Re: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Tuesday, October 16, 2012 4:02:44 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > > > On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > >> A possible answer is that all > >> possible universes exist and we find ourselves in one of those that > >> has the kind of physical laws leading to observers. > > > > > > I'm familiar with the Anthropic principle, but what program does it run > on > > and where did the language that that program was written in come from? > > The universe is algorithmic insofar as a small number of physical rules > gives rise to everything that we see around us. Only if we infer that is the case. Physical rules don't give rise to anything, especially beings which experience some version of 'seeing everything around them'. > There is of course the idea that the universe is actually a simulation but > that is more controversial. > A tempting idea until we question what it is a simulation of? What law states that computations exist ab initio, but the capacity to experience and participate in a simulated world does not? > > >> If a collection of spring-loaded dominoes becomes so complex that you > >> can't understand it or predict what it's going to do next, you will > >> have to be careful what you say to it. > > > > > > No, you won't. The limitations of our own intellectual capacity to keep > > track of complex quantities is no excuse to turn water into wine. > Complexity > > in itself is meaningless without something to make sense of that > complexity, > > to sum it up, in some qualitative presentation which is completely > > orthogonal to quantity. > > A particular type of complexity is able to make sense of itself. That is > the defining feature of a mind. > No complexity can have a 'type' unless there is already a priori a sense of discernment. In order for anything to give rise to a mind, there must already be some pre-existing mental outcome to which some particular recipe of complexity can stumble upon. The defining feature of a mind is meta-perception, not magical sequences of complexity. > Which is why it appears that consciousness is epiphenomenal; if it > were not then we would be zombies. > >>> > >>> > >>> You don't need zombies when you have puppets. Zombies gives an > inanimate > >>> object way too much credit. > >> > >> I'm not sure why you prefer "puppet" to "zombie" but if they mean the > >> same thing, OK. > > > > > > The difference is that a zombie is charged with an expectation of life > which > > is absent. We have no such expectation of life in a puppet, so we > correctly > > identify it as a fictional presentation in our minds of a natural object > > rather than a supernatural being who lacks personal presence. > > A philosophical zombie is not charged with an expectation of anything > mental, that is one of its defining characteristics. > That's what I mean by charged. If you define something as having no mental experience and give it a name of a generic undead person, you are charging your definition with an expectation of absent personhood. If I say puppet, there is no supernatural absence of personhood, there is a common sense notion of prosthetically extended personhood of the puppeteer through an inanimate object. > By epiphenomenal I mean a necessary side-effect of the type of > intelligent behaviour putatively conscious organisms display. > >>> > >>> > >>> It's a contradiction to expect that a universe can be based entirely > in > >>> necessity and then to imagine that there could be some kind of side > >>> effect > >>> which is in some way pseudo-experiential. It is sawing off the branch > >>> you > >>> are sitting on. Your argument is an epiphenomenon - a necessary side > >>> effect...of what? > >> > >> When you place three spheres together so that they are touching you > >> create a triangle. > > > > > > Not if you can only see the two closest spheres. Not if the spheres are > > black in a dark room. Not if the spheres are made of smoke. Etc. > Formation > > is not an independent property. It is contingent upon interpretative > senses. > > If I place three spheres together, what do they sound like? Limiting our > > consideration of the universe to geometric forms and algebraic functions > is > > useful precisely because it is the most meaningless way to approach the > > universe. It is the absolute most aloof and detached perspective from > which > > we can imagine ourselves a dimensionless voyeur. It's a conceit which is > > incredibly useful but ultimately the very worst possible approach to > > understanding subjectivity, and one of the worst approaches to > understanding > > the cosmos as a whole (even though it is one of the best in a different > > sense, as the meaningless truths are by definition the most universal, > since > > meaning is about private experiences of significance.) > > > >> > >> The triangle is
Re: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Mon, Oct 15, 2012 at 1:38 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> A possible answer is that all >> possible universes exist and we find ourselves in one of those that >> has the kind of physical laws leading to observers. > > > I'm familiar with the Anthropic principle, but what program does it run on > and where did the language that that program was written in come from? The universe is algorithmic insofar as a small number of physical rules gives rise to everything that we see around us. There is of course the idea that the universe is actually a simulation but that is more controversial. >> If a collection of spring-loaded dominoes becomes so complex that you >> can't understand it or predict what it's going to do next, you will >> have to be careful what you say to it. > > > No, you won't. The limitations of our own intellectual capacity to keep > track of complex quantities is no excuse to turn water into wine. Complexity > in itself is meaningless without something to make sense of that complexity, > to sum it up, in some qualitative presentation which is completely > orthogonal to quantity. A particular type of complexity is able to make sense of itself. That is the defining feature of a mind. Which is why it appears that consciousness is epiphenomenal; if it were not then we would be zombies. >>> >>> >>> You don't need zombies when you have puppets. Zombies gives an inanimate >>> object way too much credit. >> >> I'm not sure why you prefer "puppet" to "zombie" but if they mean the >> same thing, OK. > > > The difference is that a zombie is charged with an expectation of life which > is absent. We have no such expectation of life in a puppet, so we correctly > identify it as a fictional presentation in our minds of a natural object > rather than a supernatural being who lacks personal presence. A philosophical zombie is not charged with an expectation of anything mental, that is one of its defining characteristics. By epiphenomenal I mean a necessary side-effect of the type of intelligent behaviour putatively conscious organisms display. >>> >>> >>> It's a contradiction to expect that a universe can be based entirely in >>> necessity and then to imagine that there could be some kind of side >>> effect >>> which is in some way pseudo-experiential. It is sawing off the branch >>> you >>> are sitting on. Your argument is an epiphenomenon - a necessary side >>> effect...of what? >> >> When you place three spheres together so that they are touching you >> create a triangle. > > > Not if you can only see the two closest spheres. Not if the spheres are > black in a dark room. Not if the spheres are made of smoke. Etc. Formation > is not an independent property. It is contingent upon interpretative senses. > If I place three spheres together, what do they sound like? Limiting our > consideration of the universe to geometric forms and algebraic functions is > useful precisely because it is the most meaningless way to approach the > universe. It is the absolute most aloof and detached perspective from which > we can imagine ourselves a dimensionless voyeur. It's a conceit which is > incredibly useful but ultimately the very worst possible approach to > understanding subjectivity, and one of the worst approaches to understanding > the cosmos as a whole (even though it is one of the best in a different > sense, as the meaningless truths are by definition the most universal, since > meaning is about private experiences of significance.) > >> >> The triangle is a necessary side-effect of putting >> the spheres together in that way. > > > Only if you are a thing who can see triangles and the spheres are made of > the kind of thing which we can see in a consistent and unambiguously clear > way. The point is that the supervenient triangular property, whatever by whomever and under whatever circumstances it may be so called, cannot be separated from the three spheres touching. It may or may not be the case for brain and mind but I give this as an example to at least make it clear what I mean. >> When you create a system that perceives, responds, perceives its own >> response, adjusts its response, etc. you have a system that is >> conscious. > > > This is begging the question. The only way that we know how to do this is to > reproduce biologically. Otherwise you are saying that if I have a cartoon of > Bugs Bunny which children see as a system where Bugs Bunny perceives, > responds, perceives his own response, adjusts its response, etc, then Bugs > Bunny is conscious. It's "begging the question" if I make the assumption in the premises of an argument that purports to prove it. But I propose it as a theory: if Bugs Bunny does do this in an interactive way, such as a real rabbit would, then Bugs Bunny is indeed as conscious as a real rabbit. >> The consciousness is a necessary side-effect of such a >> system. > > > Why should it be? How could it happen? Just
Re: Re: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if"ratherthan"is"
Hi Stathis Papaioannou I think heredity also plays a role. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-13, 18:59:19 Subject: Re: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if"ratherthan"is" On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > ROGER: But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have to > be programmed to do so. > which means that its intelligence would be that of the programmer. This is > always the case. > Computers cannot make free choices on arbitray problems. So they have no > intelligence. But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers and various other aspects of the environment. So the intelligence of the human is really the intelligence of his programmers. -- 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. -- 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: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if"ratherthan"is"
Hi Craig Weinberg After looking at how computers make choices-- whether they are free or whatever-- I now see that my previous position that computers have no intelligence was not exactly right, because they do have intelligence, but it is different from ours. It is not free exactly but free to act as long as it obeys reason. I'm still trying to figure this out. The choice is made cooperatively, by three parties, platonically, in secondness by the All (reason) comparing thirdness with firstness. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/15/2012 "Forever is a long time, especially near the end." -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-13, 19:16:35 Subject: Re: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if"ratherthan"is" On Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:59:50 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > ROGER: But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have to > be programmed to do so. > which means that its intelligence would be that of the programmer. This > is always the case. > Computers cannot make free choices on arbitray problems. So they have no > intelligence. But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers and various other aspects of the environment. So the intelligence of the human is really the intelligence of his programmers. This assumes some kind if tabula rasa era toy model of human development. As you can see from the differences between conjoined twins, who have the same nature and nurture, the same environment, that they are not the same people and do not necessarily have the same kinds of intelligences. Human beings are not programmed, they have to willingly participate in their own lives, they have to direct their attention to discover their own personal preferences. 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/-/0lZGKq9qpKQJ. 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: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 1:42:40 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg >wrote: > > > you can see from the differences between conjoined twins, who have the >> same nature and nurture, the same environment, that they are not the same >> people >> > > That is true they are not the same people, and just like EVERYTHING else > they are not the same people for a reason or they are not the same people > for no reason. > It isn't an either / or proposition. The question is whose reasons are they? Where does reason itself originate? From unconscious disembodied metaphysical 'laws' which accidentally generate meaningless epiphenomenal 'experiences', or from ordinary concretely real physical private experiences which generate sequences intentionally as well as respond to unintentionally generated public con-sequences. Craig > John K Clark > > -- 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/-/nCllU23GwgoJ. 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: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > you can see from the differences between conjoined twins, who have the > same nature and nurture, the same environment, that they are not the same > people > That is true they are not the same people, and just like EVERYTHING else they are not the same people for a reason or they are not the same people for no reason. 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: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 Roger Clough wrote: > But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have to be > programmed to do so. > And you would have to be educated to do so. > which means that its intelligence would be that of the programmer. Then how can the computer beat that very same programer? > Computers cannot make free choices Computers can do things for a reason or they can do things for no reason (if they have a simple hardware random number generator), and that makes them absolutely no different than you. > they have no intelligence. > I don't think you really want to say that because they just beat you at a intellectual task, so if they have zero intelligence then the only logical conclusion to make is that your intelligence is less than zero. >>> free will >>> >> >> What a odd sequence of ASCII characters, perhaps your keyboard had a >> malfunction. >> > > ? > ! > > I already asked you how you would determine the intelligence of a > computer but your answer made no sense. > I replied to your question with "I detect consciousness in computers the exact same way I determine it in my fellow human beings, I guess. I guess that if they're behaving intelligently then they're conscious". What word didn't you understand? 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: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Sunday, October 14, 2012 12:46:38 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > >> Yes, the Big Bang is a program. There are initial conditions and rules > >> that lead deterministically to the unfolding of the entire multiverse > >> and all its rich content. All of science is an effort to work out > >> details of the algorithm. > > > > > > Then you have a infinite regress. How did the rules get there? A > > programmatic meta-big bang? > > Are you asking who made the universe? No, you are saying that a program made the universe, so I am asking what made the program? > A possible answer is that all > possible universes exist and we find ourselves in one of those that > has the kind of physical laws leading to observers. > I'm familiar with the Anthropic principle, but what program does it run on and where did the language that that program was written in come from? > > >> > There is nothing that they 'want' or don't want to do. > >> > >> So you say, but the computers could say the same of you. > > > > > > They are welcome to. Hey computer! You suck! Insult me! > > > > But they don't say anything that is beyond their scripted parameters. > Not > > ever. That's because they are machines. Basically an elaborate > collection of > > springloaded dominoes. There's nothing there to want anything except to > fall > > or spring back up. > > If a collection of spring-loaded dominoes becomes so complex that you > can't understand it or predict what it's going to do next, you will > have to be careful what you say to it. > No, you won't. The limitations of our own intellectual capacity to keep track of complex quantities is no excuse to turn water into wine. Complexity in itself is meaningless without something to make sense of that complexity, to sum it up, in some qualitative presentation which is completely orthogonal to quantity. > > >> Which is why it appears that consciousness is epiphenomenal; if it > >> were not then we would be zombies. > > > > > > You don't need zombies when you have puppets. Zombies gives an inanimate > > object way too much credit. > > I'm not sure why you prefer "puppet" to "zombie" but if they mean the > same thing, OK. > The difference is that a zombie is charged with an expectation of life which is absent. We have no such expectation of life in a puppet, so we correctly identify it as a fictional presentation in our minds of a natural object rather than a supernatural being who lacks personal presence. > > >> By epiphenomenal I mean a necessary side-effect of the type of > >> intelligent behaviour putatively conscious organisms display. > > > > > > It's a contradiction to expect that a universe can be based entirely in > > necessity and then to imagine that there could be some kind of side > effect > > which is in some way pseudo-experiential. It is sawing off the branch > you > > are sitting on. Your argument is an epiphenomenon - a necessary side > > effect...of what? > > When you place three spheres together so that they are touching you > create a triangle. Not if you can only see the two closest spheres. Not if the spheres are black in a dark room. Not if the spheres are made of smoke. Etc. Formation is not an independent property. It is contingent upon interpretative senses. If I place three spheres together, what do they sound like? Limiting our consideration of the universe to geometric forms and algebraic functions is useful precisely because it is the most meaningless way to approach the universe. It is the absolute most aloof and detached perspective from which we can imagine ourselves a dimensionless voyeur. It's a conceit which is incredibly useful but ultimately the very worst possible approach to understanding subjectivity, and one of the worst approaches to understanding the cosmos as a whole (even though it is one of the best in a different sense, as the meaningless truths are by definition the most universal, since meaning is about private experiences of significance.) > The triangle is a necessary side-effect of putting > the spheres together in that way. > Only if you are a thing who can see triangles and the spheres are made of the kind of thing which we can see in a consistent and unambiguously clear way. > > When you create a system that perceives, responds, perceives its own > response, adjusts its response, etc. you have a system that is > conscious. This is begging the question. The only way that we know how to do this is to reproduce biologically. Otherwise you are saying that if I have a cartoon of Bugs Bunny which children see as a system where Bugs Bunny perceives, responds, perceives his own response, adjusts its response, etc, then Bugs Bunny is conscious. > The consciousness is a necessary side-effect of such a > system. > Why should it be? How could it happen? Just a disembodied metaph
Re: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> Yes, the Big Bang is a program. There are initial conditions and rules >> that lead deterministically to the unfolding of the entire multiverse >> and all its rich content. All of science is an effort to work out >> details of the algorithm. > > > Then you have a infinite regress. How did the rules get there? A > programmatic meta-big bang? Are you asking who made the universe? A possible answer is that all possible universes exist and we find ourselves in one of those that has the kind of physical laws leading to observers. >> > There is nothing that they 'want' or don't want to do. >> >> So you say, but the computers could say the same of you. > > > They are welcome to. Hey computer! You suck! Insult me! > > But they don't say anything that is beyond their scripted parameters. Not > ever. That's because they are machines. Basically an elaborate collection of > springloaded dominoes. There's nothing there to want anything except to fall > or spring back up. If a collection of spring-loaded dominoes becomes so complex that you can't understand it or predict what it's going to do next, you will have to be careful what you say to it. >> Which is why it appears that consciousness is epiphenomenal; if it >> were not then we would be zombies. > > > You don't need zombies when you have puppets. Zombies gives an inanimate > object way too much credit. I'm not sure why you prefer "puppet" to "zombie" but if they mean the same thing, OK. >> By epiphenomenal I mean a necessary side-effect of the type of >> intelligent behaviour putatively conscious organisms display. > > > It's a contradiction to expect that a universe can be based entirely in > necessity and then to imagine that there could be some kind of side effect > which is in some way pseudo-experiential. It is sawing off the branch you > are sitting on. Your argument is an epiphenomenon - a necessary side > effect...of what? When you place three spheres together so that they are touching you create a triangle. The triangle is a necessary side-effect of putting the spheres together in that way. When you create a system that perceives, responds, perceives its own response, adjusts its response, etc. you have a system that is conscious. The consciousness is a necessary side-effect of such a system. Now, you don't like this idea but what's wrong with it apart from that? It's a minimal explanation and it's consistent with all the facts. -- 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: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 9:24:15 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > >> Two identical computers with identical programs taking environmental > >> input from sensors only millimetres apart could produce radically > >> different outputs. For example, the environmental input could be the > >> least significant digit in a temperature measurement and be used as a > >> seed in a random number generator. > > > > > > What would be the chances of two such divergent computations routinely > > speaking in unison? > > You could put in a feedback mechanism checking each other's behaviour > and resetting if they diverge too much. That implies a teleological designed of conjoined twins. In reality, they are just twins who didn't divide completely. There would not be any way that such an exclusively customized mechanism could appear. Besides, there would be no way to reset to each other. That would require a parallel telepathic datastream that both twins have access to. > Or, rather than an RNG based > on the least significant digit in an environmental measurement it > could be based on the most significant figure. I'm sure you can think > of other ways of doing it. > But evolution could not think of a way to do it. They aren't a new species, they aren't even mutants in all likelihood, they are just twins who didn't separate as some stage of mitosis. > >> > Human beings > >> > are not programmed, they have to willingly participate in their own > >> > lives, > >> > they have to direct their attention to discover their own personal > >> > preferences. > >> > >> If you prefer, human beings are programmed to to willingly participate > >> in their own lives > > > > > > Why do you think that participation in one's own life has to be a > program? > > Did the Big Bang need a program? Does arithmetic need a program to know > how > > to compute? > > Yes, the Big Bang is a program. There are initial conditions and rules > that lead deterministically to the unfolding of the entire multiverse > and all its rich content. All of science is an effort to work out > details of the algorithm. > Then you have a infinite regress. How did the rules get there? A programmatic meta-big bang? > > >> and to direct their attention to discover their own > >> personal preferences. "Willingly participate" means they decide to do > >> something that they want to do. > > > > First there has to be a 'they' there who is aware of the possibility of > > their own participation and a capacity to detect and discern the > possibility > > of decision within that participation. Computers can't get to square > one. > > There is nothing that they 'want' or don't want to do. > > So you say, but the computers could say the same of you. > They are welcome to. Hey computer! You suck! Insult me! But they don't say anything that is beyond their scripted parameters. Not ever. That's because they are machines. Basically an elaborate collection of springloaded dominoes. There's nothing there to want anything except to fall or spring back up. > > >> "Unwillingly participate" means they > >> are coerced, for example by threat or by forcibly taking control of > >> their body and moving it. > > > > This presumes that there is something there to resist such a coercion. > > Yes. > > >> "Direct their attention to discover their > >> own personal preferences" means they try something and see if they > >> like it, and if they do they store it in memory as a preference. This > >> is something that has evolved because it is adaptive. Organisms that > >> discovered something unpleasant and stored it as a preference did not > >> tend to do as well. > > > > > > That can all be done just as well without any experience of 'liking' > > anything. Experiences would be monitored, stored, and analyzed. Results > > would be factored in to future computations. What's to 'like'? It could > just > > as easily feel like itchy dizziness or like 7F 20 99 A6 77 01 00 03 and > it > > would work just as well - better in the latter case. > > Which is why it appears that consciousness is epiphenomenal; if it > were not then we would be zombies. > You don't need zombies when you have puppets. Zombies gives an inanimate object way too much credit. > > By epiphenomenal I mean a necessary side-effect of the type of > intelligent behaviour putatively conscious organisms display. > It's a contradiction to expect that a universe can be based entirely in necessity and then to imagine that there could be some kind of side effect which is in some way pseudo-experiential. It is sawing off the branch you are sitting on. Your argument is an epiphenomenon - a necessary side effect...of what? Craig > > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To view
Re: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> Two identical computers with identical programs taking environmental >> input from sensors only millimetres apart could produce radically >> different outputs. For example, the environmental input could be the >> least significant digit in a temperature measurement and be used as a >> seed in a random number generator. > > > What would be the chances of two such divergent computations routinely > speaking in unison? You could put in a feedback mechanism checking each other's behaviour and resetting if they diverge too much. Or, rather than an RNG based on the least significant digit in an environmental measurement it could be based on the most significant figure. I'm sure you can think of other ways of doing it. >> > Human beings >> > are not programmed, they have to willingly participate in their own >> > lives, >> > they have to direct their attention to discover their own personal >> > preferences. >> >> If you prefer, human beings are programmed to to willingly participate >> in their own lives > > > Why do you think that participation in one's own life has to be a program? > Did the Big Bang need a program? Does arithmetic need a program to know how > to compute? Yes, the Big Bang is a program. There are initial conditions and rules that lead deterministically to the unfolding of the entire multiverse and all its rich content. All of science is an effort to work out details of the algorithm. >> and to direct their attention to discover their own >> personal preferences. "Willingly participate" means they decide to do >> something that they want to do. > > First there has to be a 'they' there who is aware of the possibility of > their own participation and a capacity to detect and discern the possibility > of decision within that participation. Computers can't get to square one. > There is nothing that they 'want' or don't want to do. So you say, but the computers could say the same of you. >> "Unwillingly participate" means they >> are coerced, for example by threat or by forcibly taking control of >> their body and moving it. > > This presumes that there is something there to resist such a coercion. Yes. >> "Direct their attention to discover their >> own personal preferences" means they try something and see if they >> like it, and if they do they store it in memory as a preference. This >> is something that has evolved because it is adaptive. Organisms that >> discovered something unpleasant and stored it as a preference did not >> tend to do as well. > > > That can all be done just as well without any experience of 'liking' > anything. Experiences would be monitored, stored, and analyzed. Results > would be factored in to future computations. What's to 'like'? It could just > as easily feel like itchy dizziness or like 7F 20 99 A6 77 01 00 03 and it > would work just as well - better in the latter case. Which is why it appears that consciousness is epiphenomenal; if it were not then we would be zombies. By epiphenomenal I mean a necessary side-effect of the type of intelligent behaviour putatively conscious organisms display. -- 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: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 7:49:03 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > > >> But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been > >> programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers and various > >> other aspects of the environment. So the intelligence of the human is > >> really the intelligence of his programmers. > > > > > > This assumes some kind if tabula rasa era toy model of human > development. As > > you can see from the differences between conjoined twins, who have the > same > > nature and nurture, the same environment, that they are not the same > people > > and do not necessarily have the same kinds of intelligences. > > It's not exactly a tabula rasa since there is an enormous amount of > information pre-programmed into a human when they are born. > > Two identical computers with identical programs taking environmental > input from sensors only millimetres apart could produce radically > different outputs. For example, the environmental input could be the > least significant digit in a temperature measurement and be used as a > seed in a random number generator. > What would be the chances of two such divergent computations routinely speaking in unison? > > > Human beings > > are not programmed, they have to willingly participate in their own > lives, > > they have to direct their attention to discover their own personal > > preferences. > > If you prefer, human beings are programmed to to willingly participate > in their own lives Why do you think that participation in one's own life has to be a program? Did the Big Bang need a program? Does arithmetic need a program to know how to compute? and to direct their attention to discover their own > personal preferences. "Willingly participate" means they decide to do > something that they want to do. First there has to be a 'they' there who is aware of the possibility of their own participation and a capacity to detect and discern the possibility of decision within that participation. Computers can't get to square one. There is nothing that they 'want' or don't want to do. > "Unwillingly participate" means they > are coerced, for example by threat or by forcibly taking control of > their body and moving it. This presumes that there is something there to resist such a coercion. > "Direct their attention to discover their > own personal preferences" means they try something and see if they > like it, and if they do they store it in memory as a preference. This > is something that has evolved because it is adaptive. Organisms that > discovered something unpleasant and stored it as a preference did not > tend to do as well. > That can all be done just as well without any experience of 'liking' anything. Experiences would be monitored, stored, and analyzed. Results would be factored in to future computations. What's to 'like'? It could just as easily feel like itchy dizziness or like 7F 20 99 A6 77 01 00 03 and it would work just as well - better in the latter case. 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/-/3tgEDEV-5ZMJ. 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: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: >> But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been >> programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers and various >> other aspects of the environment. So the intelligence of the human is >> really the intelligence of his programmers. > > > This assumes some kind if tabula rasa era toy model of human development. As > you can see from the differences between conjoined twins, who have the same > nature and nurture, the same environment, that they are not the same people > and do not necessarily have the same kinds of intelligences. It's not exactly a tabula rasa since there is an enormous amount of information pre-programmed into a human when they are born. Two identical computers with identical programs taking environmental input from sensors only millimetres apart could produce radically different outputs. For example, the environmental input could be the least significant digit in a temperature measurement and be used as a seed in a random number generator. > Human beings > are not programmed, they have to willingly participate in their own lives, > they have to direct their attention to discover their own personal > preferences. If you prefer, human beings are programmed to to willingly participate in their own lives and to direct their attention to discover their own personal preferences. "Willingly participate" means they decide to do something that they want to do. "Unwillingly participate" means they are coerced, for example by threat or by forcibly taking control of their body and moving it. "Direct their attention to discover their own personal preferences" means they try something and see if they like it, and if they do they store it in memory as a preference. This is something that has evolved because it is adaptive. Organisms that discovered something unpleasant and stored it as a preference did not tend to do as well. -- 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: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Saturday, October 13, 2012 6:59:50 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Roger Clough > > > wrote: > > > ROGER: But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have > to be programmed to do so. > > which means that its intelligence would be that of the programmer. > This is always the case. > > Computers cannot make free choices on arbitray problems. So they > have no intelligence. > > But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been > programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers and various > other aspects of the environment. So the intelligence of the human is > really the intelligence of his programmers. > This assumes some kind if tabula rasa era toy model of human development. As you can see from the differences between conjoined twins, who have the same nature and nurture, the same environment, that they are not the same people and do not necessarily have the same kinds of intelligences. Human beings are not programmed, they have to willingly participate in their own lives, they have to direct their attention to discover their own personal preferences. 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/-/0lZGKq9qpKQJ. 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: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
On Sun, Oct 14, 2012 at 4:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > ROGER: But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have to > be programmed to do so. > which means that its intelligence would be that of the programmer. This > is always the case. > Computers cannot make free choices on arbitray problems. So they have no > intelligence. But if a human beats you at an intelligent task he would have been programmed to do so - by evolution, by parents, teachers and various other aspects of the environment. So the intelligence of the human is really the intelligence of his programmers. -- 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: Re: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of "as if" ratherthan"is"
Hi John Clark ROGER: > if you could tell me how to determine if a computer has intelligence JOHN: The same way I determine if one of my fellow human beings is intelligent, if he beats me at a intellectual task then he's intelligent, in fact he's more intelligent than I am at least at that task. A few people are more intelligent than me at nearly everything, some are better at only a few very specialized tasks and some are better than me at nothing, like people in a coma or dead people. ROGER: But if a computer beats you at an intelligent task, it would have to be programmed to do so. which means that its intelligence would be that of the programmer. This is always the case. Computers cannot make free choices on arbitray problems. So they have no intelligence. (previously) > free will JOHN: What a odd sequence of ASCII characters, perhaps your keyboard had a malfunction. ROGER: ? (previously) > consciousness JOHN: I detect consciousness in computers the exact same way I determine it in my fellow human beings, I guess.? \I guess that if they're behaving intelligently then they're conscious. ? John K Clark ? ROGER: I already asked you how you would determine the intelligence of a computer but your answer made no sense. -- 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.
