On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 3:25 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Building more complex structures out of simpler ones
by a simple set of rules (or any set of rules) seems to violate the second law
of thermodynamics. Do you have a way around the second law ?
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
Building more complex structures out of simpler ones
by a simple set of rules (or any set of rules) seems to violate the second law
of thermodynamics. Do you have a way around the second law ?
What you are proposing seems to be goal-directed behavior
by the gods of
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis:
IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and human: the
programmed comp. cannot exceed its hardwre - given content while
(SOMEHOW???) a human mind receives additional information from parts
'unknown'
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 6:28:14 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sat, Oct 27, 2012 at 8:08 AM, John Mikes jam...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Stathis:
IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and human: the
programmed comp. cannot exceed its hardwre - given content
Stathis,
do you think Lucy had the same (thinking?) hardware as you have? are you
negating (human and other) development (I evade 'evolution') as e.g. the
famous cases of mutation? Is all that RD a reshuffling of what WAS
already knowable?
Maybe my agnosticism dictates different potentials at
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
How can a human exceed his hardware? Everything he does must be due to
the hardware plus input from the environment, same as the computer,
same as everything else in the universe.
What input from the environment
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 2:38 AM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Stathis,
do you think Lucy had the same (thinking?) hardware as you have? are you
negating (human and other) development (I evade 'evolution') as e.g. the
famous cases of mutation? Is all that RD a reshuffling of what WAS
On Saturday, October 27, 2012 11:47:14 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Sun, Oct 28, 2012 at 12:12 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
How can a human exceed his hardware? Everything he does must be due to
the hardware plus input from the environment, same as the
On Friday, October 26, 2012 1:01:34 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
We are atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, and organisms. Whatever we do
is
what the laws of physics *actually are*. Your assumptions
Stathis:
IMO you left out one difference in equating computer and human: the
programmed comp. cannot exceed its hardwre - given content while
(SOMEHOW???) a human mind receives additional information from parts
'unknown' (see the steps forward in cultural history of the sciences?) -
accordingly a
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you believed that our brains were already nothing but computers, then you
would say that it would know which option to take the same way that Google
knows which options to show you. I argue that can only get you
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 6:25:48 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Mon, Oct 22, 2012 at 11:28 PM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
If you believed that our brains were already nothing but computers, then
you
would say that it would know which option to take the
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Intentionally lying, defying it's programming, committing murder would all
be good indicators. Generally when an error is blamed on the computer itself
rather than the programming, that would be a good sign.
A
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:39:27 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
Intentionally lying, defying it's programming, committing murder would
all
be good indicators. Generally when an error is blamed on
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 11:00 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, October 25, 2012 7:39:27 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 10:14 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
wrote:
Intentionally lying, defying it's programming, committing murder would
On Fri, Oct 26, 2012 at 12:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
We are atoms, molecules, cells, tissues, and organisms. Whatever we do is
what the laws of physics *actually are*. Your assumptions about the laws of
physics are 20th century legacy ideas based on exterior
Hi Bruno Marchal
Anything that the brain does is or could be experience.
For computers, experience can only be simulated because
experience = self + qualia
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/24/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the
Hi Bruno Marchal
The simulated experience is not a real experience.
OK ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/24/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time:
Hi Craig Weinberg
No, the computer can simulate knowledge by description
but not knowledge by acquaintance that you could experience.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/24/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
Hi Stephen P. King
How can you know that the simulation is exact ?
Solipsim prevents that.
And who or what experiences the computer output ?
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/24/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content
Hi Bruno Marchal
SNIP
ROGER: OK, but computers can't experience anything,
it would be simulated experience. Not arbitrarily available.
But that's what the brain does, simulate experience from the point of
view of the owner or liver of the experience. According to some
theory. You
being too demanding.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/22/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-21, 16:53:03
Subject: Re: Re: Solipsism = 1p
is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Craig Weinberg
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-21, 16:53:03
Subject: Re: Re: Solipsism = 1p
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:39:11 PM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
BRUNO: Keep
On 20 Oct 2012, at 13:55, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think if you converse with a real person, he has to
have a body or at least vocal chords or the ability to write.
BRUNO: Not necessarily. Its brain can be in vat, and then I talk to him by
giving him a virtual body
On Sunday, October 21, 2012 3:39:11 PM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
BRUNO: Keep in mind that zombie, here, is a technical term. By definition
it
behaves like a human. No humans at all can tell the difference. Only
God knows, if you want.
ROGER: I claim that it is impossible for any
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think if you converse with a real person, he has to
have a body or at least vocal chords or the ability to write.
As to conversing (interacting) with a computer, not sure, but doubtful:
for example how could it taste a glass of wine to tell good wine
from bad ? Same is
Hi Bruno Marchal
I think you can tell is 1p isn't just a shell
by trying to converse with it. If it can
converse, it's got a mind of its own.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/18/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content
27 matches
Mail list logo
