Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-12 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Dec 2011, at 19:24, meekerdb wrote: On 12/11/2011 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2011, at 07:13, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2011 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some say that the interference of particles with themselves in the two-slit experiment is amble evidence for these,

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-11 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 11 Dec 2011, at 07:13, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2011 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some say that the interference of particles with themselves in the two-slit experiment is amble evidence for these, but MWI does nothing to explain why we observe the particular universe that we do.

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-11 Thread meekerdb
On 12/11/2011 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Dec 2011, at 07:13, meekerdb wrote: On 12/10/2011 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some say that the interference of particles with themselves in the two-slit experiment is amble evidence for these, but MWI does nothing to explain why we

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Dec 2011, at 23:50, benjayk wrote: Sorry, I am done with this discussion, I am just tired of it. I actually agree your argument is useful for refuting materialism, OK. but I still don't think your conlusion follows from just COMP, since you didn't eliminate

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Dec 2011, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2011 4:34 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/9/2011 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2011, at 08:47, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P.

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Dec 2011, at 21:06, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2011 11:48 AM, Pzomby wrote: On Dec 8, 12:20 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 10:18 AM, Pzomby wrote: On Dec 7, 10:31 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: Most materialist

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Dec 2011, at 17:55, Stephen P. King wrote: [SPK] I take Occam to say in any explanation do not multiply entities beyond necessity. See Brent's answer. Postulating that everything exists without a means to even demostrate necessity is to postulate an infinite (of

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-10 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Dec 2011, at 19:57, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, On 12/9/2011 11:55 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/9/2011 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Assuming different instances of boolean algebra is assuming more than the natural numbers (like assuming finite and infinite sets).

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-10 Thread Pzomby
Brent You state: Physical laws are models we make up to explain and predict the world.  Are properties of mathematics then dual, being both representational (models) and encoded (rules) as instantiated brain functions? Mathematics is a subset of language in which propositions are

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-10 Thread meekerdb
On 12/10/2011 3:50 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Some say that the interference of particles with themselves in the two-slit experiment is amble evidence for these, but MWI does nothing to explain why we observe the particular universe that we do. Comp explains this completely, by explaining why

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Dec 2011, at 00:04, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: To suppose computation requires a material process would be materialism, wouldn't it? Hi Craig, Not quite, a dualist model

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Dec 2011, at 08:47, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Stephen P.

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/9/2011 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2011, at 08:47, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/9/2011 2:47 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Stephen P.

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 09 Dec 2011, at 13:34, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/9/2011 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2011, at 08:47, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM,

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/9/2011 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2011, at 13:34, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/9/2011 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2011, at 08:47, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM,

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread Stephen P. King
Dear Bruno, On 12/9/2011 11:55 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/9/2011 9:43 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Assuming different instances of boolean algebra is assuming more than the natural numbers (like assuming finite and infinite sets). Are two Boolean algebras that have different

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread meekerdb
On 12/9/2011 4:34 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/9/2011 4:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Dec 2011, at 08:47, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread meekerdb
On 12/9/2011 4:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/9/2011 2:47 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread Pzomby
On Dec 8, 12:20 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 10:18 AM, Pzomby wrote: On Dec 7, 10:31 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net  wrote: On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: Most materialist just say: Well, the natural laws are just there, without any particular reason

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread meekerdb
On 12/9/2011 11:48 AM, Pzomby wrote: On Dec 8, 12:20 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 10:18 AM, Pzomby wrote: On Dec 7, 10:31 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.netwrote: On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: Most materialist just say: Well, the natural laws are just

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/9/2011 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2011 4:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/9/2011 2:47 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: You

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread benjayk
Sorry, I am done with this discussion, I am just tired of it. I actually agree your argument is useful for refuting materialism, but I still don't think your conlusion follows from just COMP, since you didn't eliminate COMP+non-platonic-immaterialism. benjayk -- View this message in context:

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-09 Thread meekerdb
On 12/9/2011 2:04 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/9/2011 2:17 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/9/2011 4:43 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/9/2011 2:47 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: I can relate with many things you say. Indeed I can argue that the universal (Löbian) machine already relate on this, too. But science get rid only on subjective judgement in publication (ideally), making them universally communicable. But considering the

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Dec 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I am just not arguing at all for what your argument(s) seeks to refute. I know that. It might be your problem. You have independent

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/12/8 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Dec 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I am just not arguing at all for what your argument(s) seeks to

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread benjayk
meekerdb wrote: On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: Tegmark's argument shows only that the brain is essentially classical if we assume decoherence works the same in natural systems as in our artificial experiments. But it seems natural systems have a better ability to remain

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: You smuggled in your own opinion through the backdoor (only my favorite mystery is acceptable). This is only a negative ad hominem insult. Frankly I prefer your enthusiast tone of your earlier posts. I am not

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/12/8 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: You smuggled in your own opinion through the backdoor (only my favorite mystery is acceptable). This is only a negative ad hominem insult. Frankly I prefer your

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Dec 8, 9:33 am, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital computer) is not compatible with materialism. It shows that to be able to predict your next moment

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Dec 7, 1:09 pm, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: I said to Stephen that, concerning the epiphenomena, consciousness and matter do not play a symmetrical role, but this does not mean that one of them is primitive. With comp, the basic ontology needed is just anything given by the

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread meekerdb
On 12/8/2011 5:46 AM, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: Tegmark's argument shows only that the brain is essentially classical if we assume decoherence works the same in natural systems as in our artificial experiments. But it seems natural systems have a

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 08 Dec 2011, at 14:25, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Dec 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote: The step 7 and 8 do not really work for what I am saying. Explain this in detail. Please. It just doesn't deal

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread meekerdb
On 12/8/2011 6:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital computer) is not compatible with materialism. It shows that to be able to predict your next moment (if

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread meekerdb
On 12/8/2011 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 9:33 am, Quentin Anciauxallco...@gmail.com wrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a digital computer) is not compatible with materialism. It shows

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Pzomby
On Dec 7, 10:31 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: Most materialist just say: Well, the natural laws are just there, without any particular reason or meaning behind them, we have to take them for granted. But this is almost as unconvincing as

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread meekerdb
On 12/8/2011 10:18 AM, Pzomby wrote: On Dec 7, 10:31 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: Most materialist just say: Well, the natural laws are just there, without any particular reason or meaning behind them, we have to take them for granted. But this

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread meekerdb
On 12/8/2011 8:58 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2011/12/8 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 12/8/2011 6:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Dec 8, 11:57 am, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 9:33 am, Quentin Anciauxallco...@gmail.com  wrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can be run on a

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/12/8 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/8/2011 8:58 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2011/12/8 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/8/2011 6:33 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that shows computationalism (I can be

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 11:57 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 9:33 am, Quentin Anciauxallco...@gmail.comwrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: To suppose computation requires a material process would be materialism, wouldn't it? Hi Craig,      Not quite, a dualist model would require that some form of material process

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread meekerdb
On 12/8/2011 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 11:57 am, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 7:41 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 9:33 am, Quentin Anciauxallco...@gmail.comwrote: The UD argument is not a proof of computationalism being true, is an argument that

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread meekerdb
On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: To suppose computation requires a material process would be materialism, wouldn't it? Hi Craig, Not quite, a dualist model would

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: To suppose computation requires a material process would be materialism, wouldn't it? Hi Craig,

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread meekerdb
On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: To suppose computation requires a material process would

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: To suppose

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-08 Thread meekerdb
On 12/8/2011 6:35 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 9:01 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 5:48 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/8/2011 6:45 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 12/8/2011 3:04 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 8, 4:44 pm, Stephen P. Kingstephe...@charter.net wrote: On 12/8/2011 4:22

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Dec 2011, at 21:04, meekerdb wrote: On 12/6/2011 11:27 AM, benjayk wrote: Yes it says... Computationalism is the theory that you can be run/simulated on a digital computer. Even if it does (it is not exactly COMP as defined by Bruno, because it doesn't state that we ourselves can

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Dec 2011, at 20:44, Stephen P. King wrote: On 12/6/2011 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2011, at 18:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2011/12/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/6/2011 4:11 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only thing that matter is digitalness... the fact

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-07 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Dec 7, 6:02 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Dec 2011, at 20:44, Stephen P. King wrote: but so does ideal monism. Why? The irony is that they fail for the exact same reason, the problem of epiphenomena. I don't follow you on this. We have discussed that before.

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-07 Thread benjayk
meekerdb wrote: And because of that, we can't assume that it only matters that the computations are being done, but it may matter how the computations are done and how they are being interfaced with the environment. One could define computer more narrowly to exclude input and output, but

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-07 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Dec 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I am just not arguing at all for what your argument(s) seeks to refute. I know that. It might be your problem. You have independent reason to *believe* in the conclusion of comp. You just seems

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Dec 2011, at 17:14, benjayk wrote: meekerdb wrote: And because of that, we can't assume that it only matters that the computations are being done, but it may matter how the computations are done and how they are being interfaced with the environment. One could define computer

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Dec 2011, at 16:35, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 7, 6:02 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 06 Dec 2011, at 20:44, Stephen P. King wrote: but so does ideal monism. Why? The irony is that they fail for the exact same reason, the problem of epiphenomena. I don't

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-07 Thread meekerdb
On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: Tegmark's argument shows only that the brain is essentially classical if we assume decoherence works the same in natural systems as in our artificial experiments. But it seems natural systems have a better ability to remain coherent, when it would be

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Dec 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I am just not arguing at all for what your argument(s) seeks to refute. I know that. It might be your problem. You have independent reason to *believe* in

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-07 Thread meekerdb
On 12/7/2011 8:14 AM, benjayk wrote: Most materialist just say: Well, the natural laws are just there, without any particular reason or meaning behind them, we have to take them for granted. But this is almost as unconvincing as saying A creator God is just there, we have to take him for

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-07 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 07 Dec 2011, at 18:41, benjayk wrote: You smuggled in your own opinion through the backdoor (only my favorite mystery is acceptable). This is only a negative ad hominem insult. Frankly I prefer your enthusiast tone of your earlier posts. Quentin and Brent(*), and myself, have

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-06 Thread benjayk
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2011/12/5 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Dec 2011, at 16:39, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The steps rely on the substitution being perfect, which they will never be. That would contradict the

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-06 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/12/6 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2011/12/5 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Dec 2011, at 16:39, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The steps rely on the substitution being

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-06 Thread Quentin Anciaux
Sorry for the spelling mistakes, please read: That's not the point... if we are turing emulable *then* it exists a *perfect* level of substitution *or* we are not turing emulable. The fact that an imperfect chosen level would work does not change the fact that *if* we are turing emulable *then*

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-06 Thread meekerdb
On 12/6/2011 4:11 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only thing that matter is digitalness... the fact that you run it on your pingpong ball computer doesn't matter. It does matter. If you run computations on pingpong ball computer that interact with the environment This is

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-06 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/12/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/6/2011 4:11 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only thing that matter is digitalness... the fact that you run it on your pingpong ball computer doesn't matter. It does matter. If you run computations on pingpong ball computer that interact

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 06 Dec 2011, at 18:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2011/12/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 12/6/2011 4:11 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only thing that matter is digitalness... the fact that you run it on your pingpong ball computer doesn't matter. It does matter. If you run

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-06 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 05 Dec 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I am just not arguing at all for what your argument(s) seeks to refute. I know that. It might be your problem. You have independent reason to *believe* in the conclusion of comp. You just seems uncomfortable that those

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-06 Thread benjayk
Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2011/12/6 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Quentin Anciaux-2 wrote: 2011/12/5 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Dec 2011, at 16:39, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The steps rely

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/6/2011 1:42 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Dec 2011, at 18:25, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2011/12/6 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net On 12/6/2011 4:11 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The only thing that matter is digitalness... the fact that

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-06 Thread Stephen P. King
On 12/6/2011 2:23 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Dec 2011, at 19:03, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I am just not arguing at all for what your argument(s) seeks to refute. I know that. It might be your problem. You have independent reason to *believe* in the conclusion of comp. You

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-06 Thread meekerdb
On 12/6/2011 11:27 AM, benjayk wrote: Yes it says... Computationalism is the theory that you can be run/simulated on a digital computer. Even if it does (it is not exactly COMP as defined by Bruno, because it doesn't state that we ourselves can be run on a computer, just that our body can

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-05 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 04 Dec 2011, at 16:39, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The steps rely on the substitution being perfect, which they will never be. That would contradict the digital and correct level assumption. No. Correctly functioning means good enough to be working, not perfect. Once the

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-05 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Dec 2011, at 16:39, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The steps rely on the substitution being perfect, which they will never be. That would contradict the digital and correct level assumption. No. Correctly functioning means good enough to be

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-05 Thread Quentin Anciaux
2011/12/5 benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com Bruno Marchal wrote: On 04 Dec 2011, at 16:39, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: The steps rely on the substitution being perfect, which they will never be. That would contradict the digital and correct level

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-04 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: The steps rely on the substitution being perfect, which they will never be. That would contradict the digital and correct level assumption. No. Correctly functioning means good enough to be working, not perfect. Digital means based on discrete values, not only

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-03 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 02 Dec 2011, at 19:08, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Nov 2011, at 18:44, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I only say that I do not have a perspective of being a computer. If you can add and multiply, or if you can play the Conway game of life, then you can

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-02 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 01 Dec 2011, at 20:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 1, 10:39 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Nov 2011, at 18:44, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I only say that I do not have a perspective of being a computer. If you can add and multiply, or if you can play

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-02 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Dec 2, 6:58 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: OK. And comp assumes that we are not more than a computer, concerning our abilities to think, etc. This is what is captured in a quasi operational way by the yes doctor thought experiment. Most people understand that they can

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-02 Thread meekerdb
On 12/2/2011 6:22 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I don't think it's a hypothesis though. The brain IS our only known source of experience. We can change our experience by changing our brain and vice versa. The same cannot be said for anything else in the universe, can it? I can change my experience

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-02 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Nov 2011, at 18:44, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I only say that I do not have a perspective of being a computer. If you can add and multiply, or if you can play the Conway game of life, then you can understand that you are at least a computer.

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-02 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Dec 2, 12:28 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2011 6:22 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I don't think it's a hypothesis though. The brain IS our only known source of experience. We can change our experience by changing our brain and vice versa. The same cannot be said for

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-02 Thread meekerdb
On 12/2/2011 10:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 2, 12:28 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2011 6:22 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I don't think it's a hypothesis though. The brain IS our only known source of experience. We can change our experience by changing our brain and

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-02 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Dec 2, 3:22 pm, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 12/2/2011 10:44 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Dec 2, 12:28 pm, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net  wrote: On 12/2/2011 6:22 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I don't think it's a hypothesis though. The brain IS our only known source of

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
Hello John, I agree with you (almost) completely that we (bio-beings) are computers, except for the diminishing factor we HAVE to include into a computer as a machine of knowable components and capabilities, observed WITHIN our perspectives as of yesterday. We don't need to know the

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-01 Thread benjayk
John Mikes wrote: Don't let yourself drag into a narrower vision just to be able to agree, please. I say openly: I dunno (not Nobel-stuff I admit). I agree wholheartedly! That's why I don't like the reasoning. It is very narrow, and pretends to be a proof (or at least a valid reasoning)

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 29 Nov 2011, at 18:44, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I only say that I do not have a perspective of being a computer. If you can add and multiply, or if you can play the Conway game of life, then you can understand that you are at least a computer. So, then I am computer or

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-01 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 01 Dec 2011, at 13:22, benjayk wrote: John Mikes wrote: Don't let yourself drag into a narrower vision just to be able to agree, please. I say openly: I dunno (not Nobel-stuff I admit). I agree wholheartedly! That's why I don't like the reasoning. It is very narrow, and pretends

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-01 Thread Craig Weinberg
On Dec 1, 10:39 am, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 29 Nov 2011, at 18:44, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: I only say that I do not have a perspective of being a computer. If you can add and multiply, or if you can play the Conway game of life, then you can understand

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-12-01 Thread meekerdb
On 12/1/2011 4:22 AM, benjayk wrote: John Mikes wrote: Don't let yourself drag into a narrower vision just to be able to agree, please. I say openly: I dunno (not Nobel-stuff I admit). I agree wholheartedly! That's why I don't like the reasoning. It is very narrow, and pretends to be a proof

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-11-29 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: I only say that I do not have a perspective of being a computer. If you can add and multiply, or if you can play the Conway game of life, then you can understand that you are at least a computer. So, then I am computer or something more capable than a computer? I

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-11-29 Thread John Mikes
Dear Bruno, I agree with you (almost) completely that we (bio-beings) are computers, except for the *diminishing factor* we HAVE to include into a computer as a machine of knowable components and capabilities, observed WITHIN our perspectives as of yesterday. Your term universal computer may fit

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-11-28 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 27 Nov 2011, at 16:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: since an uploaded digital mind could also be part of a lot of dreamy realities It is a part of a lot of dreamy realities, without any uploading. By definition of the body and of the digital level of substitution, if we

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-11-27 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 25 Nov 2011, at 15:14, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: So uploading is not necessarily superfluous. It is vein if the abstract goal is immortality, but full of sense if the goal consists in seeing the next soccer cup and your brain is too much ill to do it 'naturally'. But as

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-11-25 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 24 Nov 2011, at 23:00, Jason Resch wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:44 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.com wrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/23/2011 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: The simulation

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-11-25 Thread benjayk
Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 2:44 PM, benjayk benjamin.jaku...@googlemail.comwrote: Jason Resch-2 wrote: On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 1:17 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 11/23/2011 4:27 AM, Jason Resch wrote: The simulation argument:

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-11-25 Thread benjayk
Bruno Marchal wrote: So uploading is not necessarily superfluous. It is vein if the abstract goal is immortality, but full of sense if the goal consists in seeing the next soccer cup and your brain is too much ill to do it 'naturally'. But as soon as we upload ourselves, we can't

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-11-24 Thread Bruno Marchal
On 23 Nov 2011, at 17:59, John Mikes wrote: To the posts below: where is this 'immortality' come from at all? in the 'existence' in change it is implied that what comes around goes around, the rest is our imagination afraid of dying. Our (living???) complexity changes int other

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-11-23 Thread Jason Resch
, that cosmology and consciousness, do not, by necessity, dovetail (UDA?). Thanks for your patience, everyone. Mitch -Original Message- From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, Nov 15, 2011 9:21 am Subject: Re: The consciousness

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-11-23 Thread Spudboy100
Thanks Jason, Yes, I am not sure if QTI is really Immortality, as in post-mortality, if memory, and personality, are destroyed? To a hammer, the entire world looks like a nail; as the Japanese expression goes, so I personally wonder, if the old 'move' function of data processing, can somehow

Re: The consciousness singularity

2011-11-23 Thread John Mikes
To the posts below: where is this 'immortality' come from at all? in the 'existence' in change it is implied that what comes around goes around, the rest is our imagination afraid of dying. Our (living???) complexity changes int other constructs. Nothing dies, just transforms. Relations change.

  1   2   >