Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO the burden to show that computers are alive and have intelligence lies on the scientists. I see no evidence of life or real intelligence in computers. Roger, What is the difference between something that is alive and something that is not? Afterall, everything in this world is quarks and electrons. Computers, rocks, life, they are all made of the same stuff: quarks and electrons. I don't know what you believe; you haven't answered my questions to you. But I believe what separates a living thing from an unliving thing, or a thinking thing from a non thinking thing lies in the organziation of those things. Do you believe that a collection of hydrogen atoms, properly combined and put together in the right way could create roger clough? If not please explain why not. Without a dialog we cannot progress in understanding eachother's views. Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 20:39:55 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non- reality? Intangible mathematical essences? The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? Craig Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the webvisit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gsHN6DCowPUJ . 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 . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Jason Resch IMHO life is essentially intelligence (mind), where intelligence is the ability to make one's own choices, not from software or hardware or anything in nature. I hypothesize that life is undefinable because to define it would limit its choices. Some limitation of course would be permissible, so this is an imperfect hypothesis. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-05, 10:35:45 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO the burden to show that computers are alive and have intelligence lies on the scientists. I see no evidence of life or real intelligence in computers. Roger, What is the difference between something that is alive and something that is not? Afterall, everything in this world is quarks and electrons. Computers, rocks, life, they are all made of the same stuff: quarks and electrons. I don't know what you believe; you haven't answered my questions to you. But I believe what separates a living thing from an unliving thing, or a thinking thing from a non thinking thing lies in the organziation of those things. Do you believe that a collection of hydrogen atoms, properly combined and put together in the right way could create roger clough? If not please explain why not. Without a dialog we cannot progress in understanding eachother's views. Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 20:39:55 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non-reality? Intangible mathematical essences? The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? Craig Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gsHN6DCowPUJ. 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. -- 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Sep 8, 2012, at 7:09 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch IMHO life is essentially intelligence (mind), where intelligence is the ability to make one's own choices, not from software or hardware or anything in nature. Then from where do you suppose the choices come from? Even if they come from souls on some ethereal plane do those souls not follow some pattern or rules? If not, then they are random then they are not choices at all. If they do, then in theory there is some description of them. Jason I hypothesize that life is undefinable because to define it would limit its choices. Some limitation of course would be permissible, so this is an imperfect hypothesis. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/8/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-05, 10:35:45 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:00 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO the burden to show that computers are alive and have intelligence lies on the scientists. I see no evidence of life or real intelligence in computers. Roger, What is the difference between something that is alive and something that is not? Afterall, everything in this world is quarks and electrons. Computers, rocks, life, they are all made of the same stuff: quarks and electrons. I don't know what you believe; you haven't answered my questions to you. But I believe what separates a living thing from an unliving thing, or a thinking thing from a non thinking thing lies in the organziation of those things. Do you believe that a collection of hydrogen atoms, properly combined and put together in the right way could create roger clough? If not please explain why not. Without a dialog we cannot progress in understanding eachother's views. Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 20:39:55 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and whatwe are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non- reality? Intangible mathematical essences? The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? Craig Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gsHN6DCowPUJ . To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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- l...@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 . -- 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
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Stephen P. King I think of the brain as a running sensor of the static platonic world. Sort of like looking out of the car window as you speed along. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/7/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-06, 20:25:27 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On 9/6/2012 7:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:37:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/5/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38:07 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King No, the stuff in our skulls is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p. Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference. Hi Roger, ??? Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. ??? Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! I think you are both right. Computers qua computers don't feel anything because they aren't anything. The physical material that you are using to execute computations on does however have experiences - just not experiences that we associated with our own. There is a concrete experience associated with the production of these pixels on your screen - many experiences on many levels, of molecules that make up the wires etc., but those experiences don't seem to lead to anything we would consider significant. It's pretty straightforward to me. A stuffed animal that looks like a bear is not a bear. A picture of a person is not a person, even if it is a fancy interactive picture. Craig -- Hi Craig, I think that the difference that makes a difference here is the identity that emerges between matching of the experience *of* object and experience *by* object. Ranulph Glanville has, with others in the Cybernetics community, written masterfully on this in his Same is Different paper. Hi Stephen, How does the of/by distinction compare with map-territory and use-mention distinctions? Craig Hi Craig, Consider the difference/similarity of self-observation and other-observation. I will try to post more on this soon. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 9/7/2012 8:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I think of the brain as a running sensor of the static platonic world. Sort of like looking out of the car window as you speed along. Hi Roger, How would this be different, from the point of view of the driver, if it is the Car that is standing still and Platoville is being continuously created around it? There is no detectable difference *unless* there are second order changes. An example of the latter is the feeling you have when you press the gas pedal hard and release the break pedal, Or release the gas pedal and press the break pedal hard. Platonia (or COsmic Intelligence) does not consider any kind of change within it, not even zeroth order, thus cannot be considered as an irreducible source of all things. It is a nice metaphor that simply should never be taken literally unless doing so will never emit or imply a contradiction. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 05 Sep 2012, at 18:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Perhaps wrongly, I think of the world of monads as the virtual world. Virtual means simulated by a computer, in computer science. It has another meaning in physics, which I have never make complete sense of, as it is unclear if the sense in classical physics and quantum physics can be said equivalent. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-05, 11:42:39 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:45, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal world. Hmm.. You simplify too much. Virtual means simulated or emulated by a universal machine, and this is a 3p notion. The 1p is the phenomenal reality, and as such typically not emulable, as being statistically distributed on the whole universal dovetailling. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 21:44:02 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: 牋 The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non- reality? Intangible mathematical essences? You may be misinterpreting what I mean. The reality is created in the sense of the experience of reality. Each person on earth in some sense has their own conception of the world (reality) even though there is only one real planet. I don't mean to suggest that the brain exists disembodied. The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. When we dream, we have experiences and qualia without the represented thing have any existence outside the mind. Blind people can dream in color (if they had sight at some point in their lives). Where does the color of red come from in a blind person's dream? Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. We will make these machines and transfer our minds on to them for the same reason we transfer our photographs off the digital camera that took them. What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? We won't transfer our minds to cuckoo clocks (maybe you will to prove me wrong ;-) ) but to machines that are more resilient, efficient, faster, and more reliable. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@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- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . 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
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 9/6/2012 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 18:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Perhaps wrongly, I think of the world of monads as the virtual world. Virtual means simulated by a computer, in computer science. It has another meaning in physics, which I have never make complete sense of, as it is unclear if the sense in classical physics and quantum physics can be said equivalent. Bruno Dear Bruno, This might explain your attitude toward QM. The virtual concept in QM is a way of representing the off mass shell quantities that do not exist at all in classical physics. There are many measured effects what depend on the reality of the virtual aspect to be explained quantitatively. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_shift and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constantcompetely depend on this virtual effect. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 9/6/2012 4:11 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/6/2012 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 18:15, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal Perhaps wrongly, I think of the world of monads as the virtual world. Virtual means simulated by a computer, in computer science. It has another meaning in physics, which I have never make complete sense of, as it is unclear if the sense in classical physics and quantum physics can be said equivalent. Bruno Dear Bruno, This might explain your attitude toward QM. The virtual concept in QM is a way of representing the off mass shell quantities that do not exist at all in classical physics. There are many measured effects what depend on the reality of the virtual aspect to be explained quantitatively. For example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamb_shift and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constant http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine_structure_constantcompetely depend on this virtual effect. -- I was wondering what classical physics use of 'virtual' Bruno referred to. The only one I can think of is 'virtual image' in optics. 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:37:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/5/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38:07 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King No, the stuff in our skulls is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p. Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference. Hi Roger, 锟斤拷� Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. 锟斤拷� Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! I think you are both right. Computers qua computers don't feel anything because they aren't anything. The physical material that you are using to execute computations on does however have experiences - just not experiences that we associated with our own. There is a concrete experience associated with the production of these pixels on your screen - many experiences on many levels, of molecules that make up the wires etc., but those experiences don't seem to lead to anything we would consider significant. It's pretty straightforward to me. A stuffed animal that looks like a bear is not a bear. A picture of a person is not a person, even if it is a fancy interactive picture. Craig -- Hi Craig, I think that the difference that makes a difference here is the identity that emerges between matching of the experience *of* object and experience *by* object. Ranulph Glanville has, with others in the Cybernetics community, written masterfully on this in his Same is Different paper. Hi Stephen, How does the of/by distinction compare with map-territory and use-mention distinctions? Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/LAHBiforecoJ. 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 9/6/2012 7:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012 7:37:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 9/5/2012 11:50 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38:07 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King No, the stuff in our skulls is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p. Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference. Hi Roger, 锟斤拷� Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. 锟斤拷� Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! I think you are both right. Computers qua computers don't feel anything because they aren't anything. The physical material that you are using to execute computations on does however have experiences - just not experiences that we associated with our own. There is a concrete experience associated with the production of these pixels on your screen - many experiences on many levels, of molecules that make up the wires etc., but those experiences don't seem to lead to anything we would consider significant. It's pretty straightforward to me. A stuffed animal that looks like a bear is not a bear. A picture of a person is not a person, even if it is a fancy interactive picture. Craig -- Hi Craig, I think that the difference that makes a difference here is the identity that emerges between matching of the experience *of* object and experience *by* object. Ranulph Glanville has, with others in the Cybernetics community, written masterfully on this in his Same is Different paper. Hi Stephen, How does the of/by distinction compare with map-territory and use-mention distinctions? Craig Hi Craig, Consider the difference/similarity of self-observation and other-observation. I will try to post more on this soon. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 9/5/2012 12:44 AM, Jason Resch wrote: The brain can process data as it is listening (like buffering a video download) and likely predict the final word before it is done being uttered. To prove the brain somehow overcomes this half second delay in a convincing way, you would need to engineer an experiment where a number flashes on a screen and a person has to push the right button in under half a second. If you need two brains involved, then put a screen between them with a computer screen and number pad facing each one. Each time one person enters the right number, a new number appears on the other person's screen. And it goes back and forth which each person pressing the button as quickly as they can after the new number appears. If this experiment shows the interaction can take place faster than the video processing of the visual centers in the brain then this would become a problem worth trying to solve. I'm not convinced there is any problem here that can't be explained using classical means. Jason Hi Jason, I am saying that what we actually observe in experiments as the 1/2 sec delay is the window where things are simultaneous. From the inside there is no delay. That is what needs to be explained, no? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Stephen P. King No, the stuff in our skulls is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p. Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stephen P. King Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 12:07:19 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch ? IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, but? think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and transistors. ? ? Hi Roger, ?? Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. ?? Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Jason Resch There's no ontological difference between a computer and an abacus. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 11:49:55 Subject: Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer Here is the link I mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdg4mU-wuhI On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch ? IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, but? think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, I have given my argument for why computers can be intelligent, aware, etc.? What is your argument that they cannot? ? there's nothing magic about it. So your argument is that they have no magic, but we do?? Why do you believe (only?) we have this magic? ? It's just a complex bunch of diodes and transistors. And life is just a complex bunch of chemicals and solutions. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Jason Resch Sorry. What needs explanation ? Or is that even the right question ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 16:06:02 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch ? IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, but? think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and transistors. ? ? Hi Roger, ?? Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. ?? Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I agree with what you say above. ? I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. What leads you to suspect this? ?? The weird delay effect that Libet et al observed as discussed here. If I understand your point correctly, the phenomenon that needs explanation is the apparent simultaneity of various sensations which tests have indicated take varying amounts of time to process.? Is this right? If so, I don't see how instantaneous communication can solve this problem.? If it takes 100 ms to process auditory sensations, and 200 ms to process visual sensations, then even with some form of instant communication, or synchronization, one element still has to wait for the processing to complete. There are lots of things our brain conveniently covers up.? We have a fairly large blind spot near the middle of our vision, but our brain masks that.? Our blinks periodically pull a dark shroud over our world, but they go unnoticed.? Our eyes and orientation of our heads are constantly changed, but it doesn't feel to us like the world is spinning when we turn our heads.? Our eyes can only focus on a small (perhaps 3 degree) area, but it doesn't feel as though we are peering through a straw.? So I do not find it very surprising that the brain might apply yet another trick on us, making us think different sense data was finished processing at the same time when it was not. Quantum entanglement allows for a variable window of duration via the EPR effect. If we look at a QM system, there is no delay in changes of the state of the system. All of the parts of it operate simultaneously, not matter how far apart them might be when we think of them as distributed in space time. This is the spooky action at a distance that has upset the classical scientists for so long. It has even been shown that one can derive the appearance of classical type signaling from the quantum pseudo-telepathy effect. I don't quite follow how EPR helps in this case.? EPR doesn't communicate any information, and there is no need for FTL spooky action at a distance unless one assumes there can only be a single outcome for a measurement (CI).? Even if FTL is involved in creating an illusion of simultaneity, couldn't light speed be fast enough, or even 200 feet per second of nerve impulses? If one runs an emulation of a mind, it doesn't matter if it takes 500 years to finish the computation, or 500 nanoseconds.? The perceived first person experience of the mind will not differ.? So the difference between delays in processing time and resulting perceptions may be a red herring in the search for theories of the brain's operation. ? ? Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! I agree. Jason -- ?? The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. ? Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. Jason -- 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
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO the burden to show that computers are alive and have intelligence lies on the scientists. I see no evidence of life or real intelligence in computers. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 20:39:55 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non-reality? Intangible mathematical essences? The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? Craig Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gsHN6DCowPUJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Jason Resch What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal world. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 21:44:02 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: ?? The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non-reality? Intangible mathematical essences? You may be misinterpreting what I mean.? The reality is created in the sense of the experience of reality.? Each person on earth in some sense has their own conception of the world (reality) even though there is only one real planet.? I don't mean to suggest that the brain exists disembodied. ? The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. When we dream, we have experiences and qualia without the represented thing have any existence outside the mind.? Blind people can dream in color (if they had sight at some point in their lives).? Where does the color of red come from in a blind person's dream? ? Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? ? ? Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. We will make these machines and transfer our minds on to them for the same reason we transfer our photographs off the digital camera that took them. ? What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? We won't transfer our minds to cuckoo clocks (maybe you will to prove me wrong ;-) ) but to machines that are more resilient, efficient, faster, and more reliable. Jason -- 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal world. Where did I use the term virtual world? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 21:44:02 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: 牋� The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that in cludes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non- reality? Intangible mathematical essences? You may be misinterpreting what I mean.� The reality is created in t he sense of the experience of reality.� Each person on earth in some sense has their own conception of the world (reality) even though t here is only one real planet.� I don't mean to suggest that the brai n exists disembodied. � The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. When we dream, we have experiences and qualia without the represented thing have any existence outside the mind.� Blind people can dream in color (if they had sight at some point in their lives) .� Where does the color of red come from in a blind person's dream? � Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? � � Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. We will make these machines and transfer our minds on to them for the same reason we transfer our photographs off the digital camera that took them. � What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? We won't transfer our minds to cuckoo clocks (maybe you will to prove me wrong ;-) ) but to machines that are more resilient, efficient, faster, and more reliable. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email toeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group athttp://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 . -- 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:45, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal world. Hmm.. You simplify too much. Virtual means simulated or emulated by a universal machine, and this is a 3p notion. The 1p is the phenomenal reality, and as such typically not emulable, as being statistically distributed on the whole universal dovetailling. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 21:44:02 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: 牋� The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non- reality? Intangible mathematical essences? You may be misinterpreting what I mean.� The reality is created in the sense of the experience of reality.� Each person on earth in some sense has their own conception of the world (reality) even though there is only one real planet.� I don't mean to suggest that the brain exists disembodied. � The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. When we dream, we have experiences and qualia without the represented thing have any existence outside the mind.� Blind people can dream in color (if they had sight at some point in their lives).� Where does the color of red come from in a blind person's dream? � Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? � � Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. We will make these machines and transfer our minds on to them for the same reason we transfer our photographs off the digital camera that took them. � What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? We won't transfer our minds to cuckoo clocks (maybe you will to prove me wrong ;-) ) but to machines that are more resilient, efficient, faster, and more reliable. Jason -- 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 . 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: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38:07 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King No, the stuff in our skulls is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p. Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference. Hi Roger, 锟斤拷� Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. 锟斤拷� Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! I think you are both right. Computers qua computers don't feel anything because they aren't anything. The physical material that you are using to execute computations on does however have experiences - just not experiences that we associated with our own. There is a concrete experience associated with the production of these pixels on your screen - many experiences on many levels, of molecules that make up the wires etc., but those experiences don't seem to lead to anything we would consider significant. It's pretty straightforward to me. A stuffed animal that looks like a bear is not a bear. A picture of a person is not a person, even if it is a fancy interactive picture. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/jQeAlMze5jAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Bruno Marchal Perhaps wrongly, I think of the world of monads as the virtual world. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-05, 11:42:39 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On 05 Sep 2012, at 14:45, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal world. Hmm.. You simplify too much. Virtual means simulated or emulated by a universal machine, and this is a 3p notion. The 1p is the phenomenal reality, and as such typically not emulable, as being statistically distributed on the whole universal dovetailling. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 21:44:02 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: ? The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non-reality? Intangible mathematical essences? You may be misinterpreting what I mean. The reality is created in the sense of the experience of reality. Each person on earth in some sense has their own conception of the world (reality) even though there is only one real planet. I don't mean to suggest that the brain exists disembodied. The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. When we dream, we have experiences and qualia without the represented thing have any existence outside the mind. Blind people can dream in color (if they had sight at some point in their lives). Where does the color of red come from in a blind person's dream? Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. We will make these machines and transfer our minds on to them for the same reason we transfer our photographs off the digital camera that took them. What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? We won't transfer our minds to cuckoo clocks (maybe you will to prove me wrong ;-) ) but to machines that are more resilient, efficient, faster, and more reliable. Jason -- 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. 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: Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Craig Weinberg Leibniz's universe is completely alive, as was Whitehead's. Whitehead in particular spoke of events (as I recall) as occasions of experience. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-05, 11:50:33 Subject: Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 6:38:07 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King No, the stuff in our skulls is alive, has intelligence, and a 1p. Computers don't and can't. Big sdifference. Hi Roger, ??? Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. ??? Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! I think you are both right. Computers qua computers don't feel anything because they aren't anything. The physical material that you are using to execute computations on does however have experiences - just not experiences that we associated with our own. There is a concrete experience associated with the production of these pixels on your screen - many experiences on many levels, of molecules that make up the wires etc., but those experiences don't seem to lead to anything we would consider significant. It's pretty straightforward to me. A stuffed animal that looks like a bear is not a bear. A picture of a person is not a person, even if it is a fancy interactive picture. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/jQeAlMze5jAJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Jason Resch virtual reality model Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-05, 10:27:22 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:45 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch What you call a virtual world, Kant and Leibniz call the phenomenal world. Where did I use the term virtual world? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/5/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 21:44:02 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: ? The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non-reality? Intangible mathematical essences? You may be misinterpreting what I mean. The reality is created in the sense of the experience of reality. Each person on earth in some sense has their own conception of the world (reality) even though there is only one real planet. I don't mean to suggest that the brain exists disembodied. The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. When we dream, we have experiences and qualia without the represented thing have any existence outside the mind. Blind people can dream in color (if they had sight at some point in their lives). Where does the color of red come from in a blind person's dream? Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. We will make these machines and transfer our minds on to them for the same reason we transfer our photographs off the digital camera that took them. What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? We won't transfer our minds to cuckoo clocks (maybe you will to prove me wrong ;-) ) but to machines that are more resilient, efficient, faster, and more reliable. Jason -- 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. -- 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 9/5/2012 1:40 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg Leibniz's universe is completely alive, as was Whitehead's. Whitehead in particular spoke of events (as I recall) as occasions of experience. Hi Roger, A.N.Whitehead's idea is similar to a version of Craig's sense idea made in a discrete or piece-wise sense. In Craig's model, if I understand it correctly, sense flows continuously. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
At this moment this is true. Another thing is if the computer could become intelligent enough. It is not easy to admit that the belief in the possibility of making something intelligent exist well before computers. Since the industrial revolution, some people believed in the possibility of making intelligent automatas only with steam, weels and wires. This seems naive if not stupid not, but the theorical possibility still holds. I wonder how far the theory is from reality in the case of computers. Up to now, even the most pessimistic previsions have been ridicule. The gap between computer and a bacteria is inmense, galactic. This is inherent to the limitations of any rational design in comparison with the abundance and almost omniscence of natural selection (That I explained somewhere else). Moreover, a natural design is almost impossible to reverse engineer to the last detail since it don´t attain to the rules of god design, because they are rules of limited design (explained somewhere else). 2012/9/3 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the largest in the world. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-03, 10:12:46 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does not mean that the emulation can substitute the original. But here you do a confusion level as I think Jason tries pointing on. A similar one to the one made by Searle in the Chinese Room. As emulator (computing machine) Robinson Arithmetic can simulate exactly Peano Arithmetic, even as a prover. So for example Robinson arithmetic can prove that Peano arithmetic proves the consistency of Robinson Arithmetic. But you cannot conclude from that that Robinson Arithmetic can prove its own consistency. That would contradict G鰀el II. When PA uses the induction axiom, RA might just say huh, and apply it for the sake of the emulation without any inner conviction. I agree, so I don't see how I confused the levels. It seems to me you have just stated that Robinson indeed can not substitue Peano Arithmetic, because RAs emulation of PA makes only sense with respect to PA (in cases were PA does a proof that RA can't do). Right. It makes only first person sense to PA. But then RA has succeeded in making PA alive, and PA could a posteriori realize that the RA level was enough. Sorry, but it can't. It can't even abstract itself out to see that the RA level would be enough. I see you doing this all the time; you take some low level that can be made sense of by something transcendent of it and then claim that the low level is enough. This is precisely the calim that I don't understand at all. You say that we only need natural numbers and + and *, and that the rest emerges from that as the 1-p viewpoint of the numbers. Unfortunately the 1-p viewpoint itself can't be found in the numbers, it can only be found in what transcends the numbers, or what the numbers really are / refer to (which also completely beyond our conception of numbers). That's the problem with G鰀el as well. His unprovable statement about numbers is really a meta-statement about what numbers express that doesn't even make sense if we only consider the definition of numbers. He really just shows that we can reason about numbers and with numbers in ways that can't be captured by numbers (but in this case what we do with them has little to do with the numbers themselves). I agree that computations reflect many things about us (infinitely many things, even), but we still transcend them infinitely. Strangely you agree for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live, I don't see how it makes sense to than proceed that there is a meaningful 3-p point of view where this isn't true. This point of view is really just an abstraction occuring in the 1-p of view. Bruno Marchal wrote: Like I converse with Einstein's brain's book (� la Hofstatdter), just by manipulating the page of the book. I don't become Einstein through my making of that process, but I can have a genuine conversation with Einstein through it. He will know that he has survived, or that he survives through that process. On some level, I agree. But not far from the
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
I mean good design not god design 2012/9/4 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com: At this moment this is true. Another thing is if the computer could become intelligent enough. It is not easy to admit that the belief in the possibility of making something intelligent exist well before computers. Since the industrial revolution, some people believed in the possibility of making intelligent automatas only with steam, weels and wires. This seems naive if not stupid not, but the theorical possibility still holds. I wonder how far the theory is from reality in the case of computers. Up to now, even the most pessimistic previsions have been ridicule. The gap between computer and a bacteria is inmense, galactic. This is inherent to the limitations of any rational design in comparison with the abundance and almost omniscence of natural selection (That I explained somewhere else). Moreover, a natural design is almost impossible to reverse engineer to the last detail since it don´t attain to the rules of god design, because they are rules of limited design (explained somewhere else). 2012/9/3 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the largest in the world. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-03, 10:12:46 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does not mean that the emulation can substitute the original. But here you do a confusion level as I think Jason tries pointing on. A similar one to the one made by Searle in the Chinese Room. As emulator (computing machine) Robinson Arithmetic can simulate exactly Peano Arithmetic, even as a prover. So for example Robinson arithmetic can prove that Peano arithmetic proves the consistency of Robinson Arithmetic. But you cannot conclude from that that Robinson Arithmetic can prove its own consistency. That would contradict G鰀el II. When PA uses the induction axiom, RA might just say huh, and apply it for the sake of the emulation without any inner conviction. I agree, so I don't see how I confused the levels. It seems to me you have just stated that Robinson indeed can not substitue Peano Arithmetic, because RAs emulation of PA makes only sense with respect to PA (in cases were PA does a proof that RA can't do). Right. It makes only first person sense to PA. But then RA has succeeded in making PA alive, and PA could a posteriori realize that the RA level was enough. Sorry, but it can't. It can't even abstract itself out to see that the RA level would be enough. I see you doing this all the time; you take some low level that can be made sense of by something transcendent of it and then claim that the low level is enough. This is precisely the calim that I don't understand at all. You say that we only need natural numbers and + and *, and that the rest emerges from that as the 1-p viewpoint of the numbers. Unfortunately the 1-p viewpoint itself can't be found in the numbers, it can only be found in what transcends the numbers, or what the numbers really are / refer to (which also completely beyond our conception of numbers). That's the problem with G鰀el as well. His unprovable statement about numbers is really a meta-statement about what numbers express that doesn't even make sense if we only consider the definition of numbers. He really just shows that we can reason about numbers and with numbers in ways that can't be captured by numbers (but in this case what we do with them has little to do with the numbers themselves). I agree that computations reflect many things about us (infinitely many things, even), but we still transcend them infinitely. Strangely you agree for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live, I don't see how it makes sense to than proceed that there is a meaningful 3-p point of view where this isn't true. This point of view is really just an abstraction occuring in the 1-p of view. Bruno Marchal wrote: Like I converse with Einstein's brain's book (� la Hofstatdter), just by manipulating the page of the book. I don't become Einstein through my making of that process, but I can have a genuine conversation with Einstein through it. He will know that he has
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Alberto G. Corona IMHO you can't have intelligence without a 1p perceiver. Only life can do that. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-04, 06:57:09 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer At this moment this is true. Another thing is if the computer could become intelligent enough. It is not easy to admit that the belief in the possibility of making something intelligent exist well before computers. Since the industrial revolution, some people believed in the possibility of making intelligent automatas only with steam, weels and wires. This seems naive if not stupid not, but the theorical possibility still holds. I wonder how far the theory is from reality in the case of computers. Up to now, even the most pessimistic previsions have been ridicule. The gap between computer and a bacteria is inmense, galactic. This is inherent to the limitations of any rational design in comparison with the abundance and almost omniscence of natural selection (That I explained somewhere else). Moreover, a natural design is almost impossible to reverse engineer to the last detail since it don't attain to the rules of god design, because they are rules of limited design (explained somewhere else). 2012/9/3 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the largest in the world. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-03, 10:12:46 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does not mean that the emulation can substitute the original. But here you do a confusion level as I think Jason tries pointing on. A similar one to the one made by Searle in the Chinese Room. As emulator (computing machine) Robinson Arithmetic can simulate exactly Peano Arithmetic, even as a prover. So for example Robinson arithmetic can prove that Peano arithmetic proves the consistency of Robinson Arithmetic. But you cannot conclude from that that Robinson Arithmetic can prove its own consistency. That would contradict G?el II. When PA uses the induction axiom, RA might just say huh, and apply it for the sake of the emulation without any inner conviction. I agree, so I don't see how I confused the levels. It seems to me you have just stated that Robinson indeed can not substitue Peano Arithmetic, because RAs emulation of PA makes only sense with respect to PA (in cases were PA does a proof that RA can't do). Right. It makes only first person sense to PA. But then RA has succeeded in making PA alive, and PA could a posteriori realize that the RA level was enough. Sorry, but it can't. It can't even abstract itself out to see that the RA level would be enough. I see you doing this all the time; you take some low level that can be made sense of by something transcendent of it and then claim that the low level is enough. This is precisely the calim that I don't understand at all. You say that we only need natural numbers and + and *, and that the rest emerges from that as the 1-p viewpoint of the numbers. Unfortunately the 1-p viewpoint itself can't be found in the numbers, it can only be found in what transcends the numbers, or what the numbers really are / refer to (which also completely beyond our conception of numbers). That's the problem with G?el as well. His unprovable statement about numbers is really a meta-statement about what numbers express that doesn't even make sense if we only consider the definition of numbers. He really just shows that we can reason about numbers and with numbers in ways that can't be captured by numbers (but in this case what we do with them has little to do with the numbers themselves). I agree that computations reflect many things about us (infinitely many things, even), but we still transcend them infinitely. Strangely you agree for the 1-p viewpoint. But given that's what you *actually* live, I don't see how it makes sense to than proceed that there is a meaningful 3-p point of view where this isn't true. This point of view is really
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Sep 4, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch Where is the aware subject in the computer ? Where is the aware subject in you? What color eyes does he have ? A blind and deaf person still has a subject, no? Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-03, 12:22:47 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk � Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, 爏ince intelligence requ ires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the largest in the world. � � Your proof is missing a step: showing why computers cannot have an aware subject Another problem is that your assumption that the ability to choose requires consciousness means that deep blue (which chooses optimum chess moves), and Watson (who chose categories and wagers in燡eopardy ) are conscious. 營 don't dispute that they may be燾onscious, but if they are that contradicts the objective of your proof. 營f you sti ll maintain that they are not conscious, despite their ability to ch oose, then there must be some error in your argument. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email toeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group athttp://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 . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Jason Resch Good point, but I was thinking of a perceiving/feeling subject. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-04, 10:44:18 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Sep 4, 2012, at 6:55 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch Where is the aware subject in the computer ? Where is the aware subject in you? What color eyes does he have ? A blind and deaf person still has a subject, no? Jason Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-03, 12:22:47 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, ?ince intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the largest in the world. Your proof is missing a step: showing why computers cannot have an aware subject Another problem is that your assumption that the ability to choose requires consciousness means that deep blue (which chooses optimum chess moves), and Watson (who chose categories and wagers in?eopardy) are conscious. ? don't dispute that they may be?onscious, but if they are that contradicts the objective of your proof. ?f you still maintain that they are not conscious, despite their ability to choose, then there must be some error in your argument. Jason -- 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. -- 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:57 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: At this moment this is true. Another thing is if the computer could become intelligent enough. It is not easy to admit that the belief in the possibility of making something intelligent exist well before computers. Since the industrial revolution, some people believed in the possibility of making intelligent automatas only with steam, weels and wires. This seems naive if not stupid not, but the theorical possibility still holds. I wonder how far the theory is from reality in the case of computers. Up to now, even the most pessimistic previsions have been ridicule. The gap between computer and a bacteria is inmense, galactic. This is inherent to the limitations of any rational design in comparison with the abundance and almost omniscence of natural selection (That I explained somewhere else). Moreover, a natural design is almost impossible to reverse engineer to the last detail since it don´t attain to the rules of god design, because they are rules of limited design (explained somewhere else). You can look at us and our technology as natural selections way to get over hurdles it otherwise could not to create the next stage of life. Evolutionary processes become stuck at local maxima, and relies on minute changes to what currently exists. Compared to electronics, neurons are a million times slower, but we aren't likely to evolve carbon nanotube brains any time soon. Evolution may be using us to usher in the age of life that is vastly more intelligent and capable of leaving this planet. Search for the ted talk by danny hillis. He explains these ideas better than I. Jason 2012/9/3 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the largest in the world. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-03, 10:12:46 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does not mean that the emulation can substitute the original. But here you do a confusion level as I think Jason tries pointing on. A similar one to the one made by Searle in the Chinese Room. As emulator (computing machine) Robinson Arithmetic can simulate exactly Peano Arithmetic, even as a prover. So for example Robinson arithmetic can prove that Peano arithmetic proves the consistency of Robinson Arithmetic. But you cannot conclude from that that Robinson Arithmetic can prove its own consistency. That would contradict G鰀el II. When PA uses the induction axiom, RA might just say huh, and apply it for the sake of the emulation without any inner conviction. I agree, so I don't see how I confused the levels. It seems to me you have just stated that Robinson indeed can not substitue Peano Arithmetic, because RAs emulation of PA makes only sense with respect to PA (in cases were PA does a proof that RA can't do). Right. It makes only first person sense to PA. But then RA has succeeded in making PA alive, and PA could a posteriori realize that the RA level was enough. Sorry, but it can't. It can't even abstract itself out to see that the RA level would be enough. I see you doing this all the time; you take some low level that can be made sense of by something transcendent of it and then claim that the low level is enough. This is precisely the calim that I don't understand at all. You say that we only need natural numbers and + and *, and that the rest emerges from that as the 1-p viewpoint of the numbers. Unfortunately the 1-p viewpoint itself can't be found in the numbers, it can only be found in what transcends the numbers, or what the numbers really are / refer to (which also completely beyond our conception of numbers). That's the problem with G鰀el as well. His unprovable statement ab out numbers is really a meta-statement about what numbers express that doesn't even make sense if we only consider the definition of numbers. He really just shows that we can reason about numbers and with numbers in ways that can't be captured by numbers (but in this case what we do with them has little to do with the numbers themselves). I agree that computations reflect many things about us (infinitely many things, even), but we
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Hi Jason Resch IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and transistors. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/4/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Jason Resch Receiver: everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-09-04, 10:53:11 Subject: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer On Sep 4, 2012, at 5:57 AM, Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com wrote: At this moment this is true. Another thing is if the computer could become intelligent enough. It is not easy to admit that the belief in the possibility of making something intelligent exist well before computers. Since the industrial revolution, some people believed in the possibility of making intelligent automatas only with steam, weels and wires. This seems naive if not stupid not, but the theorical possibility still holds. I wonder how far the theory is from reality in the case of computers. Up to now, even the most pessimistic previsions have been ridicule. The gap between computer and a bacteria is inmense, galactic. This is inherent to the limitations of any rational design in comparison with the abundance and almost omniscence of natural selection (That I explained somewhere else). Moreover, a natural design is almost impossible to reverse engineer to the last detail since it don't attain to the rules of god design, because they are rules of limited design (explained somewhere else). You can look at us and our technology as natural selections way to get over hurdles it otherwise could not to create the next stage of life. Evolutionary processes become stuck at local maxima, and relies on minute changes to what currently exists. Compared to electronics, neurons are a million times slower, but we aren't likely to evolve carbon nanotube brains any time soon. Evolution may be using us to usher in the age of life that is vastly more intelligent and capable of leaving this planet. Search for the ted talk by danny hillis. He explains these ideas better than I. Jason 2012/9/3 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the largest in the world. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/3/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: benjayk Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-03, 10:12:46 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 15:12, benjayk wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: On 24 Aug 2012, at 12:04, benjayk wrote: But this avoides my point that we can't imagine that levels, context and ambiguity don't exist, and this is why computational emulation does not mean that the emulation can substitute the original. But here you do a confusion level as I think Jason tries pointing on. A similar one to the one made by Searle in the Chinese Room. As emulator (computing machine) Robinson Arithmetic can simulate exactly Peano Arithmetic, even as a prover. So for example Robinson arithmetic can prove that Peano arithmetic proves the consistency of Robinson Arithmetic. But you cannot conclude from that that Robinson Arithmetic can prove its own consistency. That would contradict G?el II. When PA uses the induction axiom, RA might just say huh, and apply it for the sake of the emulation without any inner conviction. I agree, so I don't see how I confused the levels. It seems to me you have just stated that Robinson indeed can not substitue Peano Arithmetic, because RAs emulation of PA makes only sense with respect to PA (in cases were PA does a proof that RA can't do). Right. It makes only first person sense to PA. But then RA has succeeded in making PA alive, and PA could a posteriori realize that the RA level was enough. Sorry, but it can't. It can't even abstract itself out to see that the RA level would be enough. I see you doing this all the time; you take some low level that can be made sense of by something transcendent of it and then claim that the low level is enough. This is precisely the calim that I don't understand at all. You say that we only need natural numbers and + and *, and that the rest emerges from that as the 1-p viewpoint of the numbers. Unfortunately the 1-p viewpoint itself can't be found in the numbers, it can only
Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
Here is the link I mentioned: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdg4mU-wuhI On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 10:17 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Jason Resch IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, I have given my argument for why computers can be intelligent, aware, etc. What is your argument that they cannot? there's nothing magic about it. So your argument is that they have no magic, but we do? Why do you believe (only?) we have this magic? It's just a complex bunch of diodes and transistors. And life is just a complex bunch of chemicals and solutions. Jason -- 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and transistors. Hi Roger, Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and transistors. Hi Roger, Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I agree with what you say above. I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. What leads you to suspect this? Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! I agree. Jason -- 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and transistors. Hi Roger, Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I agree with what you say above. I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. What leads you to suspect this? The weird delay effect that Libet et al observed as discussed here http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_chapter%20on%20libet.html. Quantum entanglement allows for a variable window of duration via the EPR effect. If we look at a QM system, there is no delay in changes of the state of the system. All of the parts of it operate simultaneously, not matter how far apart them might be when we think of them as distributed in space time. This is the spooky action at a distance that has upset the classical scientists for so long. It has even been shown that one can derive the appearance of classical type signaling from the quantum pseudo-telepathy effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy. Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! I agree. Jason -- The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and transistors. Hi Roger, Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I agree with what you say above. I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. What leads you to suspect this? The weird delay effect that Libet et al observed as discussed herehttp://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_chapter%20on%20libet.html. If I understand your point correctly, the phenomenon that needs explanation is the apparent simultaneity of various sensations which tests have indicated take varying amounts of time to process. Is this right? If so, I don't see how instantaneous communication can solve this problem. If it takes 100 ms to process auditory sensations, and 200 ms to process visual sensations, then even with some form of instant communication, or synchronization, one element still has to wait for the processing to complete. There are lots of things our brain conveniently covers up. We have a fairly large blind spot near the middle of our vision, but our brain masks that. Our blinks periodically pull a dark shroud over our world, but they go unnoticed. Our eyes and orientation of our heads are constantly changed, but it doesn't feel to us like the world is spinning when we turn our heads. Our eyes can only focus on a small (perhaps 3 degree) area, but it doesn't feel as though we are peering through a straw. So I do not find it very surprising that the brain might apply yet another trick on us, making us think different sense data was finished processing at the same time when it was not. Quantum entanglement allows for a variable window of duration via the EPR effect. If we look at a QM system, there is no delay in changes of the state of the system. All of the parts of it operate simultaneously, not matter how far apart them might be when we think of them as distributed in space time. This is the spooky action at a distance that has upset the classical scientists for so long. It has even been shown that one can derive the appearance of classical type signaling from the quantum pseudo-telepathy effecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy . I don't quite follow how EPR helps in this case. EPR doesn't communicate any information, and there is no need for FTL spooky action at a distance unless one assumes there can only be a single outcome for a measurement (CI). Even if FTL is involved in creating an illusion of simultaneity, couldn't light speed be fast enough, or even 200 feet per second of nerve impulses? If one runs an emulation of a mind, it doesn't matter if it takes 500 years to finish the computation, or 500 nanoseconds. The perceived first person experience of the mind will not differ. So the difference between delays in processing time and resulting perceptions may be a red herring in the search for theories of the brain's operation. Our mechanical machines lack the ability to report on their 1p content thus we are using their disability to argue against their possible abilities. A computer that could both generate an internal self-model and report on it would lead us to very different conclusions! I agree. Jason -- The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. Jason -- 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non-reality? Intangible mathematical essences? The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? Craig Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/gsHN6DCowPUJ. 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 9/4/2012 4:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and transistors. Hi Roger, Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I agree with what you say above. I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. What leads you to suspect this? The weird delay effect that Libet et al observed as discussed here http://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_chapter%20on%20libet.html. If I understand your point correctly, the phenomenon that needs explanation is the apparent simultaneity of various sensations which tests have indicated take varying amounts of time to process. Is this right? Hi Jason, Yes, but think of it as a window where everything in it is effectively simultaneous. If so, I don't see how instantaneous communication can solve this problem. If it takes 100 ms to process auditory sensations, and 200 ms to process visual sensations, then even with some form of instant communication, or synchronization, one element still has to wait for the processing to complete. Right, but all are put together so that the audio and the video are always in synch. Problems with this mechanism are conjectured to cause schizophrenia. David Eagleman is looking into this kind of stuff but isn't considering the quantum possibility. There are lots of things our brain conveniently covers up. We have a fairly large blind spot near the middle of our vision, but our brain masks that. Our blinks periodically pull a dark shroud over our world, but they go unnoticed. Our eyes and orientation of our heads are constantly changed, but it doesn't feel to us like the world is spinning when we turn our heads. Our eyes can only focus on a small (perhaps 3 degree) area, but it doesn't feel as though we are peering through a straw. So I do not find it very surprising that the brain might apply yet another trick on us, making us think different sense data was finished processing at the same time when it was not. Exactly. The point is that all sensations are given as synchronized with each other even though that cannot happen. Imagine a loom that used many different threads each of which takes different speed processes to be generated. It is as if they could be speed up or slowed down such that the overall tapestry is always flowing at a single steady pace. Think of the lag effect that we see with our smartphones. Is there something like a waiting for sender to respond in our brains? Quantum entanglement allows for a variable window of duration via the EPR effect. If we look at a QM system, there is no delay in changes of the state of the system. All of the parts of it operate simultaneously, not matter how far apart them might be when we think of them as distributed in space time. This is the spooky action at a distance that has upset the classical scientists for so long. It has even been shown that one can derive the appearance of classical type signaling from the quantum pseudo-telepathy effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy. I don't quite follow how EPR helps in this case. EPR doesn't communicate any information, and there is no need for FTL spooky action at a distance unless one assumes there can only be a single outcome for a measurement (CI). Even if FTL is involved in creating an illusion of simultaneity, couldn't light speed be fast enough, or even 200 feet per second of nerve impulses? No copyable information is involved. The literature of quantum games (where the pseudo-telepathy effect shows up) explain this. If one runs an emulation of a mind, it doesn't matter if it takes 500 years to finish the computation, or 500 nanoseconds. The perceived first person experience of the mind will not differ. So the
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/4/2012 4:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:33 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/4/2012 1:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:07 AM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/4/2012 11:17 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Jason Resch IMHO Not to disparage the superb work that computers can do, but I think that it is a mistake to anthropo-morphise the computer. It has no intelligence, no life, no awareness, there's nothing magic about it. It's just a complex bunch of diodes and transistors. Hi Roger, Please leave magic out of this, as any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magichttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws. The trouble is that the stuff in our skulls does not appear to be that much different from a bunch of diodes and transistors. Our brains obey the very same physical laws! What makes the brain special? I agree with what you say above. I suspect that the brain uses quantum entanglement effects to both synchronize and update sense content in ways that cannot obtain from purely classical physical methods. What leads you to suspect this? The weird delay effect that Libet et al observed as discussed herehttp://www.dichotomistic.com/mind_readings_chapter%20on%20libet.html. If I understand your point correctly, the phenomenon that needs explanation is the apparent simultaneity of various sensations which tests have indicated take varying amounts of time to process. Is this right? Hi Jason, Yes, but think of it as a window where everything in it is effectively simultaneous. Perhaps this is the content of a certain computational state? If so, I don't see how instantaneous communication can solve this problem. If it takes 100 ms to process auditory sensations, and 200 ms to process visual sensations, then even with some form of instant communication, or synchronization, one element still has to wait for the processing to complete. Right, but all are put together so that the audio and the video are always in synch. Problems with this mechanism are conjectured to cause schizophrenia. David Eagleman is looking into this kind of stuff but isn't considering the quantum possibility. There are lots of things our brain conveniently covers up. We have a fairly large blind spot near the middle of our vision, but our brain masks that. Our blinks periodically pull a dark shroud over our world, but they go unnoticed. Our eyes and orientation of our heads are constantly changed, but it doesn't feel to us like the world is spinning when we turn our heads. Our eyes can only focus on a small (perhaps 3 degree) area, but it doesn't feel as though we are peering through a straw. So I do not find it very surprising that the brain might apply yet another trick on us, making us think different sense data was finished processing at the same time when it was not. Exactly. The point is that all sensations are given as synchronized with each other even though that cannot happen. Imagine a loom that used many different threads each of which takes different speed processes to be generated. It is as if they could be speed up or slowed down such that the overall tapestry is always flowing at a single steady pace. Think of the lag effect that we see with our smartphones. Is there something like a waiting for sender to respond in our brains? Maybe the qualia isn't related to the processing of the sense information, but in sharing the results with the other parts of the brain (see modularity of mind http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modularity-mind/ ). Then by delaying the output by the appropriate amount, or by matching results at a higher level integration, the synchronization can be made. I think modularity of mind explains well many aspects of consciousness, and also how anesthesia works. Quantum entanglement allows for a variable window of duration via the EPR effect. If we look at a QM system, there is no delay in changes of the state of the system. All of the parts of it operate simultaneously, not matter how far apart them might be when we think of them as distributed in space time. This is the spooky action at a distance that has upset the classical scientists for so long. It has even been shown that one can derive the appearance of classical type signaling from the quantum pseudo-telepathy effecthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy . I don't quite follow how EPR helps in this case. EPR doesn't communicate any information, and there is no need for FTL spooky action at a distance unless one assumes there can only be a single outcome for a measurement (CI). Even if FTL is involved in creating an illusion of simultaneity, couldn't light speed be fast enough, or even 200 feet per
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 9/4/2012 8:39 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 4:06:06 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: The point that I am making is that our brain seems to be continuously generating a virtual reality model of the world that includes our body and what we are conscious of is that model. I like this description of a brain: that of a dreaming / reality creating machine. What is it the brain creating this dream/reality out of? Non-reality? Intangible mathematical essences? The problem with representational qualia is that in order to represent something, there has to be something there to begin with to represent. Why would the brain need to represent the data that it already has to itself in some fictional layer of abstraction? Why convert the quantitative data of the universe into made up qualities and then hide that conversion process from itself? Does a machine made up of gears, springs and levers do this? Could one made of diodes and transistors do it? Maybe... No one has shown me a cogent argument that they could not. They question isn't why they could, it is why they would. What possible function would be served by a cuckoo clock having an experience of being a flying turnip? Craig Hi Craig, The absence of Proof is not Proof of absence + If it is not impossible, it is is compulsory = Best assume that it can and does happen. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On 9/4/2012 9:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net wrote: Hi Jason, Yes, but think of it as a window where everything in it is effectively simultaneous. Perhaps this is the content of a certain computational state? It cannot be just one. Even dovetailing many of them together does not achieve simultaneity. We have to keep up with all the other computations occurring all over the place. We must not think of the brain as an Isolated entity. If so, I don't see how instantaneous communication can solve this problem. If it takes 100 ms to process auditory sensations, and 200 ms to process visual sensations, then even with some form of instant communication, or synchronization, one element still has to wait for the processing to complete. Right, but all are put together so that the audio and the video are always in synch. Problems with this mechanism are conjectured to cause schizophrenia. David Eagleman is looking into this kind of stuff but isn't considering the quantum possibility. There are lots of things our brain conveniently covers up. We have a fairly large blind spot near the middle of our vision, but our brain masks that. Our blinks periodically pull a dark shroud over our world, but they go unnoticed. Our eyes and orientation of our heads are constantly changed, but it doesn't feel to us like the world is spinning when we turn our heads. Our eyes can only focus on a small (perhaps 3 degree) area, but it doesn't feel as though we are peering through a straw. So I do not find it very surprising that the brain might apply yet another trick on us, making us think different sense data was finished processing at the same time when it was not. Exactly. The point is that all sensations are given as synchronized with each other even though that cannot happen. Imagine a loom that used many different threads each of which takes different speed processes to be generated. It is as if they could be speed up or slowed down such that the overall tapestry is always flowing at a single steady pace. Think of the lag effect that we see with our smartphones. Is there something like a waiting for sender to respond in our brains? Maybe the qualia isn't related to the processing of the sense information, but in sharing the results with the other parts of the brain (see modularity of mind http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modularity-mind/ ). Then by delaying the output by the appropriate amount, or by matching results at a higher level integration, the synchronization can be made. I think modularity of mind explains well many aspects of consciousness, and also how anesthesia works. Sure, but how does that account for the rest of the world? Think about how is it that two people can hold a conversation. How does the brain of one of the converses keep up and even anticipate the response to the other person's words? If it takes up to 1/2 a sec to hear - process - respond, where is the lag effect that should obviously occur? The brains of people engaged in a conversation are somehow synchronized so that the 1/2 sec lag time vanishes. How the hell does this happen? If what is really going on is happening at the quantum level and the world around us is just a classical illusion that it is generating, then the problem vanishes! Why? Because time vanishes in a pure state QM system! There is no delay or lag involved at all! My hunch is that what we think is reality is just a puppet show of what is really going on under the binary classical surface. Quantum entanglement allows for a variable window of duration via the EPR effect. If we look at a QM system, there is no delay in changes of the state of the system. All of the parts of it operate simultaneously, not matter how far apart them might be when we think of them as distributed in space time. This is the spooky action at a distance that has upset the classical scientists for so long. It has even been shown that one can derive the appearance of classical type signaling from the quantum pseudo-telepathy effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_pseudo-telepathy. I don't quite follow how EPR helps in this case. EPR doesn't communicate any information, and there is no need for FTL spooky action at a distance unless one assumes there can only be a single outcome for a measurement (CI). Even if FTL is involved in creating an illusion of simultaneity, couldn't light speed be fast enough, or even 200 feet per second of nerve impulses? No copyable information is involved. The literature of quantum games (where the pseudo-telepathy effect shows up) explain this.
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 11:23 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: On 9/4/2012 9:54 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Jason, Yes, but think of it as a window where everything in it is effectively simultaneous. Perhaps this is the content of a certain computational state? It cannot be just one. Even dovetailing many of them together does not achieve simultaneity. We have to keep up with all the other computations occurring all over the place. We must not think of the brain as an Isolated entity. If so, I don't see how instantaneous communication can solve this problem. If it takes 100 ms to process auditory sensations, and 200 ms to process visual sensations, then even with some form of instant communication, or synchronization, one element still has to wait for the processing to complete. Right, but all are put together so that the audio and the video are always in synch. Problems with this mechanism are conjectured to cause schizophrenia. David Eagleman is looking into this kind of stuff but isn't considering the quantum possibility. There are lots of things our brain conveniently covers up. We have a fairly large blind spot near the middle of our vision, but our brain masks that. Our blinks periodically pull a dark shroud over our world, but they go unnoticed. Our eyes and orientation of our heads are constantly changed, but it doesn't feel to us like the world is spinning when we turn our heads. Our eyes can only focus on a small (perhaps 3 degree) area, but it doesn't feel as though we are peering through a straw. So I do not find it very surprising that the brain might apply yet another trick on us, making us think different sense data was finished processing at the same time when it was not. Exactly. The point is that all sensations are given as synchronized with each other even though that cannot happen. Imagine a loom that used many different threads each of which takes different speed processes to be generated. It is as if they could be speed up or slowed down such that the overall tapestry is always flowing at a single steady pace. Think of the lag effect that we see with our smartphones. Is there something like a waiting for sender to respond in our brains? Maybe the qualia isn't related to the processing of the sense information, but in sharing the results with the other parts of the brain (see modularity of mind http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/modularity-mind/ ). Then by delaying the output by the appropriate amount, or by matching results at a higher level integration, the synchronization can be made. I think modularity of mind explains well many aspects of consciousness, and also how anesthesia works. Sure, but how does that account for the rest of the world? Think about how is it that two people can hold a conversation. How does the brain of one of the converses keep up and even anticipate the response to the other person's words? If it takes up to 1/2 a sec to hear - process - respond, where is the lag effect that should obviously occur? The brains of people engaged in a conversation are somehow synchronized so that the 1/2 sec lag time vanishes. How the hell does this happen? The brain can process data as it is listening (like buffering a video download) and likely predict the final word before it is done being uttered. To prove the brain somehow overcomes this half second delay in a convincing way, you would need to engineer an experiment where a number flashes on a screen and a person has to push the right button in under half a second. If you need two brains involved, then put a screen between them with a computer screen and number pad facing each one. Each time one person enters the right number, a new number appears on the other person's screen. And it goes back and forth which each person pressing the button as quickly as they can after the new number appears. If this experiment shows the interaction can take place faster than the video processing of the visual centers in the brain then this would become a problem worth trying to solve. I'm not convinced there is any problem here that can't be explained using classical means. Jason If what is really going on is happening at the quantum level and the world around us is just a classical illusion that it is generating, then the problem vanishes! Why? Because time vanishes in a pure state QM system! There is no delay or lag involved at all! My hunch is that what we think is reality is just a puppet show of what is really going on under the binary classical surface. Quantum entanglement allows for a variable window of duration via the EPR effect. If we look at a QM system, there is no delay in changes of the state of the system. All of the parts of it operate simultaneously, not matter how far apart them might be
Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the largest in the world. Your proof is missing a step: showing why computers cannot have an aware subject Another problem is that your assumption that the ability to choose requires consciousness means that deep blue (which chooses optimum chess moves), and Watson (who chose categories and wagers in Jeopardy) are conscious. I don't dispute that they may be conscious, but if they are that contradicts the objective of your proof. If you still maintain that they are not conscious, despite their ability to choose, then there must be some error in your argument. Jason -- 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Monday, September 3, 2012 12:22:48 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the largest in the world. Your proof is missing a step: showing why computers cannot have an aware subject Another problem is that your assumption that the ability to choose requires consciousness means that deep blue (which chooses optimum chess moves), and Watson (who chose categories and wagers in Jeopardy) are conscious. I don't dispute that they may be conscious, but if they are that contradicts the objective of your proof. If you still maintain that they are not conscious, despite their ability to choose, then there must be some error in your argument. Its circular reasoning to look for proof of consciousness since consciousness is a first person experience only, and by definition cannot be demonstrated as an exterior phenomenon. You can't prove to me that you exist, so why would you be able to prove that anything has or does not have an experience, or what that experience might be like. Instead, we have to go by what we have seen so far, and what we know of the differences between computers and living organisms. While the future of computation is unknowable, we should agree that thus far: 1) Machines and computers have not demonstrated any initiative to survive or evolve independently of our efforts to configure them to imitate that behavior. 2) Our innate prejudices of robotic and mechanical qualities defines not merely an unfamiliar quality of life but the embodiment of the antithesis of life. I am not saying this means it is a fact, but we should not ignore this enduring and universal response which all cultures have had toward the introduction of mechanism. The embodiment of these qualities in myth and fiction present a picture of materialism and functionalism as evacuated of life, soul, authenticity, emotion, caring, etc. Again, it is not in the negativity of the stereotype, but the specific nature of the negativity (Frankenstein, HAL) or positivity (Silent Running robots, Star Wars Droids) which reveals at best a pet-like, diminutive objectified pseudo-subjectivity rather than a fully formed bio-equivalence. 3) Computers have not evolved along a path of increasing signs toward showing initiative. Deep Blue never shows signs that it wants to go beyond Chess. All improvements in computer performance can easily be categorized as quantitative rather than qualitative. They have not gotten smarter, we have just sped up the stupid until it seems more impressive. 4) Computers are fundamentally different than any living organism. They are assembled by external agents rather than produce themselves organically through division of a single cell. None of these points prove that the future of AI won't invalidate them, but at the same time, they constitute reasonable grounds for skepticism. To me, the preponderance of evidence we have thus far indicates that any assumption of computing devices as they have been executed up to this point developing characteristics associated with biological feeling and spontaneous sensible initiative is purely religious faith. Craig Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/T3doVNWdqdQJ. 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
I should add a number 5...Cognitive Bias. How is it not obvious that computer scientists would want to believe very badly in the unlimited potential of developing computers? Why is this not considered a factor? We have study after study showing how the human mind is so effective at fooling itself when it wants to believe, placebo effect, the hundreds of forms of logical fallacy...has information science dared to put its own wishful thinking under the microscope? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/FVE9_h1v3H8J. 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: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 11:30 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Monday, September 3, 2012 12:22:48 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote: Hi benjayk Computers have no intelligence --not a whit, since intelligence requires ability to choose, choice requires awareness or Cs, which in term requires an aware subject. Thus only living entities can have ingtelligence. A bacterium thus has more intel;ligence than a computer, even the largest in the world. Your proof is missing a step: showing why computers cannot have an aware subject Another problem is that your assumption that the ability to choose requires consciousness means that deep blue (which chooses optimum chess moves), and Watson (who chose categories and wagers in Jeopardy) are conscious. I don't dispute that they may be conscious, but if they are that contradicts the objective of your proof. If you still maintain that they are not conscious, despite their ability to choose, then there must be some error in your argument. Its circular reasoning to look for proof of consciousness since consciousness is a first person experience only, and by definition cannot be demonstrated as an exterior phenomenon. You can't prove to me that you exist, so why would you be able to prove that anything has or does not have an experience, or what that experience might be like. I was not looking for a proof of consciousness. I was merely pointing out that according to Roger's definition of intelligence (the ability to choose), computers should already be considered intelligent. He further claimed that the ability to choose required consciousness, so according to his reasoning, this would further imply that computers are already conscious. I pointed out this was surprising given that he came to the opposite conclusion. Instead, we have to go by what we have seen so far, and what we know of the differences between computers and living organisms. While the future of computation is unknowable, we should agree that thus far: 1) Machines and computers have not demonstrated any initiative to survive or evolve independently of our efforts to configure them to imitate that behavior. 2) Our innate prejudices of robotic and mechanical qualities defines not merely an unfamiliar quality of life but the embodiment of the antithesis of life. I am not saying this means it is a fact, but we should not ignore this enduring and universal response which all cultures have had toward the introduction of mechanism. The embodiment of these qualities in myth and fiction present a picture of materialism and functionalism as evacuated of life, soul, authenticity, emotion, caring, etc. Again, it is not in the negativity of the stereotype, but the specific nature of the negativity (Frankenstein, HAL) or positivity (Silent Running robots, Star Wars Droids) which reveals at best a pet-like, diminutive objectified pseudo-subjectivity rather than a fully formed bio-equivalence. 3) Computers have not evolved along a path of increasing signs toward showing initiative. Deep Blue never shows signs that it wants to go beyond Chess. All improvements in computer performance can easily be categorized as quantitative rather than qualitative. They have not gotten smarter, we have just sped up the stupid until it seems more impressive. 4) Computers are fundamentally different than any living organism. They are assembled by external agents rather than produce themselves organically through division of a single cell. None of these points prove that the future of AI won't invalidate them, but at the same time, they constitute reasonable grounds for skepticism. To me, the preponderance of evidence we have thus far indicates that any assumption of computing devices as they have been executed up to this point developing characteristics associated with biological feeling and spontaneous sensible initiative is purely religious faith. Would you consider it religious faith to believe that men could one day build heavier than air flying machines in the 1800s? We had the example of birds, which are heavier than air, yet can fly. If a bird'd body is fundamentally mechanical, then it stands to reason that certain machines can fly. Likewise, if the brain is fundamentally mechanical (rather than magical) it also stands to reason that certain machines can think. This is not religious faith, unless you consider disbelief in magic a form of religious faith. Jason -- 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.
