subject:"Re\: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp"

On Feb 1, 11:06 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 31, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
  A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
  eye, actually probably less than the eye.

   Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap on? I
  just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens with my
  hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever. If I unplug the monitor from
  my computer but leave it powered on - no snow.


My entire point is that comp suggests that our visual qualia is not an
electronic light detector but a pure abstraction tailored to suit the
semantics of the human intelligence program. Daniel Dennett has his
optical illusions which show how what we see is not what is real that
support his conclusion that qualia is purely representational for the
brain to tell it's stories, this is a contrary example of an optical
non-illusion that shows how what we see can be real even if there is
no reason for it to be available as qualia for our awareness.

 Turn up the gain and guess what, snow! The idea that electronic light
 detectors (or any electronic circuit for that matter, or any biological
 circuit, or any anything) can produce not low noise but no noise whatsoever
 is of course ridiculous,

Go into Photoshop or Paint. File  New  OK. This image (or it's
inverse) is what comp predicts for visual qualia of conditions where
we cannot see. There is no reason to represent anything else, and
there is no noise whatsoever in this image.

 but unlike so many other of your ridiculous
 statements this one is informative. No it tells us nothing about the nature
 of intelligence or consciousness and it certainly contains nothing
 informative about electronics, but it does tell us a lot about the depth of
 your scientific knowledge. Zero.

This kind of ad hominem stuff means Zero to me. Why? Because I know
that you don't understand what I'm talking about. Other people do
though, so I can tell the difference. I on the other hand know exactly
what you are talking about and why your understanding fails to take
the whole reality into account. The more that bothers you, the more I
know that part of you knows I might be right.

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.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-02-03 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2012/2/3 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

 On Feb 1, 11:06 am, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Tue, Jan 31, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
   A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
   eye, actually probably less than the eye.
 
Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap
 on? I
   just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens with
 my
   hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever. If I unplug the monitor
 from
   my computer but leave it powered on - no snow.
 

 My entire point is that comp suggests that our visual qualia is not an
 electronic light detector but a pure abstraction tailored to suit the
 semantics of the human intelligence program. Daniel Dennett has his
 optical illusions which show how what we see is not what is real that
 support his conclusion that qualia is purely representational for the
 brain to tell it's stories, this is a contrary example of an optical
 non-illusion that shows how what we see can be real even if there is
 no reason for it to be available as qualia for our awareness.

  Turn up the gain and guess what, snow! The idea that electronic light
  detectors (or any electronic circuit for that matter, or any biological
  circuit, or any anything) can produce not low noise but no noise
 whatsoever
  is of course ridiculous,

 Go into Photoshop or Paint. File  New  OK. This image (or it's
 inverse) is what comp predicts for visual qualia of conditions where
 we cannot see.


No that's not what comp predict. Comp predict that what you see is what you
see. Comp is the computation theory of mind. If you start assuming stupid
thing you can only conclude stupid thing, but your conclusion has nothing
to do with comp.


 There is no reason to represent anything else, and
 there is no noise whatsoever in this image.

  but unlike so many other of your ridiculous
  statements this one is informative. No it tells us nothing about the
 nature
  of intelligence or consciousness and it certainly contains nothing
  informative about electronics, but it does tell us a lot about the depth
 of
  your scientific knowledge. Zero.

 This kind of ad hominem stuff means Zero to me. Why? Because I know
 that you don't understand what I'm talking about. Other people do
 though, so I can tell the difference. I on the other hand know exactly
 what you are talking about and why your understanding fails to take
 the whole reality into account. The more that bothers you, the more I
 know that part of you knows I might be right.

 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.




-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Feb 3, 8:01 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
.

 No that's not what comp predict. Comp predict that what you see is what you
 see.

Oh, comp predicts direct perception and not indirect representational
quaia? Do tell.


 Comp is the computation theory of mind. If you start assuming stupid
 thing you can only conclude stupid thing, but your conclusion has nothing
 to do with comp.

Do you say the same of Dennett's many examples of optical illusions?
Why does he use those if his view of the universe (comp), says that
'what you see is what you see.'?

-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-02-03 Thread Quentin Anciaux

2012/2/3 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

 On Feb 3, 8:01 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
 .
 
  No that's not what comp predict. Comp predict that what you see is what
 you
  see.

 Oh, comp predicts direct perception and not indirect representational
 quaia? Do tell.


  Comp is the computation theory of mind. If you start assuming stupid
  thing you can only conclude stupid thing, but your conclusion has nothing
  to do with comp.

 Do you say the same of Dennett's many examples of optical illusions?
 Why does he use those if his view of the universe (comp), says that
 'what you see is what you see.'?


Because comp is the theory saying that *you are turing emulable* If you
current vision was not turing emulable, it's a fail from the starting
point... If you can't see that you're more stupid than I thought. You could
always posit that vision was not turing emulable... but without any proof,
like John Clark says, it's gaz...



 --
 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.




-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Feb 3, 8:34 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
 2012/2/3 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com


  Do you say the same of Dennett's many examples of optical illusions?
  Why does he use those if his view of the universe (comp), says that
  'what you see is what you see.'?

 Because comp is the theory saying that *you are turing emulable* If you
 current vision was not turing emulable, it's a fail from the starting
 point... If you can't see that you're more stupid than I thought. You could
 always posit that vision was not turing emulable... but without any proof,
 like John Clark says, it's gaz...


All that does is take awareness for granted and posit Turing emulation
as some kind of deified abstraction. We only know about Turing because
of our consciousness. We don't need proof of our own consciousness. We
are the proof. If you reject that, then you are gaz, therefore there
can be no proof that your opinions exist, or proof if anything for
that matter.

-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-02-03 Thread John Clark

On Fri, Feb 3, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

 My entire point is that comp suggests that our visual qualia is not an
 electronic light detector


The visual cortex in your brain is not a light detector and the image
compression program connected to the camera on your cellphone is not a
light detector either, electronic or otherwise.

 Go into Photoshop or Paint. File  New  OK. This image (or it's inverse)
 is what comp predicts for visual qualia of conditions where we cannot see.
 There is no reason to represent anything else, and there is no noise
 whatsoever in this image.


Photoshop can paint a smooth image therefore computers can never be
intelligent or conscious. Of course, I see the light at last, its all so
obvious now that you point out that vital fact! Why oh why didn't I see it
before?!

 This kind of ad hominem stuff means Zero to me. Why?


I don't know, maybe because your used to people saying this is stupid.

 I know that you don't understand what I'm talking about.


True, and the reason for that is you don't understand what you're talking
about, thus there is little chance I would know what you mean when you
obviously do not.

 I on the other hand know exactly what you are talking about


The fact that I do know what I'm talking about explains this asymmetry.

  John K Clark

 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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Feb 3, 4:16 pm, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Feb 3, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

  My entire point is that comp suggests that our visual qualia is not an
  electronic light detector

 The visual cortex in your brain is not a light detector and the image
 compression program connected to the camera on your cellphone is not a
 light detector either, electronic or otherwise.

But you contradict that by saying that the patterns we see are based
on light detection.


  Go into Photoshop or Paint. File  New  OK. This image (or it's inverse)
  is what comp predicts for visual qualia of conditions where we cannot see.
  There is no reason to represent anything else, and there is no noise
  whatsoever in this image.

 Photoshop can paint a smooth image therefore computers can never be
 intelligent or conscious. Of course, I see the light at last, its all so
 obvious now that you point out that vital fact! Why oh why didn't I see it
 before?!

No, I'm pointing out that the claim that all digital images must
contain noise is spurious.


  This kind of ad hominem stuff means Zero to me. Why?

 I don't know, maybe because your used to people saying this is stupid.

  I know that you don't understand what I'm talking about.

 True, and the reason for that is you don't understand what you're talking
 about, thus there is little chance I would know what you mean when you
 obviously do not.

I don't really understand 100% of Bruno's ideas but I don't assume
that he doesn't understand what he is talking about. For you to admit
that you don't understand what I am talking about and then announce
that means I don't understand it either, makes you, what? Smart? I
have mentioned that there is a neuroscientist who does understand what
I am talking about and agrees that I may very well be on to something.
We have been in periodic contact and I look forward to developing the
particular ideas on perception with him further. You have already
demonstrated how blind you are to your own prejudice, praising
tolerance in the same breath and you reveal your own intolerance.


  I on the other hand know exactly what you are talking about

 The fact that I do know what I'm talking about explains this asymmetry.

Since I know that you know what you are talking about, how do you
explain that I am right about you but wrong about myself?

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.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-02-02 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Feb 2012, at 21:48, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 2/1/2012 3:06 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:






I don't get it.


Many people have discussed this idea that Existence, in-itself,  
is primitive and neutral (has no properties or divisions). It is not  
original with me. For example, Bertrand Russell's discussion of  
neutral monism and Russell Standish's ToN explain it well.


There might exist phenomenological hermeneutic of the monist kind, but  
this, once we chose to do science, is a private affair, which can  
inspire but cannot be communicated.
So by a neutral monist theory, its is meant a theory which does not  
assume mind, nor matter, and explain them from something else. That  
something else needs to be able to be described in first order logic,  
at least. It should have terms for the existing objects, and axioms  
for the laws to which those objects obey. Without those two  
components, we can do nothing.














What I ask is a scientific theory, by which I mean a first order  
logical theory about what you assume to exist, and then theorems  
justifying the other form that existence can take.


All that does not contradict itself and is thus necessarily  
possible exists, thus I claim that existence is necessary  
possibility.


That's an old idea in philosophy. It is the indexical idea that  
existence is consistence seen from inside. In first order logic it  
makes a lot of sense, given that consistence is equivalent with the  
existence of a model.
And in AUDA, the necessity of the possibility of p, BDp, is the  
consequence of sigma_1 truth, and its leads to an arithmetical  
quantization. Here Bp is for (Bew(p)  Diamond(1=1)), and Dp is  
(Diamond(p) v Bew(f) 'relative consistency)). p is sigma_1.


Once you are using notion of necessity or possibility, being  
precise forces you to suggest in which modal logic you are working,  
and how you justify it. There are infinities of modal logics.
UDA justifies the use of the self-reference modal logic, and their  
variants. Gödel's results (and Löb's one, and Solovay) don't let  
many possible choice for the ideally correct machines. The variant  
described above are the one needed to find the correct physic  
(correct with respect to comp, if you get UDA).


I don't know if comp is true or not, but comp makes theoretical  
computer science a lantern to find the key. It allows a  
mathematical formulation of many subproblems of the (comp) mind  
body problem.



Bruno

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

Hi Bruno,

On these particulars we can agree. Our only disagreement is that  
you seem to consider that Arithmetic is at the same level as bare  
Existence and I see bare existence as neutral and that both logics  
(including arithmetic) and physicality are non-primitive.


Then tell me what you mean by Existence, and show me how you derive  
logics, arithmetic and physicality from that.
Unfortunately, people mature enough in logic know that you can't do  
that. No formal arithmetic can be deduced from anything less than  
itself.
Our beliefs in the natural numbers is authentically mysterious. But  
with comp we can, and we must, explain everything from them. And it  
works, because arithmetic emulate the ... self-referential resonance  
of numbers, which appears to be very rich and full of surprise.






Have you noticed that I claim that the duality that I am considering  
vanishes at the level of Existence itself?


I have still not the slightest clue of what you mean by Existence.





This is because we cannot consider Existence to be partitioned  
without specifying a basis for the partition, in other words our  
ontological models have to start at our level of substitution and  
cannot remain coherent if we subtract out our existence as entities  
that can distinguish, for example, 0 from 1.


This does not follow logically. We, the distinguishers of 0 and 1,  
certainly exist at some level, from some point of view. But that  
existence might be derivable (and is derivable) in arithmetic, once we  
assume comp.
Some aspect of it are not derivable, and yet are still true and  
existing, and can be meta-justified for simpler machines than us, so  
that we can grasp them indirectly, including our incompleteness with  
respect to those truth, and which comes from our local relative  
finiteness.


If not, like Craig, perhaps like Rex Allen and Benjayk, you are  
postulating that comp is false.
If that is the case, I encourage you to make that precise, and to  
study comp and computer science to even just define non-comp.
That will not be easy. AUDA works, for example, for many transfinite  
sequences of weakening of comp.


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

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-02-01 Thread Bruno Marchal


Hi Stephen,

On 31 Jan 2012, at 23:06, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/31/2012 3:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:11, Stephen P. King wrote:


snip



Hi,

In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however  
trolling or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying  
hard to think outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in  
like the ball in a game of Pong. How does science advance unless  
people are willing to contemplate alternative ideas?


I don't see any alternative idea or theory. When he says that  
qualia explains the universe, that fits with the proven  
consequences of comp, where quanta are case of qualia. He is not  
bad at introspection, he might grasp comp a little bit, but he does  
not try to submit a theory in the usual meaning of the terms. So we  
can't help.


Stephen, don't confuse comp, as used as a pretext for not  
addressing the mind-body problem by materialist, and what we can  
already see from a formulation of the mind body problem when  
computationalism is taken seriously into account. This already  
leads to a rational alternative, if not reversal.


To be frank, you fail also to provide a theory, as your notion of  
Existence illustrates. Existence of what? You never answered.


Hi Bruno,

My my, are we in a snit of a mood! I am assuming a basic axiom:  
Existence exists. If this is difficult for you to grasp, please  
watch this lecture on Epistemology:


http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59B2C09D51EBD222


This did not help. Sorry. I am used to appreciate Ayn Rand, but  
progress have been made. Pointing on a playlist with 30 videos is  
unecessary distraction. If you have a point, you should try to make it.


When you say Existence exist, either I interpret it intuitively by  
something exists --- the non-nothing theory---and I hardly doubt it,  
or I interpret it as a reification of existence, like if it was a  
property or an object, and that would deserve a precise (and non  
standard) theoretical frame to be made precise. Without precision, an  
expression like Existence exists does not convey information, and  
seems like a category error.


What I ask is a scientific theory, by which I mean a first order  
logical theory about what you assume to exist, and then theorems  
justifying the other form that existence can take.





Some times you might wish to stop thinking like an automaton and  
enjoy how other people think. :-)


When I do not understand a joke/theory, I do not laugh/enjoy.

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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-02-01 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Feb 2012, at 00:02, Craig Weinberg wrote:


On Jan 31, 4:40 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:

What if a baby is fed a virtual reality from the day it was born?
Assume that (as in the movie) the sensory inputs are rich enough that
if we were to experience it, we would be hard pressed to detect that
it was a virtual reality.


I will agree for the sake of argument, but if my theory is true,
reality may be felt literally in your bones on some (maybe
unconscious) level. There may be no way of truly trapping someone in a
fantasy with no chance of them knowing it.


That is again a consequence of the comp theory. Indeed, with comp, the  
QM facts can already be interpreted as us realizing that we are in  
*the* arithmetical simulation. I have often explained that with comp,  
to hide that arithmetical simulation, and thus to trap people in a  
higher level fantasy, we need to introduce a potentially infinite  
amount of information in the simulating system, or we need to  
artificially withdraw information in the mind of the simulated  
entities. To sum up, if we can be failed for some instants by a  
simulation, we cannot be failed for a arbitrary longer sequence of  
instants.


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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-02-01 Thread Stephen P. King


On 2/1/2012 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Stephen,

On 31 Jan 2012, at 23:06, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/31/2012 3:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:11, Stephen P. King wrote:


snip



Hi,

In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however 
trolling or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying 
hard to think outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in like 
the ball in a game of Pong. How does science advance unless people 
are willing to contemplate alternative ideas?


I don't see any alternative idea or theory. When he says that qualia 
explains the universe, that fits with the proven consequences of 
comp, where quanta are case of qualia. He is not bad at 
introspection, he might grasp comp a little bit, but he does not try 
to submit a theory in the usual meaning of the terms. So we can't help.


Stephen, don't confuse comp, as used as a pretext for not 
addressing the mind-body problem by materialist, and what we can 
already see from a formulation of the mind body problem when 
computationalism is taken seriously into account. This already leads 
to a rational alternative, if not reversal.


To be frank, you fail also to provide a theory, as your notion of 
Existence illustrates. Existence of what? You never answered.


Hi Bruno,

My my, are we in a snit of a mood! I am assuming a basic axiom: 
Existence exists. If this is difficult for you to grasp, please watch 
this lecture on Epistemology:


http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59B2C09D51EBD222


This did not help. Sorry. I am used to appreciate Ayn Rand, but 
progress have been made. Pointing on a playlist with 30 videos is 
unecessary distraction. If you have a point, you should try to make it.


As I am not as skilled in composing words as many others I was 
allowing the argument of some other people, that I agree with, to stand 
in the place of my own. You might take this as a sign that I lack 
understanding of the concepts but you would be mistaken. A person that 
is mute and armless can nevertheless have consistent thoughts. BTW, I 
should not have to point out that we have gone through this before, but 
since I value your ideas I guess that I need to do it again, but 
unhappily so.





When you say Existence exist, either I interpret it intuitively by 
something exists --- the non-nothing theory---and I hardly doubt it, 
or I interpret it as a reification of existence, like if it was a 
property or an object, and that would deserve a precise (and non 
standard) theoretical frame to be made precise. Without precision, an 
expression like Existence exists does not convey information, and 
seems like a category error.


It is a tautology, similar to A is A, but maximal is that is is not 
limited to specific instances such as what something exists conveys. 
What one states something exists that necessitates the possibility 
that something else may not exist. I take Existence as primary and 
primitive and neutral.




What I ask is a scientific theory, by which I mean a first order 
logical theory about what you assume to exist, and then theorems 
justifying the other form that existence can take.


All that does not contradict itself and is thus necessarily 
possible exists, thus I claim that existence is necessary possibility.







Some times you might wish to stop thinking like an automaton and 
enjoy how other people think. :-)


When I do not understand a joke/theory, I do not laugh/enjoy.


Then I apologize.

Onward!

Stephen

--
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-02-01 Thread John Clark

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012  Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:

acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:

 A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
 eye, actually probably less than the eye.



  Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap on? I
 just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens with my
 hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever. If I unplug the monitor from
 my computer but leave it powered on - no snow.



Turn up the gain and guess what, snow! The idea that electronic light
detectors (or any electronic circuit for that matter, or any biological
circuit, or any anything) can produce not low noise but no noise whatsoever
is of course ridiculous, but unlike so many other of your ridiculous
statements this one is informative. No it tells us nothing about the nature
of intelligence or consciousness and it certainly contains nothing
informative about electronics, but it does tell us a lot about the depth of
your scientific knowledge. Zero.

  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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-02-01 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 01 Feb 2012, at 16:46, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 2/1/2012 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


Hi Stephen,

On 31 Jan 2012, at 23:06, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/31/2012 3:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:



On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:11, Stephen P. King wrote:


snip



Hi,

In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however  
trolling or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying  
hard to think outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in  
like the ball in a game of Pong. How does science advance unless  
people are willing to contemplate alternative ideas?


I don't see any alternative idea or theory. When he says that  
qualia explains the universe, that fits with the proven  
consequences of comp, where quanta are case of qualia. He is not  
bad at introspection, he might grasp comp a little bit, but he  
does not try to submit a theory in the usual meaning of the  
terms. So we can't help.


Stephen, don't confuse comp, as used as a pretext for not  
addressing the mind-body problem by materialist, and what we can  
already see from a formulation of the mind body problem when  
computationalism is taken seriously into account. This already  
leads to a rational alternative, if not reversal.


To be frank, you fail also to provide a theory, as your notion of  
Existence illustrates. Existence of what? You never answered.


Hi Bruno,

My my, are we in a snit of a mood! I am assuming a basic  
axiom: Existence exists. If this is difficult for  you  
to grasp, please watch this lecture on Epistemology:


http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59B2C09D51EBD222


This did not help. Sorry. I am used to appreciate Ayn Rand, but  
progress have been made. Pointing on a playlist with 30 videos is  
unecessary distraction. If you have a point, you should try to make  
it.


As I am not as skilled in composing words as many others I was  
allowing the argument of some other people, that I agree with, to  
stand in the place of my own. You might take this as a sign that I  
lack understanding of the concepts but you would be mistaken.


I would not do that.




A person that is mute and armless can nevertheless have consistent  
thoughts.


Sure.



BTW, I should not have to point out that we have gone through this  
before, but since I value your ideas I guess that I need to do it  
again, but unhappily so.


I have no ideas. Comp is as old as humanity, even if the discovery of  
the universal Turing machine changed everything.
And this makes arithmetic (or hereditarily finite sets, or whatever  
first order specification of a universal system *is* a convenable TOE.  
The rest are definitions and theorems, and is the study of something  
much bigger than arithmetic (arithmetic seen from inside).









When you say Existence exist, either I interpret it intuitively  
by something exists --- the non-nothing theory---and I hardly  
doubt it, or I interpret it as a reification of existence, like if  
it was a property or an object, and that would deserve a precise  
(and non standard) theoretical frame to be made precise. Without  
precision, an expression like Existence exists does not convey  
information, and seems like a category error.


It is a tautology, similar to A is A, but maximal is that is is  
not limited to specific instances such as what something exists  
conveys. What one states something exists that necessitates the  
possibility that something else may not exist. I take Existence as  
primary and primitive and neutral.


I don't get it.






What I ask is a scientific theory, by which I mean a first order  
logical theory about what you assume to exist, and then theorems  
justifying the other form that existence can take.


All that does not contradict itself and is thus necessarily  
possible exists, thus I claim that existence is necessary possibility.


That's an old idea in philosophy. It is the indexical idea that  
existence is consistence seen from inside. In first order logic it  
makes a lot of sense, given that consistence is equivalent with the  
existence of a model.
And in AUDA, the necessity of the possibility of p, BDp, is the  
consequence of sigma_1 truth, and its leads to an arithmetical  
quantization. Here Bp is for (Bew(p)  Diamond(1=1)), and Dp is  
(Diamond(p) v Bew(f) 'relative consistency)). p is sigma_1.


Once you are using notion of necessity or possibility, being precise  
forces you to suggest in which modal logic you are working, and how  
you justify it. There are infinities of modal logics.
UDA justifies the use of the self-reference modal logic, and their  
variants. Gödel's results (and Löb's one, and Solovay) don't let many  
possible choice for the ideally correct machines. The variant  
described above are the one needed to find the correct physic (correct  
with respect to comp, if you get UDA).


I don't know if comp is true or not, but comp makes theoretical  
computer science a lantern to find the key.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-02-01 Thread Stephen P. King


On 2/1/2012 3:06 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 01 Feb 2012, at 16:46, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 2/1/2012 6:28 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

Hi Stephen,

On 31 Jan 2012, at 23:06, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/31/2012 3:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:11, Stephen P. King wrote:


snip



Hi,

In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however 
trolling or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying 
hard to think outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in 
like the ball in a game of Pong. How does science advance unless 
people are willing to contemplate alternative ideas?


I don't see any alternative idea or theory. When he says that 
qualia explains the universe, that fits with the proven 
consequences of comp, where quanta are case of qualia. He is not 
bad at introspection, he might grasp comp a little bit, but he 
does not try to submit a theory in the usual meaning of the terms. 
So we can't help.


Stephen, don't confuse comp, as used as a pretext for not 
addressing the mind-body problem by materialist, and what we can 
already see from a formulation of the mind body problem when 
computationalism is taken seriously into account. This already 
leads to a rational alternative, if not reversal.


To be frank, you fail also to provide a theory, as your notion of 
Existence illustrates. Existence of what? You never answered.


Hi Bruno,

My my, are we in a snit of a mood! I am assuming a basic axiom: 
Existence exists. If this is difficult for you to grasp, please 
watch this lecture on Epistemology:


http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59B2C09D51EBD222


This did not help. Sorry. I am used to appreciate Ayn Rand, but 
progress have been made. Pointing on a playlist with 30 videos is 
unecessary distraction. If you have a point, you should try to make it.


As I am not as skilled in composing words as many others I was 
allowing the argument of some other people, that I agree with, to 
stand in the place of my own. You might take this as a sign that I 
lack understanding of the concepts but you would be mistaken.


I would not do that.




A person that is mute and armless can nevertheless have consistent 
thoughts.


Sure.



BTW, I should not have to point out that we have gone through this 
before, but since I value your ideas I guess that I need to do it 
again, but unhappily so.


I have no ideas. Comp is as old as humanity, even if the discovery of 
the universal Turing machine changed everything.
And this makes arithmetic (or hereditarily finite sets, or whatever 
first order specification of a universal system *is* a convenable TOE. 
The rest are definitions and theorems, and is the study of something 
much bigger than arithmetic (arithmetic seen from inside).









When you say Existence exist, either I interpret it intuitively by 
something exists --- the non-nothing theory---and I hardly doubt 
it, or I interpret it as a reification of existence, like if it was 
a property or an object, and that would deserve a precise (and non 
standard) theoretical frame to be made precise. Without precision, 
an expression like Existence exists does not convey information, 
and seems like a category error.


It is a tautology, similar to A is A, but maximal is that is is 
not limited to specific instances such as what something exists 
conveys. What one states something exists that necessitates the 
possibility that something else may not exist. I take Existence as 
primary and primitive and neutral.


I don't get it.


Many people have discussed this idea that Existence, in-itself, is 
primitive and neutral (has no properties or divisions). It is not 
original with me. For example, Bertrand Russell's discussion of neutral 
monism and Russell Standish's ToN explain it well.









What I ask is a scientific theory, by which I mean a first order 
logical theory about what you assume to exist, and then theorems 
justifying the other form that existence can take.


All that does not contradict itself and is thus necessarily 
possible exists, thus I claim that existence is necessary possibility.


That's an old idea in philosophy. It is the indexical idea that 
existence is consistence seen from inside. In first order logic it 
makes a lot of sense, given that consistence is equivalent with the 
existence of a model.
And in AUDA, the necessity of the possibility of p, BDp, is the 
consequence of sigma_1 truth, and its leads to an arithmetical 
quantization. Here Bp is for (Bew(p)  Diamond(1=1)), and Dp is 
(Diamond(p) v Bew(f) 'relative consistency)). p is sigma_1.


Once you are using notion of necessity or possibility, being precise 
forces you to suggest in which modal logic you are working, and how 
you justify it. There are infinities of modal logics.
UDA justifies the use of the self-reference modal logic, and their 
variants. Gödel's results (and Löb's one, and Solovay) don't let many 
possible choice for the ideally correct

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

 When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
 darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
 no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
 information to report.


??

WTF ?



 Since we can dream or imagine total darkness
 without this kind of noise, that would indicate that what we are
 seeing in this visual noise is related to the neurology of the optic
 nerve and retina rather than Top-down pattern generation. This is
 consistent with the multisense realism approach, that we see our own
 experience without noise, but when we focus our attention to the
 external facing senses, we see through the experiences of the living
 tissues of the brain and sense organs, not just 'our own'.

 With a representational qualia model, we should expect our visual
 system to behave like a window on a computer screen. We should not be
 able to see 'static' from the program's logic. Static would come from
 the unintended consequence of analog hardware, it has no reasonable
 place in a purely computational world, especially since we can easily
 conceive of a noiseless visual field. Why the difference between the
 total darkness we can see in our experience, memory, and imagination,
 and the darkness we can see when we focus on literally looking at
 darkness through our eyes?

 --
 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.




-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

  When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
  darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
  no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
  information to report.

 ??

 WTF ?

Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous light show?

-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

 On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
  2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 
   When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
   darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
   no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
   information to report.
 
  ??
 
  WTF ?

 Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous light show?


Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more stupid
though to discuss in your pocket ?



 --
 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.




-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Jan 31, 12:03 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

 Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more stupid
 though to discuss in your pocket ?


Empty ridicule. Must have hit a nerve. Why not explain why I'm wrong
instead?

-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-01-31 Thread acw


On 1/31/2012 18:44, Craig Weinberg wrote:

When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
information to report. Since we can dream or imagine total darkness
without this kind of noise, that would indicate that what we are
seeing in this visual noise is related to the neurology of the optic
nerve and retina rather than Top-down pattern generation. This is
consistent with the multisense realism approach, that we see our own
experience without noise, but when we focus our attention to the
external facing senses, we see through the experiences of the living
tissues of the brain and sense organs, not just 'our own'.

With a representational qualia model, we should expect our visual
system to behave like a window on a computer screen. We should not be
able to see 'static' from the program's logic. Static would come from
the unintended consequence of analog hardware, it has no reasonable
place in a purely computational world, especially since we can easily
conceive of a noiseless visual field. Why the difference between the
total darkness we can see in our experience, memory, and imagination,
and the darkness we can see when we focus on literally looking at
darkness through our eyes?



There is absolutely nothing contradicting COMP about seeing noise when 
other patterns are not being organized by the cortex's hierarchy - no 
correction/prediction occurs (such as in HTM models).


Let's take it one step at a time, first all the images captured by the 
eye or even an ideal photon receptor are noisy, this has nothing to do 
with analog and everything to do with how photons and photon detectors work.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise
 Image noise can also originate in film grain and in *the unavoidable 
shot noise of an ideal photon detector*.


A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the 
eye, actually probably less than the eye.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucination
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow

 Closed-eye hallucinations and closed-eye visualizations (CEV) are a 
distinct class of hallucination. These types of hallucinations generally 
only occur when one's eyes are closed or when one is in a darkened room. 
They are a form of phosphene.

..
 The noise probably originates from thermal noise exciting the 
photoreceptor cells in the retina


Why don't we see clean images instead of a noisy convoluted mess during 
our daily lives? Because we actually see patterns which also happen to 
correct the input data (look at the hierarchical structure of the 
cortex or read On Intelligence for some examples. I could also link 
some PLoS articles about this, but I don't have them handy right now.) - 
we don't usually see raw unfiltered inputs.


Static and noise can occur just as well within COMP - they are 
incredibly common within the UD at various levels. Set up a system with 
some random rules and you have a good chance of observing noise. Noise 
is so damn easy to make... However, if considered from the COMP 
perspective, even incompressible noise (Kolmogorov random) is very 
common due to 1p indeterminacy. I think you must have the wrong 
conception about what COMP really is.




--
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:



 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

 On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
  2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 
   When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
   darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
   no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
   information to report.
 
  ??
 
  WTF ?

 Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous light show?


 Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more stupid
 though to discuss in your pocket ?


I am debating with myself the matter of whether or not Craig is a troll.

He commits the cardinal sin of not being willing to learn the basic ideas
of a realm of discourse, before trying to demonstrate important results in
that realm. I tried talking to him a couple of times but he refused to meet
me halfway by understanding the real meaning of rigorous terms like
computation. He has surely spent enough time on this list to have at least
some grasp of, say, what COMP actually says, but he shows no evidence of
it. I can only chalk this up to laziness. Worse, much of his writing reads
like one of these generative postmodernist
essayshttp://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/.
I am tempted to give him the Baez treatment, but I don't want to fan the
flames.





 --
 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.




 --
 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.




-- 
Joseph Knight

-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-01-31 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/31/2012 12:48 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:



On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com 
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:




2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com

On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com
mailto:allco...@gmail.com wrote:
 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com

  When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in
total
  darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should
expect that
  no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since
there is no
  information to report.

 ??

 WTF ?

Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous
light show?


Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more
stupid though to discuss in your pocket ?


I am debating with myself the matter of whether or not Craig is a troll.

He commits the cardinal sin of not being willing to learn the basic 
ideas of a realm of discourse, before trying to demonstrate important 
results in that realm. I tried talking to him a couple of times but he 
refused to meet me halfway by understanding the real meaning of 
rigorous terms like computation. He has surely spent enough time on 
this list to have at least some grasp of, say, what COMP actually 
says, but he shows no evidence of it. I can only chalk this up to 
laziness. Worse, much of his writing reads like one of these 
generative postmodernist essays http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/. I am 
tempted to give him the Baez treatment, but I don't want to fan the 
flames.




Hi,

In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however trolling 
or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying hard to think 
outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in like the ball in a game 
of Pong. How does science advance unless people are willing to 
contemplate alternative ideas?


Onward!

Stephen

--
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 12:11 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote:

  On 1/31/2012 12:48 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:



 On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote:



  2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

 On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
  2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 
   When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
   darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect that
   no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there is no
   information to report.
 
  ??
 
  WTF ?

  Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous light show?


 Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more stupid
 though to discuss in your pocket ?


  I am debating with myself the matter of whether or not Craig is a troll.

  He commits the cardinal sin of not being willing to learn the basic
 ideas of a realm of discourse, before trying to demonstrate important
 results in that realm. I tried talking to him a couple of times but he
 refused to meet me halfway by understanding the real meaning of rigorous
 terms like computation. He has surely spent enough time on this list to
 have at least some grasp of, say, what COMP actually says, but he shows no
 evidence of it. I can only chalk this up to laziness. Worse, much of his
 writing reads like one of these generative postmodernist 
 essayshttp://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/.
 I am tempted to give him the Baez treatment, but I don't want to fan the
 flames.




  Hi,

 In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however trolling or
 postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying hard to think outside
 of the box that you guys are gyrating in like the ball in a game of Pong.
 How does science advance unless people are willing to contemplate
 alternative ideas?


First of all, I do not think Craig *intends *to come off as a troll or a
postmodernist.

I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some
astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig
to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make useful
progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?



 Onward!

 Stephen

 --
 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.




-- 
Joseph Knight

-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Jan 31, 12:45 pm, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:

A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
eye, actually probably less than the eye.

Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap on?
I just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens
with my hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever. If I unplug the
monitor from my computer but leave it powered on - no snow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucinationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow

Closed-eye hallucinations and closed-eye visualizations (CEV) are a
distinct class of hallucination. These types of hallucinations generally
only occur when one's eyes are closed or when one is in a darkened room.
They are a form of phosphene.

Phosphene is nothing more than a name. Calling them hallucinations is
a loaded term. They are visual qualia, to me pretty obviously related
to the physical neurology of the optical system and not to any
computational interpretation software. You all can disagree, but I
know that what I see seems like analog 'respiration', not digital
representation.

..
The noise probably originates from thermal noise exciting the
photoreceptor cells in the retina

That should be easy enough to test. The point though, is that it has
no business leaking into our visual software. No computer has
comparable thermal noise that leaks into the software, does it? You
can get RF interference, sure, but why would a program tuned precisely
to represent some things and not others include unfiltered noise in
it's representation? I know it's not evidence that contradicts comp,
but it's not supportive of it at all.

Why don't we see clean images instead of a noisy convoluted mess during
our daily lives? Because we actually see patterns which also happen to
correct the input data (look at the hierarchical structure of the
cortex or read On Intelligence for some examples. I could also link
some PLoS articles about this, but I don't have them handy right now.) -
we don't usually see raw unfiltered inputs.

We shouldn't ever see raw unfiltered inputs, that's why the phosphene
doesn't make sense as a filtered process.

Static and noise can occur just as well within COMP - they are
incredibly common within the UD at various levels. Set up a system with
some random rules and you have a good chance of observing noise. Noise
is so damn easy to make... However, if considered from the COMP
perspective, even incompressible noise (Kolmogorov random) is very
common due to 1p indeterminacy. I think you must have the wrong
conception about what COMP really is.

Noise should either be unavoidable or absent, not present if we pay
attention to the front of our visual field and absent if we visualize
darkness. The fact that there is a difference for human vision behind
closed eyes and within the mind's eye would need to be explained.

I don't know what people think I don't understand about COMP is. It
makes perfect sense to me, it just happens to be exactly wrong in the
real world. In a theoretical world, COMP is the way to go, definitely.

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.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

On Jan 31, 12:45 pm, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:

A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
eye, actually probably less than the eye.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucinationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow

..
The noise probably originates from thermal noise exciting the
photoreceptor cells in the retina

We shouldn't ever see raw unfiltered inputs, that's why the phosphene
doesn't make sense as a filtered process.

A conscious program should involves deep computation and self reflection,
visual qualia inputs are not only from visual sensors but also from
internal parts like in human.

Also when you close your eyes, your sensor still receive stimuli from the
eyes. Only in total blackness would you see black, but you'll still receive
information from other senses and parts of your brain. You never have no
inputs. Even in sense deprivation tanks, you have your own mind inputs. A
conscious computation should not stop processing like our consciousness.

But whatever, between your continuous straw man arguments, or your
illumination on a subject matter, it's becoming more and more boring
reading you.

If blackness qualia when closing your eyes was a valid refutation of comp
it would be hilarious.

Quentin

Craig

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

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight joseph.9...@gmail.com wrote:

 I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some
 astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig
 to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make useful
 progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?

What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP? The problem
is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view, and there
is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
Walkman designs from when I was 12.

What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines? I understand
that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
so many things, including computers, but that doesn't impress me
because I understand that computers are only computers because users
are using them that way. Otherwise they are just humming boxes.

-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-01-31 Thread meekerdb


On 1/31/2012 11:11 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
Also when you close your eyes, your sensor still receive stimuli from the eyes. Only in 
total blackness would you see black, but you'll still receive information from other 
senses and parts of your brain. You never have no inputs. Even in sense deprivation 
tanks, you have your own mind inputs. A conscious computation should not stop processing 
like our consciousness.


I have not been able to find the reference, but I remember reading, back in the 60's when 
sensory deprivation was the new fad, that persons staying in sensory deprivation more than 
about 45min had their conscious thoughts go into a loop.


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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight joseph.9...@gmail.com wrote:

  I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some
  astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig
  to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make
 useful
  progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?

 What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP?


Let's start with the basics. I know that you don't understand what a
computer is, since you claim a bit later that it is a humming box. In an
earlier post you said 'computers are arrays of semiconductor materials
arranged to conduct electrical current in a dynamic and orderly fashion'.
Wrong. When I directed you to an article explaining why you are wrong, you
replied you're pointing me to references to Boolean algebra. Boolean
algebra was not mentioned even once on the page! You didn't read it!
Laziness.


 The problem
 is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view


I don't think anyone on this list understands your view, except perhaps
yourself. Who is to blame?


 , and there
 is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
 comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
 you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
 computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
 Walkman designs from when I was 12.


Cool.





 What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
 Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines?


Among other things.


 I understand
 that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
 so many things,


They certainly can simulate many things. However, I have seen you conflate
simulations run by scientists working with simplified models of something,
with the kind of simulation that matters when we talk about the
computational theory of mind.


 including computers, but that doesn't impress me
 because I understand that computers are only computers because users
 are using them that way.


Ludicrous, and this only reinforces my suspicion that you have no idea what
a computer, conceived mathematically, actually is.


 Otherwise they are just humming boxes.


See above.



 --
 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.




-- 
Joseph Knight

-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-01-31 Thread acw

On 1/31/2012 19:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:

On Jan 31, 12:45 pm, acwa...@lavabit.com wrote:

A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
eye, actually probably less than the eye.

Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap on?
First, the eyes don't have a perfect lens cap, photons get through quite
well. Second, no, but I've seen photos taken in almost (as was feasible
to be) dark rooms, and there tends to be some noise, if you don't see
it, try using some filters to better differentiate the pixels.

I just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens
with my hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever.

Check the pixel values directly then.
In an very dark room, a human might as well not perceive any noise as
well. Noise is perceived when there's still a few photons here and there
hitting the retina.

If I unplug the
monitor from my computer but leave it powered on - no snow.
That's normal if you have a DVI or HDMI digital display - if the data is
transmitted digitally, that greatly reduces the chances of it getting
damaged. The problem I was talking about wasn't as much about display
and transmitting as much as of the limitation of an ideal photon
detector. I've seen you mention Feynman and QED - surely that would have
given you a decent understanding on the limitations of capture devices
(and no, QM does not contradicted by COMP: COMP predicts the 1p
indeterminacy which gives rise locally to some QM/observational laws).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucinationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visual_snow

I take it you didn't read the rest of the article? The noise is inherent
in any accurate simulation of such systems, be they the eye, an ideal
photon detector or some quantum systems.
Sure, hallucinations is a term, but is it 'wrong'? If for some reason
I've been very tired and my cognitive load is high, my brain could start
making errors when recognizing certain patterns - I would be
hallucinating as whatever it is I was perceiving wasn't the correct
perception. Any such mismatches would be hallucinations. Feed just noise
into a neural network and you'll be sure it'll be making errors, and
thus hallucinate - how do you think dreaming works? If what you
perceive is likely 3p correct, it's not a hallucination. OF course, 3p
being an inference done from the 1p, you can only bet on what is real
and what isn't, you cannot ever truly know, and with COMP, real is just
sharable reality.

Also, you are very sure about your raw access to analog data, I wonder
where you derive that confidence from. I have absolutely no way of
knowing I have *direct* access to any analog data, actually I would be
very skeptical of that, because of the implications it would have for
local physics. Even with qualia, I don't see infinitely complex details
- the only thing that I can communicate is that my view is coherent and
unified.

..
The noise probably originates from thermal noise exciting the
photoreceptor cells in the retina

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by 'leaking'. If the
data that I captured is noisy (such as visual data), the software will
handle noisy data. Nothing more, nothing less. If I do some image
recognition or filter or *dynamically reconstruct* the image, it may
look much cleaner, which is not that much different from what our visual
system is *sometimes* doing (when it was enough matching patterns).

We shouldn't ever see raw unfiltered inputs,

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-01-31 Thread Terren Suydam

Craig,

The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
movie's premise that seems impossible to you?

Terren

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight joseph.9...@gmail.com wrote:

 I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some
 astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig
 to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make useful
 progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?

 What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP? The problem
 is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view, and there
 is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
 comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
 you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
 computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
 Walkman designs from when I was 12.

 What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
 Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines? I understand
 that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
 so many things, including computers, but that doesn't impress me
 because I understand that computers are only computers because users
 are using them that way. Otherwise they are just humming boxes.

 --
 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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-01-31 Thread Bruno Marchal



On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:11, Stephen P. King wrote:


On 1/31/2012 12:48 PM, Joseph Knight wrote:




On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Quentin Anciaux  
allco...@gmail.com wrote:



2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
On Jan 31, 11:46 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

  When we close our eyes, we still see visual noise, even in total
  darkness. If qualia were based on computation, we should expect  
that
  no sensory input should equate to total blackness, since there  
is no

  information to report.

 ??

 WTF ?

Visual silence is easily represented. Why the superfluous light show?

Nothing is easily represented... why something ? Have you more  
stupid though to discuss in your pocket ?


I am debating with myself the matter of whether or not Craig is a  
troll.


He commits the cardinal sin of not being willing to learn the basic  
ideas of a realm of discourse, before trying to demonstrate  
important results in that realm. I tried talking to him a couple of  
times but he refused to meet me halfway by understanding the real  
meaning of rigorous terms like computation. He has surely spent  
enough time on this list to have at least some grasp of, say, what  
COMP actually says, but he shows no evidence of it. I can only  
chalk this up to laziness. Worse, much of his writing reads like  
one of these generative postmodernist essays. I am tempted to give  
him the Baez treatment, but I don't want to fan the flames.




Hi,

In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however  
trolling or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying hard  
to think outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in like the  
ball in a game of Pong. How does science advance unless people are  
willing to contemplate alternative ideas?


I don't see any alternative idea or theory. When he says that qualia  
explains the universe, that fits with the proven consequences of comp,  
where quanta are case of qualia. He is not bad at introspection, he  
might grasp comp a little bit, but he does not try to submit a theory  
in the usual meaning of the terms. So we can't help.


Stephen, don't confuse comp, as used as a pretext for not addressing  
the mind-body problem by materialist, and what we can already see  
from a formulation of the mind body problem when computationalism is  
taken seriously into account. This already leads to a rational  
alternative, if not reversal.


To be frank, you fail also to provide a theory, as your notion of  
Existence illustrates. Existence of what? You never answered.


It is not because we have put the qualia and consciousness under the  
rug for a long time, that we can reify our own experiences in the  
theories. That remains unscientific. What we can do consists in making  
clear our assumptions, reason, compare with observation, etc.


Craig's theory is ethically problematical, like sects or government  
which forbids the practice of some medicine.
And this lack of ethicalness is directly a consequence of its 1p  
personal reification, in the sense that he talks like if he knew a  
truth. This is a symptom of pseudo-religion, pseudo-philosophy, which  
might perhaps not been tolerated (as we know where that kind of  
thinking can lead).


Craig pretended it would be OK for his daughter to marry a man with a  
digital brain, but that he would still consider his daughter marrying  
a zombie, or something else non human. That's looks like an open mind,  
but he does not seems to realize that his possible disciples might  
differ on that. It is like Obama signing statement (after signing the  
bill NDAA), where he says that he will personally not use the notes,  
without realizing apparently that the next president might.


Craig seems to lack the amount of doubt which makes the scientist   
aware that he can only modestly suggesting theories, and try them.
It is annoying when the consequences are segregationist. Craig should  
be more neutral, avoid reference to word like ream and true, and  
work out a more intelligible theory, if he want to progress.
Not sure Craig is a troll, but he might become one, if he does not try  
to grasp the notion of scientific theories.


At some point it looks like Craig want science to commit the error  
which has been done in religion/theology.
My point is that with comp there is a clear way to undo that error in  
the field of (number's) theology.


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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Jan 31, 2:11 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

 A conscious program should involves deep computation and self reflection,
 visual qualia inputs are not only from visual sensors but also from
 internal parts like in human.

 Also when you close your eyes, your sensor still receive stimuli from the
 eyes. Only in total blackness would you see black,

I can see black in my imagination anytime I want.

 but you'll still receive
 information from other senses and parts of your brain. You never have no
 inputs. Even in sense deprivation tanks, you have your own mind inputs. A
 conscious computation should not stop processing like our consciousness.

As soon as we start falling asleep though, the noise goes away. Noise
should either be unavoidable or intentionally included in comp. What
our visual sense seems to do it both in different contexts.


 But whatever, between your continuous straw man arguments, or your
 illumination on a subject matter, it's becoming more and more boring
 reading you.

Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

 If blackness qualia when closing your eyes was a valid refutation of comp
 it would be hilarious.

Of course, because religious faith cannot be refuted by mere truth. If
going into total darkness created no noise, I would take that as
supporting comp.

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.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

 On Jan 31, 2:11 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:

  A conscious program should involves deep computation and self reflection,
  visual qualia inputs are not only from visual sensors but also from
  internal parts like in human.
 
  Also when you close your eyes, your sensor still receive stimuli from the
  eyes. Only in total blackness would you see black,

 I can see black in my imagination anytime I want.


Straw man


  but you'll still receive
  information from other senses and parts of your brain. You never have no
  inputs. Even in sense deprivation tanks, you have your own mind inputs.
 A
  conscious computation should not stop processing like our consciousness.

 As soon as we start falling asleep though, the noise goes away. Noise
 should either be unavoidable or intentionally included in comp.


Non sensical.


 What
 our visual sense seems to do it both in different contexts.

 
  But whatever, between your continuous straw man arguments, or your
  illumination on a subject matter, it's becoming more and more boring
  reading you.

 Nobody is holding a gun to your head.

  If blackness qualia when closing your eyes was a valid refutation of comp
  it would be hilarious.

 Of course, because religious faith cannot be refuted by mere truth. If
 going into total darkness created no noise, I would take that as
 supporting comp.

 As hilarious as the refutation by closing your eyes.


  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.




-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, Joseph Knight joseph.9...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

  On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight joseph.9...@gmail.com wrote:

   I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring some
   astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for Craig
   to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make
  useful
   progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?

  What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP?

 Let's start with the basics. I know that you don't understand what a
 computer is, since you claim a bit later that it is a humming box. In an
 earlier post you said 'computers are arrays of semiconductor materials
 arranged to conduct electrical current in a dynamic and orderly fashion'.
 Wrong. When I directed you to an article explaining why you are wrong, you
 replied you're pointing me to references to Boolean algebra. Boolean
 algebra was not mentioned even once on the page! You didn't read it!
 Laziness.

Not laziness. I'm just not in the business of doing errands for
strangers on the internet. I'm not your student. I understand that the
term computer *can* apply to anything that can be used to perform
computation (I use the abacus as an example too, steam powered
machines, whatever). Obviously from my wording I am talking about
contemporary electronic computers. This kind of semantic nitpicking is
the lowest form of argumentative desperation.


  The problem
  is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view

 I don't think anyone on this list understands your view, except perhaps
 yourself. Who is to blame?

You can blame me if you want, but it makes no difference. You can
either try to understand what I mean or not, that's fine, but you
aren't telling me anything I don't already know so I'm not curious
about your views.


  , and there
  is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
  comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
  you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
  computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
  Walkman designs from when I was 12.

 Cool.



  What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
  Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines?

 Among other things.

  I understand
  that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
  so many things,

 They certainly can simulate many things. However, I have seen you conflate
 simulations run by scientists working with simplified models of something,

I'm doing that intentionally to strip away the confusion and think
about it in a clearer, more truthful way.

 with the kind of simulation that matters when we talk about the
 computational theory of mind.

  including computers, but that doesn't impress me
  because I understand that computers are only computers because users
  are using them that way.

 Ludicrous, and this only reinforces my suspicion that you have no idea what
 a computer, conceived mathematically, actually is.

It sounds like you are asserting some special case definition of the
word computer. A computer is anything that can be used to compute. It
doesn't have to be a material object, in theory, I understand that. In
practice though *all* known computation eventually has a physical
layer, even if it's neurological. If I make a virtual server (and I am
a network engineer MCSE, CCEA btw) it still runs on a real hardware
node as if it were a real server. There is no virtualization without
physics underwriting it. I understand that what I say on this subject
is provocative and doesn't make sense to you. That's because you are
only focused on my being wrong and fail to give my ideas the slightest
unbiased consideration. It doesn't mean you're a jerk, it just means
you are typical. I'm not interested in typical though.

  Otherwise they are just humming boxes.

 See above.

Yeah, I know. I'm a big moron because I used the word computer to
refer to computers and not the mathematically defined theoretical
conception of computation.

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.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Craig,

 The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
 movie's premise that seems impossible to you?

It's possible to simulate a world for a person but it is not possible
to simulate the sense of being a person. I have no problem with full
sensory substitution, but I understand that there cannot be a
replacement for sense itself. Something real and physical ultimately
has to interpret anything to give it sense, otherwise it is non-sense.
A program is real in a mind, and real in software, but unless the
software is enacted literally on a physical machine or organism at the
bottom level, there is no reality.

-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

 On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
  Craig,
 
  The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
  movie's premise that seems impossible to you?

 It's possible to simulate a world for a person but it is not possible
 to simulate the sense of being a person. I have no problem with full
 sensory substitution, but I understand that there cannot be a
 replacement for sense itself. Something real and physical ultimately
 has to interpret anything to give it sense, otherwise it is non-sense.
 A program is real in a mind, and real in software, but unless the
 software is enacted literally on a physical machine or organism at the
 bottom level, there is no reality.


How do you know there is a bottom level ? Reality did told you so ?

That in your theory you posit a bottom level why not... but here you know
it, so is it too much to ask you how you know so ?

Why a human is able to interpret himself and a program couldn't ? Where
does sense come from in you theory ? How meaning arises ? Why something ?

Quentin



 --
 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.




-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012/1/31 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 1/31/2012 11:11 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:

 Also when you close your eyes, your sensor still receive stimuli from the
 eyes. Only in total blackness would you see black, but you'll still receive
 information from other senses and parts of your brain. You never have no
 inputs. Even in sense deprivation tanks, you have your own mind inputs. A
 conscious computation should not stop processing like our consciousness.


 I have not been able to find the reference, but I remember reading, back
 in the 60's when sensory deprivation was the new fad, that persons staying
 in sensory deprivation more than about 45min had their conscious thoughts
 go into a loop.


If you find some reference about that I'd be interested.

But even in a loop... consciousness does not stop ;)



 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.




-- 
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-01-31 Thread Terren Suydam

What if a baby is fed a virtual reality from the day it was born?
Assume that (as in the movie) the sensory inputs are rich enough that
if we were to experience it, we would be hard pressed to detect that
it was a virtual reality.

If the baby grows up in a virtual world, complete with rich social
interaction, then why wouldn't she still develop a sense of
personhood?   What is it about the source of the sensory data that
prohibits personhood from developing?

Terren

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 3:53 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
 Craig,

 The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
 movie's premise that seems impossible to you?

 It's possible to simulate a world for a person but it is not possible
 to simulate the sense of being a person. I have no problem with full
 sensory substitution, but I understand that there cannot be a
 replacement for sense itself. Something real and physical ultimately
 has to interpret anything to give it sense, otherwise it is non-sense.
 A program is real in a mind, and real in software, but unless the
 software is enacted literally on a physical machine or organism at the
 bottom level, there is no reality.

 --
 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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Jan 31, 2:33 pm, Joseph Knight joseph.9...@gmail.com wrote:
  On Tue, Jan 31, 2012 at 1:12 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com
 wrote:
 
   On Jan 31, 1:18 pm, Joseph Knight joseph.9...@gmail.com wrote:
 
I agree with your point about thinking outside the box, but barring
 some
astronomically improbable stroke of luck, it would be necessary for
 Craig
to *understand what he is criticizing *before he could actually make
   useful
progress away from it. Surely this is not an unreasonable demand?
 
   What is it that you think I don't understand about COMP?
 
  Let's start with the basics. I know that you don't understand what a
  computer is, since you claim a bit later that it is a humming box. In
 an
  earlier post you said 'computers are arrays of semiconductor materials
  arranged to conduct electrical current in a dynamic and orderly fashion'.
  Wrong. When I directed you to an article explaining why you are wrong,
 you
  replied you're pointing me to references to Boolean algebra. Boolean
  algebra was not mentioned even once on the page! You didn't read it!
  Laziness.

 Not laziness. I'm just not in the business of doing errands for
 strangers on the internet.


When someone tells you you are wrong, you are not interested in seeing if
they are correct? Laziness, or worse, trolling. Convince me otherwise.


 I'm not your student. I understand that the
 term computer *can* apply to anything that can be used to perform
 computation (I use the abacus as an example too, steam powered
 machines, whatever). Obviously from my wording I am talking about
 contemporary electronic computers.


In that context, and indeed essentially all contexts on this list, the
precise definition was the one being employed.


 This kind of semantic nitpicking is
 the lowest form of argumentative desperation.


No, we need to know exactly what each other means when they use a word if
we are to make any progress. So there's a problem when you use one word to
refer to two quite different things.



 
   The problem
   is that I know for a fact that you don't understand my view
 
  I don't think anyone on this list understands your view, except perhaps
  yourself. Who is to blame?

 You can blame me if you want, but it makes no difference. You can
 either try to understand what I mean or not,


I certainly have tried, and failed, repeatedly. I haven't personally
inquired about it because others have, and you have been less than helpful
for them. You invent dozens of new terms, abuse the meanings of dozens of
commonly used terms from science and philosophyI don't see any concrete
predictions about the result of an experiment, any falsifiability, or any
concern for precision.


 that's fine, but you
 aren't telling me anything I don't already know so I'm not curious
 about your views.

 
   , and there
   is nothing anyone has said here which surprises me in any way about
   comp. It's all old hat to me, even if it seems exciting and fresh to
   you, I have been thinking about neurological simulations using
   computation for probably 35 years. I have drawings of multi-sensory
   Walkman designs from when I was 12.
 
  Cool.
 
 
 
   What is the big amazing thing about comp? Arithmetic truth? UDA?
   Substitution level? Self-reference and Turing Machines?
 
  Among other things.
 
   I understand
   that you think it makes sense because computers can seem to simulate
   so many things,
 
  They certainly can simulate many things. However, I have seen you
 conflate
  simulations run by scientists working with simplified models of
 something,

 I'm doing that intentionally to strip away the confusion and think
 about it in a clearer, more truthful way.


Hold on -- you are purposefully causing confusion in order to strip away
confusion?



  with the kind of simulation that matters when we talk about the
  computational theory of mind.
 
   including computers, but that doesn't impress me
   because I understand that computers are only computers because users
   are using them that way.
 
  Ludicrous, and this only reinforces my suspicion that you have no idea
 what
  a computer, conceived mathematically, actually is.

 It sounds like you are asserting some special case definition of the
 word computer.


I never asserted anything.


 A computer is anything that can be used to compute. It
 doesn't have to be a material object, in theory, I understand that. In
 practice though *all* known computation eventually has a physical
 layer, even if it's neurological. If I make a virtual server (and I am
 a network engineer MCSE, CCEA btw) it still runs on a real hardware
 node as if it were a real server. There is no virtualization without
 physics underwriting it. I understand that what I say on this subject
 is provocative and doesn't make sense to you. That's because you are
 only focused on my being wrong and fail to give my ideas

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

2012-01-31 Thread Stephen P. King


On 1/31/2012 3:03 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 31 Jan 2012, at 19:11, Stephen P. King wrote:


snip



Hi,

In Craig's defense I would like to point out that however 
trolling or postmodernist you might see his ideas, he is trying hard 
to think outside of the box that you guys are gyrating in like the 
ball in a game of Pong. How does science advance unless people are 
willing to contemplate alternative ideas?


I don't see any alternative idea or theory. When he says that qualia 
explains the universe, that fits with the proven consequences of comp, 
where quanta are case of qualia. He is not bad at introspection, he 
might grasp comp a little bit, but he does not try to submit a theory 
in the usual meaning of the terms. So we can't help.


Stephen, don't confuse comp, as used as a pretext for not addressing 
the mind-body problem by materialist, and what we can already see 
from a formulation of the mind body problem when computationalism is 
taken seriously into account. This already leads to a rational 
alternative, if not reversal.


To be frank, you fail also to provide a theory, as your notion of 
Existence illustrates. Existence of what? You never answered.


Hi Bruno,

My my, are we in a snit of a mood! I am assuming a basic axiom: 
Existence exists. If this is difficult for you to grasp, please watch 
this lecture on Epistemology:


http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL59B2C09D51EBD222

Some times you might wish to stop thinking like an automaton and 
enjoy how other people think. :-)


Onward!

Stephen

--
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: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Jan 31, 2:55 pm, acw a...@lavabit.com wrote:
 On 1/31/2012 19:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Jan 31, 12:45 pm, 
 acwa...@lavabit.com  wrote:

  A digital or analog camera would get similar amounts of noise as the
  eye, actually probably less than the eye.

  Why do you say that? Have you ever taken a photo with the lens cap on?

 First, the eyes don't have a perfect lens cap, photons get through quite
 well.

That's true, but they are getting through my arm too.

 Second, no, but I've seen photos taken in almost (as was feasible
 to be) dark rooms, and there tends to be some noise, if you don't see
 it, try using some filters to better differentiate the pixels.

These patterns in our eyes need no filters to differentiate them
though. You don't have to try very hard to see them. I cannot see any
such patterns in my digital camera's picture.

 I just looked at my digital camera in my phone and blocked the lens
  with my hand and there is no noise or snow whatsoever.

 Check the pixel values directly then.
 In an very dark room, a human might as well not perceive any noise as
 well. Noise is perceived when there's still a few photons here and there
 hitting the retina.

This noise does not seem to decrease with the more darkness though, it
increases, or becomes easier to see anyhow.


  If I unplug the
  monitor from my computer but leave it powered on - no snow.

 That's normal if you have a DVI or HDMI digital display - if the data is
 transmitted digitally, that greatly reduces the chances of it getting
 damaged.

You are saying that noise is intentionally throttled when the plug is
pulled? If that's true it still shows that the ocular noise is
unnecessary.

The problem I was talking about wasn't as much about display
 and transmitting as much as of the limitation of an ideal photon
 detector. I've seen you mention Feynman and QED - surely that would have
 given you a decent understanding on the limitations of capture devices
 (and no, QM does not contradicted by COMP: COMP predicts the 1p
 indeterminacy which gives rise locally to some QM/observational laws).

The closed eye noise doesn't seem to have to do with external light to
me, but it's possible.












 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed-eye_hallucinationhttp://en.wikipe...

  Closed-eye hallucinations and closed-eye visualizations (CEV) are a
  distinct class of hallucination. These types of hallucinations generally
  only occur when one's eyes are closed or when one is in a darkened room.
  They are a form of phosphene.

  Phosphene is nothing more than a name. Calling them hallucinations is
  a loaded term. They are visual qualia, to me pretty obviously related
  to the physical neurology of the optical system and not to any
  computational interpretation software. You all can disagree, but I
  know that what I see seems like analog 'respiration', not digital
  representation.

 I take it you didn't read the rest of the article? The noise is inherent
 in any accurate simulation of such systems, be they the eye, an ideal
 photon detector or some quantum systems.

I did read it, but I didn't see where it says it is inherent in all
simulations of visual systems. Where does it say that? If that's true
it still makes no case for representational qualia. Why wouldn't it be
filtered out?

 Sure, hallucinations is a term, but is it 'wrong'?

Yes, I think it is. In this case no external reality is being
misrepresented.

 If for some reason
 I've been very tired and my cognitive load is high, my brain could start
 making errors when recognizing certain patterns - I would be
 hallucinating as whatever it is I was perceiving wasn't the correct
 perception. Any such mismatches would be hallucinations.

If any simulation of the visual system produces these patterns, then
these qualia match those pattens, not mismatch them.

 Feed just noise
 into a neural network and you'll be sure it'll be making errors, and
 thus hallucinate

Hallucinations aren't errors, they are interior sense experiences that
don't match the expected exterior correlates. I'm sure that neural
networks make errors but are they imaginative and reference myths?

 - how do you think dreaming works?

Like waking life, dreaming blends semantic agendas with neurological
agendas. Some regions of the brain are active that normally aren't
while waking, others are less active or inactive, which loosens
inhibitions and associations. The content of the dream can range from
non-sequiturs to highly insightful and poignant narratives.

 If what you
 perceive is likely 3p correct, it's not a hallucination. OF course, 3p
 being an inference done from the 1p, you can only bet on what is real
 and what isn't, you cannot ever truly know, and with COMP, real is just
 sharable reality.

I think with COMP, real is just sharable arithmetic. I don't see where
COMP postulates any reality at all.


 Also, you are very sure about your raw access to analog data, I wonder
 where you derive that confidence

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Jan 31, 4:00 pm, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote:
 2012/1/31 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com

  On Jan 31, 2:52 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
   Craig,

   The movie The Matrix is essentially about comp. What is it about that
   movie's premise that seems impossible to you?

  It's possible to simulate a world for a person but it is not possible
  to simulate the sense of being a person. I have no problem with full
  sensory substitution, but I understand that there cannot be a
  replacement for sense itself. Something real and physical ultimately
  has to interpret anything to give it sense, otherwise it is non-sense.
  A program is real in a mind, and real in software, but unless the
  software is enacted literally on a physical machine or organism at the
  bottom level, there is no reality.

 How do you know there is a bottom level ? Reality did told you so ?

When you shoot people with bullets, do they not die. If I disconnect a
computer from electric power, does it not stop, regardless of the
software?


 That in your theory you posit a bottom level why not... but here you know
 it, so is it too much to ask you how you know so ?

I don't know that there is an absolute bottom for the cosmos, but
physical matter certainly seems to be the bottom of our world. Why
would it not be? What is it that would be beneath that bottom? Can you
build a bomb out of numbers alone?


 Why a human is able to interpret himself and a program couldn't ?

Because a human is born to interpret himself. His interpretive
capacity is native to his physiology. A program is an idea native to
human psychology exported onto electronic glass or gears.

 Where
 does sense come from in you theory ? How meaning arises ? Why something ?

Sense is the symmetry of significance (teleology, feeling, continuous
subjects, motive, sequence, anabolic accumulation through time,
energy) and entropy (teleonomy, unfeeling, discrete objects,
determinism, randomness, catabolic evanescence across space, matter).
Sense, significance, and entropy are all the same thing on one sense,
and two or three different things in different senses. It is
singularity folded, and folded again. Meaning does not arise, arise-
ness arises from meaning. Meaning is primordial (not human scale
meaning of course).

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.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp

On Jan 31, 4:40 pm, Terren Suydam terren.suy...@gmail.com wrote:
 What if a baby is fed a virtual reality from the day it was born?
 Assume that (as in the movie) the sensory inputs are rich enough that
 if we were to experience it, we would be hard pressed to detect that
 it was a virtual reality.

I will agree for the sake of argument, but if my theory is true,
reality may be felt literally in your bones on some (maybe
unconscious) level. There may be no way of truly trapping someone in a
fantasy with no chance of them knowing it.


 If the baby grows up in a virtual world, complete with rich social
 interaction, then why wouldn't she still develop a sense of
 personhood?

Oh I think they would. They are a real baby though with a human brain,
not an adding machine.

  What is it about the source of the sensory data that
 prohibits personhood from developing?

It's not sensory data, personhood is inherent in human life. If it's
not a human, it can't have a human life. A computer has an experience
of it's switches and routers, maybe qualia we can't imagine, but there
is no indication that any program shows signs of turning into a
person.

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.

Re: Superfluous Qualia Challenge For Comp