  
 Cs = subject + object
  
 The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
  
 QED
  
  
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript:
 8/29/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

   This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s 


 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate 
 that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
 ascertaining the origin of awareness. 

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless 
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation 
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular 
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what 
 Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp 
 contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively 
 assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G 
 del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of 
 course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be 
 complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect 
 that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, 
 but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that 
 this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining 
 consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a 
 priori and independently of any arithmetic logic.

 Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of 
 awareness. It is not enough to say 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory 
 because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it 
 needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. 


What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream 
whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be 
intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think 
you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about 
consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking 
consciousness only.
 


 This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of 
 ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed 
 to other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could 
 come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. 
 Although this probably will never happen.


In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider 
themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others. 
They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on 
the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more 
awkward position than the other, etc).
 


 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net javascript:

  On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
  
 Hi Craig Weinberg 
  
 I agree.
  
 Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
  
 Cs = subject + object
  
 The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
  
 QED

 Hi Roger,

 It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not 
 restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) 
 while the object is possibly singular. 

   
  
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript:
 8/29/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.
  
 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

  This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s 


  If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help 
 illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
 ascertaining the origin of awareness. 
  
 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless 
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation 
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular 
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what 
 Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp 
 contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively 
 assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G 
 del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of 
 course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be 
 complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect 
 that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, 
 but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that 
 this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining 
 consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a 
 priori and independently of any arithmetic logic.

 Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of 
 awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or 
 that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary 
 indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place 
 and *why* is has not been addressed at all.

 As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to 
 demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative 
 assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another 
 thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure 
 up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not 
 follow from quanta.

 Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of 
 sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining 
 shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would 
 necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between 
 channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial 
 frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the 
 entropy of the totality.
  
 Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Alberto G. Corona
Craig:

I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist,
(no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws).  I
did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list.
I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy
of the naturalistic fallacy.

Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it
appear in humans)  exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation
of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality
effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were
no moral beings.

2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has
 memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral.
 therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits
 with others.


 What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream
 whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be
 intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think
 you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about
 consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking
 consciousness only.



 This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of
 ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed
 to other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could
 come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones.
 Although this probably will never happen.


 In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider
 themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others.
 They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on
 the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more
 awkward position than the other, etc).



 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net

  On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Craig Weinberg

 I agree.

 Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:

 Cs = subject + object

 The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.

 QED

 Hi Roger,

 It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not
 restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity)
 while the object is possibly singular.



 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Craig Weinberg
 *Receiver:* everything-list
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

  This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s


  If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help
 illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as
 ascertaining the origin of awareness.

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of
 what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non
 comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only
 negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is
 that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion,
 and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic
 system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself
 completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough
 understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is
 enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end
 as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume
 consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic
 logic.

 Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of
 awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or
 that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary
 indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place
 and *why* is has not been addressed at all.

 As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to
 demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative
 assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another
 thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure
 up an acoustic vibration associated 

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Alberto G. Corona
Roger,
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a
inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the
consequences of this inner computation.

  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that
this IS  the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind
and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when,
in the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness

2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Alberto G. Corona

 What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
 It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
 way to hook it to my brain.


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

   Hi:

 Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially)
 computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things
 depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This
 is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters.

  The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any
 turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the
 brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage
 concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the
 result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation.

 For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our
 intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs.
 We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed
 as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired to
 mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware
 of it. Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the
 observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means
 of an adquired metacomputation.

 The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman
 for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition.
 In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process of
 diagonalization by G del makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same
 conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive
 mathematical program. (see my post about the G del theorem).


 Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free
 will nor in any other existential question.

 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Craig Weinberg
  I agree.
  Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
  Cs = subject + object
  The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
  QED
   Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

   This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s


 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate
 that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as
 ascertaining the origin of awareness.

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what
 Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp
 contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively
 assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G
 del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of
 course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be
 complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect
 that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this,
 but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that
 this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining
 consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a
 priori and independently of any arithmetic logic.

 Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of
 awareness

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Stephen P. King

On 8/29/2012 8:34 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:

Hi Stephen,

Actually what you're saying makes me think of something new. Maybe the 
assumed singularity of the subject comes only through objectivity. 
Think of the dreamstate, or dementia, or infancy, where subjectivity 
is most directly exposed. The nature of the subject by itself is 
neither one nor many but orthogonal to quantity. It is a non-specific 
quasi-multiplicity/singularity of possible qualities and experiences.


Hi Craig,

Exactly! In the cases of dreamstate, dementia, infancy and 
equivalent (multiple personality disorder?) there is no singular subject 
that is invariant on a sequence of states. This is the same as saying 
that there is no self-narrative.




It is the experience of objects that divides the self into a 
hypothetical 'one' as it internalizes its own place in the world of 
discrete objects.


Right! That is how naming occurs.

Deprive it of sleep or give it a good movie to watch in a dark theater 
and the subject goes right back to (non-zero/non-infinity).


Right, self-identification is lost in those cases.


This affirms my sense of quantity on the outside, quality on the inside.


Indeed!



Craig

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:23:59 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
I agree.
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
Cs = subject + object
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
QED

Hi Roger,

It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not
restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular
(necessity) while the object is possibly singular.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript:
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Craig Weinberg javascript:
*Receiver:* everything-list javascript:
*Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
*Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

This sentence does not speak English.

These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

s l u     ,u     s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can
help illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as
far as ascertaining the origin of awareness.

Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a
meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or
we presume that computation can and does exist independently
of all awareness but that a particular category of
meta-computation is what we call awareness.

Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my
understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first
person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic
number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert
the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is
that G del (and others) are used to support this negative
assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible
for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the
sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno
assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of
this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough
to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a
dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if
we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and
independently of any arithmetic logic.

Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion
of awareness. It is not enough to say /*that*/ awareness fits
into this or that category of programmatic interiority or
logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what*
awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been
addressed at all.

As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle
tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically
from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the
example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a
symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic
vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not
follow from quanta.

Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as
a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of
privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive
'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed
as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense
- to 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Stephen P. King

On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has 
memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. 
therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and 
merits with others.


Hi Albert,

Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of 
memory and how it is sequentially ordered  that matters. I am what I 
remember myself to be.




This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life 
of ourselves.


No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in 
the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true 
for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it 
is like to be you.


But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to 
other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We 
 could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created 
clones. Although this probably will never happen.


Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might 
occur. There is something important to this!




2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net 
mailto:stephe...@charter.net


On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg
I agree.
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
Cs = subject + object
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
QED

Hi Roger,

It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not
restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular
(necessity) while the object is possibly singular.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
*From:* Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com
*Receiver:* everything-list
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
*Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

This sentence does not speak English.

These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

s l u     ,u     s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can
help illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as
far as ascertaining the origin of awareness.

Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a
meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or
we presume that computation can and does exist independently
of all awareness but that a particular category of
meta-computation is what we call awareness.

Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my
understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first
person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic
number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert
the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is
that G del (and others) are used to support this negative
assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible
for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the
sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno
assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of
this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough
to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a
dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if
we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and
independently of any arithmetic logic.

Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion
of awareness. It is not enough to say /*that*/ awareness fits
into this or that category of programmatic interiority or
logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what*
awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been
addressed at all.

As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle
tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically
from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the
example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a
symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic
vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not
follow from quanta.

Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as
a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of
privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive
'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed
as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Richard Ruquist
Craig,

Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate)
because it  excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust ?
Richard

On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

 Hi Roger,

 Yes, and its indeterminacy and non-computability is only the beginning.
 Any system whose output is unreadable to another system will be
 indeterminate and non-computable to it, but that doesn't imply
 subjectivity. Subjectivity can only be an inherent possibility in all
 possible universes - and, I suggest is is perpetually the least likely
 possibility in any given universe. This means that subjectivity itself is
 the alpha and omega continuum, the band which underlies all possibility,
 from which the illusion of objectivity arises as consensus of wavefrorm
 perturbations in the frequency band.

 I know that sounds crazy, but I think that it reconciles physics,
 information theory, consciousness, and religion.

 Entropy is not an infinite, open ended quantity, but range of infinitely
 divisible states of disconnection within a single monad of 0.00...1%
 entropy (99.99...% signal). Note the ellipsis (...) means it is a floating
 constant. The singularity of the band, the monad, perpetually defines the
 extremes of signal and entropy possibilities while the objects form at the
 public center of space and the subjects inform at the private edge of
 'time'.

 I call this cosmology a 'Sole Entropy Well' and the quality of
 accumulating qualitative significance attributed to the totality (monad)
 which balances the observed inflation of entropy in the universe of public
 space I call solitropy. The universe is a significance machine that
 excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust.

 Craig


 On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

  Hi Craig Weinberg

 I agree.

 Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:

 Cs = subject + object

 The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.

 QED


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Craig Weinberg
 *Receiver:* everything-list
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

   This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not 锟斤拷refer锟斤拷 to themselves.

 s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷l u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷,u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷


 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate
 that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as
 ascertaining the origin of awareness.

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what
 Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp
 contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively
 assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G锟斤拷del
 (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course
 agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be
 complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect
 that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this,
 but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that
 this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining
 consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a
 priori and independently of any arithmetic logic.

 Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of
 awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or
 that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary
 indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place
 and *why* is has not been addressed at all.

 As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to
 demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative
 assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another
 thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure
 up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not
 follow from quanta.

 Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of
 sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining
 shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would
 necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between
 channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial
 frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the
 entropy of the 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Alberto G. Corona
2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

  On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

 the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory
 because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it
 needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others.


 Hi Albert,

 Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory
 and how it is sequentially ordered  that matters. I am what I remember
 myself to be.


 in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation)
operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes
from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others
see on me.


  This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life
 of ourselves.


 No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the
 sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for
 each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like
 to be you.

 That´s why this uniqueness is not  essential


  But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to
 other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could
 come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones.
 Although this probably will never happen.


 Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur.
 There is something important to this!


This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of
individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy).  But
probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate
further




 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

  On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Craig Weinberg

 I agree.

 Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:

 Cs = subject + object

 The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.

 QED

  Hi Roger,

 It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not
 restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity)
 while the object is possibly singular.



 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

  This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s


  If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help
 illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as
 ascertaining the origin of awareness.

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what
 Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp
 contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively
 assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G
 del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of
 course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be
 complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect
 that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this,
 but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that
 this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining
 consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a
 priori and independently of any arithmetic logic.

 Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of
 awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or
 that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary
 indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place
 and *why* is has not been addressed at all.

 As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to
 demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative
 assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another
 thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure
 up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not
 follow from quanta.

 Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of
 sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining
 shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would
 

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread meekerdb

On 8/29/2012 5:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is 
intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and 
take account of its debts and merits with others. 


But this is more than just memory.  My dog has memory.  People have memories which are 
narratives in which they are actors among others.


Brent

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



Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Alberto G. Corona 

The subject is the perceiver, not the perceived. 
The perceived is called the object,

cs = subject +  object

This is a dipole.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:44:19
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory 
because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it 
needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. 


This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of 
ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to 
other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could come 
to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this 
probably will never happen.


2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
 
QED
Hi Roger,

It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to 
being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is 
possibly singular. 


 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary


This sentence does not speak English.
These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.
s l u ,u s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that 
form is not inherently informative.
The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
ascertaining the origin of awareness. 

Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless 
epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can 
and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of 
meta-computation is what we call awareness.
Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno 
includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, 
Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the 
completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) 
are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed 
it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the 
sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't 
have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I 
do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a 
dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume 
consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic 
logic.
Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It 
is not enough to say *that* awareness fits into this or that category of 
programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question 
of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed 
at all.
As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to 
demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion 
of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. 
Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an 
acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from 
quanta.
Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of 
sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared 
sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be 
construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to 
encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique 
significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the totality.

Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from either 
physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences, for direct 
participation?
Craig



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Alberto G. Corona 


Subjectivity has nothing to do with morality or evolution, it is simply the 
private of personal state of a perceiver (of some object), ie it is experience. 

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:08:43
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Craig:


I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist, (no 
matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws).  I did an 
extended account of this somewhere else in this list.
I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy of 
the naturalistic fallacy. 


Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it 
appear in humans)  exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of 
morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality 
effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no 
moral beings.



2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:
the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory 
because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it 
needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. 

What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream whole 
ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be intelligent 
and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think you are making 
some normative assumptions. When we generalize about consciousness we should 
not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking consciousness only.
 



This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of 
ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to 
other ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could come 
to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this 
probably will never happen.


In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider themselves 
both the same person in some contexts and different in others. They live the 
same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on the right side is 
not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more awkward position than 
the other, etc).
 



2012/8/29 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
 
QED
Hi Roger,

It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to 
being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is 
possibly singular. 


 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary


This sentence does not speak English.
These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.
s l u ,u s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that 
form is not inherently informative.
The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
ascertaining the origin of awareness. 

Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless 
epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can 
and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of 
meta-computation is what we call awareness.
Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno 
includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, 
Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the 
completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) 
are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed 
it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the 
sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't 
have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I 
do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a 
dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume 
consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic 
logic.
Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It 
is not enough to say *that* awareness fits into this or that category of 
programmatic

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:14:38 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:


 Right! That is how naming occurs.


Nice! 

I was thinking of this:

If we recorded every commercial transaction by name, we could produce a 
fingerprint signature for any given commodity sold by plotting out a 
function of price vs location. If we wanted to quantify a Hershey with 
Almonds bar, we could come up with a unique set of datapoints for every 
store in every city that corresponds to those sales and reverse engineer a 
wavefunction that we could associate uniquely with the HwA bar. 

Still we have said nothing about the chocolate or the consumers, buyers, or 
sellers. We can't ever get to the quality of what is being sole even though 
we have a convincing way of articulating the quantitative nature and 
topological distribution of the sales transactions.

I think this it the critical fault of all possible systems which seek to 
approach consciousness as a secondary effect. Whether materialist or 
idealist, all quant-based approaches are doomed to mistake the interstitial 
relation for that which is relating.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/5pyRY--2W2IJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Awareness = I see X.
 or I am X. 
or some similar statement.

There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Roger,
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner 
computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the 
consequences of this inner computation.


  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS 
 the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and 
matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the 
paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net
Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Hi:


Awareness can  be functionally (we do not know if experientially)  computable. 
A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on 
its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in 
computer science and these programs are called interpreters. 


 The lack of  understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any 
turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why  it is said that the 
brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do.  We humans can manage 
concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the 
result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. 


For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions 
because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know  
our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. 
When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired  to mean being redundant, we 
are using category theory but we can not be aware of it.  Only after research 
that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of humans, we 
can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired metacomputation.


The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman for 
adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. In the 
other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process  of diagonalization by 
G del  makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be 
reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program. 
(see my post about the G del theorem).




Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free will nor 
in any other existential question.


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
 
QED
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary


This sentence does not speak English.
These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.
s l u ,u s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that 
form is not inherently informative.
The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
ascertaining the origin of awareness. 

Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless 
epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can 
and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of 
meta-computation is what we call awareness.
Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno 
includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, 
Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the 
completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) 
are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed 
it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the 
sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't 
have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:34:22 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote:

 Craig,

 Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate) 
 because it  excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust ?
 Richard


Yes, although it may not be the actual universe which is expanding but 
rather the astrophysical level of our perception of the universe may be the 
location where this expansion is most visible to us. In any case, there is 
nothing actual for the universe to expand into, as space itself does not 
exist until the matter of the universe defines it as space. It can be said 
that rather than expanding, the ratio of entropy to signal is increasing.

Craig

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/yrtiLF3IY4gJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Alberto G. Corona
I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that  it´s functionality is
computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of
awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware

2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Alberto G. Corona

 Awareness = I see X.
  or I am X.
 or some similar statement.

 There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
 *Subject:* Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

  Roger,
 I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a
 inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the
 consequences of this inner computation.

  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that
 this IS the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and
 matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in
 the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness

 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Alberto G. Corona
  What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
 It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
 way to hook it to my brain.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

  - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

   Hi:

 Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially)
 computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things
 depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This
 is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters.

  The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that
 any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the
 brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage
 concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the
 result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation.

 For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our
 intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs.
 We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed
 as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired to
 mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware
 of it. Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the
 observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means
 of an adquired metacomputation.

 The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman
 for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition.
 In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process of
 diagonalization by G del makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same
 conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive
 mathematical program. (see my post about the G del theorem).


 Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free
 will nor in any other existential question.

 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Craig Weinberg
  I agree.
  Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
  Cs = subject + object
  The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
  QED
   Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

   This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s


 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help
 illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as
 ascertaining the origin of awareness.

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of
 what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non
 comp contents, Platonic

Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Craig Weinberg
Before you can have a computer, you need some kind of i/o. I think this is 
what comp ignores. It is my hypotheses that 'input' is afferent 
phenomenology and 'output' is efferent participation in all cases, however 
i/o does not automatically carry the full spectrum of possible 
phenomenological qualities.

That was the point of my saying These words do not 'refer' to themselves, 
because they are only words to us. The other layers of sense which are 
involved do not speak English - they speak tcp/ip, or machine language, or 
voltage flux, but there are no words there other than the ones which we 
infer through our fully human, English speaking range of sensitivity.

Craig

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

  Hi Alberto G. Corona 
  
 Awareness = I see X.
  or I am X. 
 or some similar statement.
  
 There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.
  
  
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript:
 8/29/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
 *Subject:* Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

  Roger, 
 I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a 
 inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the 
 consequences of this inner computation.

 锟斤拷锟斤拷like in the case of any relation of brain and mind,锟斤拷I do not say 
 that this IS 锟斤拷the experience of awareness, but given the duality between 
 mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way 
 when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness

 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 

  Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 锟斤拷
 What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
 It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
 way to hook it to my brain.
  锟斤拷
 锟斤拷
 Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript:
 8/29/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.

  - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

   Hi:

 Awareness can 锟斤拷be functionally (we do not know if experientially) 
 锟斤拷computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do 
 things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time 
 status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called 
 interpreters. 

  锟斤拷The lack of 锟斤拷understanding, of this capability of metacomputation 
 that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why 锟斤拷it is said 
 that the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. 锟斤拷We 
 humans can manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. 
 The second is the result of an analysis of the first trough a 
 metacomputation. 

 For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our 
 intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. 
 We can not know 锟斤拷our deep thinking structures because they are not 
 exposed as metacomputations. When we use锟斤拷metaphorically锟斤拷the verb to be 
 fired 锟斤拷to mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can 
 not be aware of it. 锟斤拷Only after research that assimilate mathematical 
 facts with the observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness 
 of it by means of an adquired metacomputation.

 The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman 
 for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. 
 In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process 锟斤拷of 
 diagonalization by G锟斤拷del 锟斤拷makes the Hilbert program impossible, That 
 same conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a 
 constructive mathematical program. (see my post about the G锟斤拷del theorem). 


 Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free 
 will nor in any other existential question.

 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript:

  Hi Craig Weinberg 
 锟斤拷
 I agree.
 锟斤拷
 Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 锟斤拷
 Cs = subject + object
 锟斤拷
 The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate,锟斤拷it is not computable.
 锟斤拷
 QED
 锟斤拷
 锟斤拷
 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript:
 8/29/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content - 
 *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: 
 *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: 
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

   This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not 锟斤拷refer锟斤拷 to themselves.

 s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷l u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷,u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Alberto G. Corona
It appears that subjectivity, has everithing to do with morality. This is
not only evident for any religious person, but also for mathematics and
game theory.

 It appears that without  moral individuality, social collaboration is
impossible, except for clones. I exposed the reasoning here.

2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Alberto G. Corona


 Subjectivity has nothing to do with morality or evolution, it is simply
 the private of personal state of a perceiver (of some object), ie it is
 experience.

 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:08:43
 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

   Craig:

 I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality
 exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical
 laws). I did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list.
 I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy
 of the naturalistic fallacy.

 Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it
 appear in humans) exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation
 of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality
 effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were
 no moral beings.

 2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has
 memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral.
 therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits
 with others.


 What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream
 whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be
 intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think
 you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about
 consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking
 consciousness only.


 This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life
 of ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made
 accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self.
 We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created
 clones. Although this probably will never happen.


 In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider
 themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others.
 They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on
 the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more
 awkward position than the other, etc).


 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net

   On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Craig Weinberg
  I agree.
  Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
  Cs = subject + object
  The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
  QED

 Hi Roger,

 It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted
 to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the
 object is possibly singular.

 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Craig Weinberg
 *Receiver:* everything-list
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

  This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s


 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help
 illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as
 ascertaining the origin of awareness.

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of
 what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non
 comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only
 negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is
 that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion,
 and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic
 system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself
 completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough
 understanding of this, but I think that what

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Alberto G. Corona 

The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.

For example, consider:

I see the cat.Here:

I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.

When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are 
all subjective 
states and all experiences.

However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated the 
experience 
into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into 
a 
publicly accessible statement. 

All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are 
objective.
Any statement is then objective.

Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective,
so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless 
(codeless). 


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

the subject  is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory 
because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it 
needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. 



Hi Albert,

Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and 
how it is sequentially ordered  that matters. I am what I remember myself to 
be.



in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating 
over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from 
evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me.


This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of 
ourselves.


No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense 
of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and 
every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you.


That's why this uniqueness is not  essential


But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other 
ourselves.  Most twins consider each other another self. We  could come to 
consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this 
probably will never happen.



Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There 
is something important to this!


This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of 
individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy).  But 
probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate 
further





2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
 
QED
Hi Roger,

It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to 
being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is 
possibly singular. 


 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary


This sentence does not speak English.
These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.
s l u ,u s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that 
form is not inherently informative.
The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as 
ascertaining the origin of awareness. 

Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless 
epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can 
and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of 
meta-computation is what we call awareness.
Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno 
includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, 
Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the 
completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) 
are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed 
it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the 
sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't 
have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I 
do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a 
dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Craig Weinberg


On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:09:05 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 Craig:

 I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality 
 exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical 
 laws).  I did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list.
 I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy 
 of the naturalistic fallacy. 


I don't have any particular opinion about individuality. It seems like a 
more advanced topic. I am more interested in the very primitive basics of 
what consciousness actually is. Individuality, personality, human 
psychology...that's calculus. I am looking at multiplication and division. 
What I can see is that awareness seems ambivalent to the notion of 
individuality. Altered states of consciousness, mob mentality, mass 
hypnosis...it's not a well defined concept for me yet.
 


 Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it 
 appear in humans)  exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation 
 of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality 
 effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were 
 no moral beings.


You don't need to be immoral or unintelligent to be a psychopath. I agree 
with Roger that consciousness does not depend on morality (however I think 
that morality is an extension of significance, which is analogous to 
density or gravity but in the temporal-figurative sense).

Craig



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Gyoal5wCWBIJ.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.



Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Alberto G. Corona
That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you
perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information craig says
that he perceive..

From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith

What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same
functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side.

2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Alberto G. Corona

 The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.

 For example, consider:

 I see the cat.Here:

 I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.

 When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal,
 as are all subjective
 states and all experiences.

 However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated
 the experience
 into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal
 experience into a
 publicly accessible statement.

 All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words
 are objective.
 Any statement is then objective.

 Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective,
 so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless
 (codeless).


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

  On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

 the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory
 because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it
 needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others.


 Hi Albert,

 Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and
 how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself
 to be.


 in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation)
 operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes
 from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others
 see on me.


 This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of
 ourselves.


 No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the
 sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for
 each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like
 to be you.

 That′s why this uniqueness is not essential


  But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to
 other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come
 to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although
 this probably will never happen.


 Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur.
 There is something important to this!


 This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of
 individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But
 probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate
 further




 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

  On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Craig Weinberg
  I agree.
  Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
  Cs = subject + object
  The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
  QED

 Hi Roger,

 It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted
 to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the
 object is possibly singular.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

  This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s


 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help
 illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as
 ascertaining the origin of awareness.

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.

 Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of
 what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non
 comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only

Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Alberto G. Corona
sorry:


What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY POSSIBL to create a robot with the
same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my
side.

2012/8/29 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com

 That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you
 perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information craig says
 that he perceive..

 From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith

 What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same
 functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side.


 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi Alberto G. Corona

 The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived.

 For example, consider:

 I see the cat.Here:

 I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived.

 When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal,
 as are all subjective
 states and all experiences.

 However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated
 the experience
 into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal
 experience into a
 publicly accessible statement.

 All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words
 are objective.
 Any statement is then objective.

 Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective,
 so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless
 (codeless).


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 10:39:37
 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

  On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

 the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has
 memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral.
 therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits
 with others.


 Hi Albert,

 Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and
 how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself
 to be.


 in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation)
 operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes
 from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others
 see on me.


 This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life
 of ourselves.


 No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the
 sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for
 each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like
 to be you.

 That′s why this uniqueness is not essential


  But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to
 other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come
 to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although
 this probably will never happen.


 Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur.
 There is something important to this!


 This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of
 individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But
 probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate
 further




 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net

  On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote:

 Hi Craig Weinberg
  I agree.
  Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
  Cs = subject + object
  The subject is always first person indeterminate.
 Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
  QED

 Hi Roger,

 It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted
 to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the
 object is possibly singular.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/29/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary

  This sentence does not speak English.

 These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.

 s l u ,u s


 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help
 illustrate that form is not inherently informative.

 The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as
 ascertaining the origin of awareness.

 Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless
 epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation
 can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular
 category of meta-computation is what we call awareness

Re: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

2012-08-29 Thread Roger Clough
Hi Alberto G. Corona 

Seeming to be aware is not the same as actually being aware,
just as seeming to be alive is not the same as actually being alive.

And my view is that comp, since it must operate in (objective) code,
can only create entities that might seem to be alive, not actually be alive.

Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
which seem to be alive but are not actually so.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59
Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that  it's functionality is 
computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of 
awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
Awareness = I see X.
 or I am X. 
or some similar statement.
 
There's no computer in that behavior or state of being.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22
Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Roger, 
I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner 
computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the 
consequences of this inner computation.


  like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS 
 the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and 
matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the 
paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net 
Hi Alberto G. Corona 
 
What sort of an output would the computer give me ?
It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no
way to hook it to my brain.
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Alberto G. Corona 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27
Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Hi:


Awareness can  be functionally (we do not know if experientially)  computable. 
A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on 
its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in 
computer science and these programs are called interpreters. 


 The lack of  understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any 
turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why  it is said that the 
brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do.  We humans can manage 
concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the 
result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. 


For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions 
because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know  
our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. 
When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired  to mean being redundant, we 
are using category theory but we can not be aware of it.  Only after research 
that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of humans, we 
can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired metacomputation.


The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman for 
adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. In the 
other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process  of diagonalization by 
G del  makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be 
reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program. 
(see my post about the G del theorem). 




Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free will nor 
in any other existential question.


2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

Hi Craig Weinberg 
 
I agree.
 
Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole:
 
Cs = subject + object
 
The subject is always first person indeterminate.
Being indeterminate, it is not computable.
 
QED
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/29/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Craig Weinberg 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50
Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary


This sentence does not speak English.
These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves.
s l u ,u s   


If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that 
form is not inherently informative.
The implication here

  1   2   >