On Mar 4, 6:39 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> While you believed it for 20 years, what was your reasoning?
The same reasoning you see here. That the brain is a finite physical
system which could be modeled or reproduced just like any other
physical system. That decisions we make are essentiall
On Mar 4, 2:04 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> But this is a distracting issue given that your point is that NO
> program ever can give a computation able to manifest consciousness.
If an organism is already able to sustain consciousness, I think that
a program could jump start consciousness or assis
On Sun, Mar 4, 2012 at 5:06 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Mar 3, 1:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Craig Weinberg
>> wrote:
>> > I understand your argument from the very beginning. I debate people
>> > about it all week long with the same view exactly. It'
On 03 Mar 2012, at 00:05, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Mar 2, 2:49 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
A sentence is not a program.
Okay, "WHILE program > 0 DO program. Program = Program + 1. END
WHILE"
Does running that program (or one like it) create a 1p experience?
Very plausibly not. It lack
On Mar 3, 1:49 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > I understand your argument from the very beginning. I debate people
> > about it all week long with the same view exactly. It's by far the
> > most popular position I have encountered online
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I understand your argument from the very beginning. I debate people
> about it all week long with the same view exactly. It's by far the
> most popular position I have encountered online. It is the
> conventional wisdom wisdom position. The
On 3/2/2012 10:17 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Mar 2, 9:41 pm, Terren Suydam wrote:
Or, maybe it's ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger
Or this...
http://www.alternet.org/health/154225/would_we_have_drugged_up_einstein_how_anti-authoritarianism_is_deemed_a_mental_health_problem
He
On Mar 2, 9:41 pm, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Or, maybe it's ...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger
Or this...
http://www.alternet.org/health/154225/would_we_have_drugged_up_einstein_how_anti-authoritarianism_is_deemed_a_mental_health_problem
--
You received this message because you are
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Mar 2, 7:46 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> > On Mar 1, 8:12 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>> >> You do assume, though, that brain function can't be replicated by a
>> >> ma
On Mar 2, 7:46 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > On Mar 1, 8:12 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> >> You do assume, though, that brain function can't be replicated by a
> >> machine.
>
> > No, I presume that consciousness is not limited t
On Sat, Mar 3, 2012 at 3:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Mar 1, 8:12 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>> You do assume, though, that brain function can't be replicated by a
>> machine.
>
> No, I presume that consciousness is not limited to what we consider to
> be brain function. Brain functi
On Mar 2, 2:49 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 02 Mar 2012, at 18:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to
> >>> qualitative
> >>> phenomenology. You don't need evidence to infer that a clock
> >>> doesn't
> >>> kn
On 02 Mar 2012, at 18:03, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Mar 2, 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Mar 2012, at 22:32, Craig Weinberg wrote:
There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to
qualitative
phenomenology. You don't need evidence to infer that a clock
doesn't
know what time it is.
On Mar 2, 4:43 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 01 Mar 2012, at 22:32, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to
> > qualitative
> > phenomenology. You don't need evidence to infer that a clock
> > doesn't
> > know what tim
On Mar 1, 8:12 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> You do assume, though, that brain function can't be replicated by a
> machine.
No, I presume that consciousness is not limited to what we consider to
be brain function. Brain function, as we understand it now, is already
a machine.
>That has no f
On 01 Mar 2012, at 22:32, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Mar 1, 7:34 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Feb 2012, at 23:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to
qualitative
phenomenology. You don't need evidence to infer that a clock
doesn't
know what time it
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 10:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Mar 1, 5:41 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> > It depends how good the artificial brain stem was. The more of the
>> > brain you try to replace, the more intolerant it will be, p
On Mar 1, 5:41 pm, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> > It depends how good the artificial brain stem was. The more of the
> > brain you try to replace, the more intolerant it will be, probably
> > exponentially so. Just as having four prosthetic
On Fri, Mar 2, 2012 at 8:32 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> It depends how good the artificial brain stem was. The more of the
> brain you try to replace, the more intolerant it will be, probably
> exponentially so. Just as having four prosthetic limbs would be more
> of a burden than just one, the m
On Mar 1, 7:34 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 29 Feb 2012, at 23:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to qualitative
> >>> phenomenology. You don't need evidence to infer that a clock
> >>> doesn't
> >>> know what time it is.
>
> >>
On 29 Feb 2012, at 23:29, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 29, 1:30 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Feb 2012, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:42 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to qualitative
phenomenology. You don't need evidence to
On Feb 29, 1:30 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 29 Feb 2012, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >>> On Feb 28, 5:42 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> > There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to qualitative
> > phenomenology. You don't need evidence to infer that a clock
>
On 29 Feb 2012, at 17:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 29, 4:33 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 28 Feb 2012, at 20:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:42 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to qualitative
phenomenology. You don't need evidence to inf
On Feb 29, 4:33 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 28 Feb 2012, at 20:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Feb 28, 5:42 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> >>> There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to qualitative
> >>> phenomenology. You don't need evidence to infer that a clock doesn't
> >>> know w
On 28 Feb 2012, at 20:18, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 28, 5:42 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to qualitative
phenomenology. You don't need evidence to infer that a clock doesn't
know what time it is.
A clock has no self-referential ability.
Ho
On Feb 28, 5:42 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > There is no such thing as evidence when it comes to qualitative
> > phenomenology. You don't need evidence to infer that a clock doesn't
> > know what time it is.
>
> A clock has no self-referential ability.
How do you know? By comp logic, the clock
On 27 Feb 2012, at 23:15, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:52 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2012 1:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:32 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2012 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
AIs can generate their own software. That is the point of AI.
They don't ha
On 27 Feb 2012, at 21:56, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 25, 4:50 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Feb 2012, at 23:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:41 pm, Pierz wrote:
Let us suppose you're right and... but hold on! We can't do that.
That
would be "circular". That would be sneak
On Feb 27, 5:37 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/27/2012 2:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 27, 4:52 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> >> On 2/27/2012 1:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 27, 3:32 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/27/2012 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >>>
On 2/27/2012 2:15 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 27, 4:52 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2012 1:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:32 pm, meekerdbwrote:
On 2/27/2012 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
AIs can generate their own software. That is the point of AI.
They don't have t
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> [Comp is] not a question... but a starting hypothesis...
The hypothesis is that the physics of the brain is computable. If this
is granted, then it follows by the fading qualia argument that the
consciousness of the brain is also computa
On Feb 27, 4:52 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/27/2012 1:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Feb 27, 3:32 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> >> On 2/27/2012 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > AIs can generate their own software. That is the point of AI.
> >>> They don't have to generate their own softw
On 2/27/2012 1:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 27, 3:32 pm, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/27/2012 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
AIs can generate their own software. That is the point of AI.
They don't have to generate their own software though, we have to tell
them to do that and specify exac
On Feb 27, 3:32 pm, meekerdb wrote:
> On 2/27/2012 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> >> > AIs can generate their own software. That is the point of AI.
> > They don't have to generate their own software though, we have to tell
> > them to do that and specify exactly how we want them to do it.
>
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 3:56 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> I keep repeating this list, adding more each time. What else can I do.
> Comp cannot disprove itself, so if you are looking for that to happen
> then I can tell you already that it won't. I can't prove the existence
> of color on a black and
On Feb 25, 4:50 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2012, at 23:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 9:41 pm, Pierz wrote:
> >> Let us suppose you're right and... but hold on! We can't do that.
> >> That
> >> would be "circular". That would be sneaking in the assumption tha
On 2/27/2012 11:54 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> AIs can generate their own software. That is the point of AI.
They don't have to generate their own software though, we have to tell
them to do that and specify exactly how we want them to do it.
Not exactly. AI learns from interactions which a
On Feb 25, 11:05 pm, 1Z wrote:
> On Feb 24, 11:02 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Feb 24, 7:40 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> > Which only underscores how different consciousness is from
> > computation. We can't share the exact same software, but computers
> > can. We can't re-run our experiences, but co
On Feb 24, 11:02 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Feb 24, 7:40 am, 1Z wrote:
>
>
> Which only underscores how different consciousness is from
> computation. We can't share the exact same software, but computers
> can. We can't re-run our experiences, but computers can. By default
> humans cannot
On 25 Feb 2012, at 01:21, meekerdb wrote:
On 2/24/2012 3:05 PM, John Mikes wrote:
People have too much time on their hand to argue back and forth.
Whatever (theory) we talk about has been born from human mind(s)
consequently only HALF _ TRUE max (if at all).
Almost all our theories are not
On 25 Feb 2012, at 00:05, John Mikes wrote:
People have too much time on their hand to argue back and forth.
Whatever (theory) we talk about has been born from human mind(s)
consequently only HALF _ TRUE max (if at all).
"I" imagine te doctor, "I" imagine the numbers (there are none in
Natur
On 24 Feb 2012, at 23:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 23, 9:41 pm, Pierz wrote:
Let us suppose you're right and... but hold on! We can't do that.
That
would be "circular". That would be sneaking in the assumption that
you're right from the outset. That would be "shifty', "fishy", etc
etc.
On 2/24/2012 3:05 PM, John Mikes wrote:
People have too much time on their hand to argue back and forth.
Whatever (theory) we talk about has been born from human mind(s)
consequently only HALF _ TRUE max (if at all).
Almost all our theories are not only probably false, they are *known* to be fa
People have too much time on their hand to argue back and forth.
Whatever (theory) we talk about has been born from human mind(s)
consequently only HALF _ TRUE max (if at all).
"I" imagine te doctor, "I" imagine the numbers (there are none in Nature)
"I" imagine controversies and matches, arithemt
On Feb 24, 7:40 am, 1Z wrote:
>
> > > I can't see why you would think that is incompatible with CTM
>
> > It is not posed as a question of 'Do you believe that CTM includes X',
> > but rather, 'using X, do you believe that there is any reason to doubt
> > that Y(X) is X.'
>
> I don't see what you
2012/2/24 Craig Weinberg
> On Feb 23, 9:41 pm, Pierz wrote:
> > Let us suppose you're right and... but hold on! We can't do that. That
> > would be "circular". That would be sneaking in the assumption that
> > you're right from the outset. That would be "shifty', "fishy", etc
> > etc. You just d
On Feb 23, 9:41 pm, Pierz wrote:
> Let us suppose you're right and... but hold on! We can't do that. That
> would be "circular". That would be sneaking in the assumption that
> you're right from the outset. That would be "shifty', "fishy", etc
> etc. You just don't seem to grasp the rudiments of p
On Feb 23, 9:14 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Feb 23, 3:25 pm, 1Z wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 7:42 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > > Has someone already mentioned this?
>
> > > I woke up in the middle of the night with this, so it might not make
> > > sense...or...
>
> > > The idea of saying yes
Let us suppose you're right and... but hold on! We can't do that. That
would be "circular". That would be sneaking in the assumption that
you're right from the outset. That would be "shifty', "fishy", etc
etc. You just don't seem to grasp the rudiments of philosophical
reasoning. 'Yes doctor' is no
2012/2/23 Craig Weinberg
> On Feb 23, 12:57 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> > 2012/2/23 Craig Weinberg
>
> >
> > > > > Comp has no ability to contradict itself,
> >
> > > > You say so.
> >
> > > Is it not true?
> >
> > no it is not true.. for example, proving consciousness cannot be emulate
> on
>
On Feb 23, 3:25 pm, 1Z wrote:
> On Feb 22, 7:42 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > Has someone already mentioned this?
>
> > I woke up in the middle of the night with this, so it might not make
> > sense...or...
>
> > The idea of saying yes to the doctor presumes that we, in the thought
> > experime
On Feb 22, 7:42 am, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> Has someone already mentioned this?
>
> I woke up in the middle of the night with this, so it might not make
> sense...or...
>
> The idea of saying yes to the doctor presumes that we, in the thought
> experiment, bring to the thought experiment univers
On Feb 23, 12:57 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2012/2/23 Craig Weinberg
>
> > > > Comp has no ability to contradict itself,
>
> > > You say so.
>
> > Is it not true?
>
> no it is not true.. for example, proving consciousness cannot be emulate on
> machines would proves computationalism wrong.
Co
On Feb 23, 12:53 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2012/2/23 Craig Weinberg
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 23, 9:26 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> > > > I understand that is how you think of it, but I am pointing out your
> > > > unconscious bias. You take consciousness for granted from the start.
>
>
2012/2/23 Craig Weinberg
> On Feb 23, 9:26 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> >
> > > I understand that is how you think of it, but I am pointing out your
> > > unconscious bias. You take consciousness for granted from the start.
> >
> > Because it is... I don't know/care for you, but I'm conscious...
2012/2/23 Craig Weinberg
> On Feb 23, 9:26 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> >
> > > I understand that is how you think of it, but I am pointing out your
> > > unconscious bias. You take consciousness for granted from the start.
> >
> > Because it is... I don't know/care for you, but I'm conscious...
On Feb 23, 9:26 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> > I understand that is how you think of it, but I am pointing out your
> > unconscious bias. You take consciousness for granted from the start.
>
> Because it is... I don't know/care for you, but I'm conscious... the
> existence of consciousness from
On Feb 23, 8:53 am, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
> 2012/2/23 Craig Weinberg
>
> > On Feb 23, 1:09 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> > > The "yes doctor" scenario considers the belief that if you are issued
> > > with a computerised brain you will feel just the same. It's equivalent
> > > to the "yes
2012/2/23 Craig Weinberg
> On Feb 23, 4:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> > On 23 Feb 2012, at 06:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 22, 6:10 pm, Pierz wrote:
> > >> 'Yes doctor' is merely an establishment of the assumption of comp.
> > >> Saying yes means you are a computationalist. If you
On Feb 23, 4:32 am, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> On 23 Feb 2012, at 06:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> > On Feb 22, 6:10 pm, Pierz wrote:
> >> 'Yes doctor' is merely an establishment of the assumption of comp.
> >> Saying yes means you are a computationalist. If you say no the you
> >> are
> >> not one,
2012/2/23 Craig Weinberg
> On Feb 23, 1:09 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> >
> > The "yes doctor" scenario considers the belief that if you are issued
> > with a computerised brain you will feel just the same. It's equivalent
> > to the "yes barber" scenario: that if you receive a haircut you w
On Feb 23, 1:09 am, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
> The "yes doctor" scenario considers the belief that if you are issued
> with a computerised brain you will feel just the same. It's equivalent
> to the "yes barber" scenario: that if you receive a haircut you will
> feel just the same, and not bec
On 23 Feb 2012, at 06:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Feb 22, 6:10 pm, Pierz wrote:
'Yes doctor' is merely an establishment of the assumption of comp.
Saying yes means you are a computationalist. If you say no the you
are
not one, and one cannot proceed with the argument that follows -
though
On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 4:42 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> On Feb 22, 6:10 pm, Pierz wrote:
>> 'Yes doctor' is merely an establishment of the assumption of comp.
>> Saying yes means you are a computationalist. If you say no the you are
>> not one, and one cannot proceed with the argument that follo
On Feb 22, 6:10 pm, Pierz wrote:
> 'Yes doctor' is merely an establishment of the assumption of comp.
> Saying yes means you are a computationalist. If you say no the you are
> not one, and one cannot proceed with the argument that follows -
> though then the onus will be on you to explain *why* y
'Yes doctor' is merely an establishment of the assumption of comp.
Saying yes means you are a computationalist. If you say no the you are
not one, and one cannot proceed with the argument that follows -
though then the onus will be on you to explain *why* you don't believe
a computer can substitute
66 matches
Mail list logo
