Re: Consciousness (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-26 Thread Bruno Marchal

Hi Telmo!


On 25 Feb 2017, at 16:32, Telmo Menezes wrote:


Hi Bruno!

Evolution is a theory on the origins of biological complexity. We  
know

nothing about consciousness.




Do you agree that consciousness is a form of knowledge? That is:
consciousness requires some knowledge, and (genuine) knowledge  
requires some

conscious person)?


I agree, but I feel it begs the question: knowledge is an awareness of
something, it implies consciousness by definition.



it does not beg the question no more than the first order definition  
of the natural numbers beg the question, in the sense that you agree  
(or not) with the modal axioms for knowledgeable:


[]p -> p
[](p -> q) -> ([]p -> []q)

adding

[]p -> [][]p (for those having rich introspective knowledge)

Then, we can ask ourself what, in machine terms, or in machine+reality  
terms, would obey that theory. In this case, as you know, the  
Theaetetus idea works on Gödel's beweisbar predicate: the true  
opinion, or beweisbar and true [1]p = []p & p (makes [1] obeying the  
S4 logic above).


By Tarski, we cannot define "true" in the language of the machine, but  
we can model the knowledge by defining it on each (sigma_1  
arithmetical) p by beweisbar('p') & p. That provides a different  
logic, thanks to incompleteness, and indeed the arithmetically  
complete one (à-la Solovay) is axiomatized by an extension of S4: S4+  
Grz  (the formula []([](p->[]p) -> p) -> p from Grzegorczyk, a polish  
logician). (+ p -> []p to model the sigma_1 leaves of the universal  
dovetailer).


What is really nice here, is that the machine cannot name its first  
person self, and its metalogic reminds both Brouwer creative subject,  
but also the "inner god" of many eastern and western mystics. The soul  
of a machine is NOT a machine, nor anything third person describable,  
and It knows it.


Now, I could argue that consciousness per se is better modeled by  
[1]<1>p, but that is for the details (after all we do have distinct  
word for consciousness and knowledge, and a priori, consciousness  
might be delusional, where apparently, with the Theaetetic definition,  
it cannot be).





What is the situation with an artificial neural network?


Well, it will be harder for us to see its coded self, but it is Turing  
universal, and so can have one built by nature emulating Kleene's  
second recursion theorem through the neural net. The DNA strands did  
something like this already before (arguably).






Does it know
something, or is it akin to a stone being kicked down a hill?


The neural net knows nothing, but if the neural net embodies the right  
"codes" it might support a inner soul ([]p & p), like apparently our  
brains (which supports many souls which integrated well into the 1-I  
(hopefully, when sober).


I think that the left brain might be specialized in the 3p  
"analytical" believer []p (& <>t), and the right brain might be  
specialize with the intuitive, non definable "[]p & p (& <>t)".






Or is
the stone being kicked down a hill akin to our brains and requiring
consciousness already?


All relatively instanciated consciousness requires the universal  
consciousness of the non Löbian machine, I think, and get reflexive  
when Löbian, and inherit the Löbian theology, including its physics,  
making it testable (and its quantum logic seems to fit until now).







Then do you agree with the S4 theory of rational knowledge, which  
is that


(knowable x) implies x
(knowable (x implies y)) implies ((knowable x) implies (knowable y))
(knowable x) implies (knowable (knowable x))

With the inference rules:

If I prove x I can deduce (knowable x)
+ modus ponens


I'm ok with this.



OK.





If you are OK with this, it is not difficult to explain why  
evolution, or

anything actually, cannot NOT bring consciousness, and a first person
knower, in the picture.


Here I don't follow. Aren't you making the hidden assumption:

(knowable x) => (known x) ?



Only (knowable x) => (know x) on some leaves of the universal  
dovetailer.


Keep in mind that I live and work in Plato heaven, or Cantor paradise.  
I don't mind to wait any finite number of seconds. And the gal here is  
to figure out what is real, and what is "persistent illusion(s)", like  
Einstein qualified time.







Notice that I do tend to think what you say, that "anything actually,
cannot NOT bring consciousness" -- but I see this as part of my
"personal religion". I'm just not convinced that the above proves it.



It does not prove it, but follows from the mechanist assumption. Of  
course the theology of the (Löbian) machine does not need the  
mechanist assumption, except when we do the sigma_1 restriction, and  
get G1 and G1* and its intensional variants.







That is a consequence of incompleteness which make the machine  
aware of the
difference between []p and []p & p. The machine can know that []p  
obeys to

the modal logic G and that ([]p & p), the definition of "knowable" 

Re: Consciousness (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-25 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

This just my opinion, this, not being by necessity a permanent conclusion on my 
part, however, it seems to me that the conscious that we experience is 
basically, why the old philosophers called, material. Modern brain scientists 
would conclude in the type of brain cells, maybe Spindle Cells, their 
integration,and so forth that causes consciousness. There may be many other 
ways of developing or propagating consciousness. Simply, that it seems to me, 
that as it is currently known, its a biological thing. Yes, I am thinking it is 
not exclusively, bio, or what call, "carbon + water." I believe, unless there 
is a physical reason not to, that first "Weak AI," will be built, then, "Strong 
AI," which is like Marvin Minsky's 'guy in a box,' that we see interacting with 
people in all the sci fi stuff we see and read. Like Tony Stark's Jarvis, like 
HAL 9000 in 2001, aka as Minsky's 'guy in a box.' 


I am prejudiced in favor of much of the science fiction by astronomer, Alastair 
Reynolds, who does most of his stories limited by the absolute framework of 
relativity, and the sciences we know today.  So, without a reason to 
disbelieve, I am guessing that we will make AI of several flavors soon, and our 
great, great, great, great, grand kiddies will opt for a kind of mergence with 
these AI/machinery, for obvious reasons. One reason, would be that, as far as 
we know, it beats the heck out of dying early, especially if you like the idea 
of enlivening an apparently, dead milky way that is about us. I could be 
terribly, hugely wrong, spiritually, or psychologically, or cosmologically, 
but, its how I am rolling tonight. 


-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sat, Feb 25, 2017 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: Consciousness (was Re: From Atheism to Islam





On 2/25/2017 11:06 AM, Telmo Menezes  wrote:


  


  
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 at 18:17, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com>
wrote:
  
  

  
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at10:32 AM, Telmo Menezes 
<te...@telmomenezes.com>wrote:




​>  ​
I always have a hard time seeing consciousness as   
 causal.



  


  

  
​Why, where is the  mystery? If external information didn't 
CAUSE your  consciousness to change you might as well be 
blind  and deaf, ​and if consciousness didn't CAUSE 
 external things to change you might as well be 
 paralyzed from the neck down . 
   
  

  
  

  
  
I meant and in the second sense. Take an artificialneural network 
driving a car. Like me, you suspect it mightbe conscious -- but we 
know the full mechanism. We know it'sa bunch of thresholds 
connected in a complex way, 

  


Of course if it's a big, deep neural network, even on simulated onvon 
Neumann architecture, that has been trained on a large range ofinstances 
(as it must be) we probably don't know how it's connectedand weighted and 
it would FAPP impossible to explain why it doeswhat it does in terms of its 
experience; and FAPP it would beimpossible to predict what it will do 
except by running it.  So itwill have "free" will. :-)

Brent
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, 
they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct 
which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes 
observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is 
solely and precisely that it is expected to work.
--—John von Neumann


  

  
running on von neumann machine and so on. How isconsciousness 
causing behavior ?
  

  
  

  


  

  
​  John K Clark ​
  


  



  


  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the 
   Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 

Re: Consciousness (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-25 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/25/2017 11:06 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:


On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 at 18:17, John Clark > wrote:


On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Telmo Menezes
> wrote:

​> ​
I always have a hard time seeing consciousness as causal.


​Why, where is the mystery? If external information didn't CAUSE
your consciousness to change you might as well be blind and deaf,
​and if consciousness didn't CAUSE external things to change you
might as well be paralyzed from the neck down .


I meant and in the second sense. Take an artificial neural network 
driving a car. Like me, you suspect it might be conscious -- but we 
know the full mechanism. We know it's a bunch of thresholds connected 
in a complex way,


Of course if it's a big, deep neural network, even on simulated on von 
Neumann architecture, that has been trained on a large range of 
instances (as it must be) we probably don't know how it's connected and 
weighted and it would FAPP impossible to explain why it does what it 
does in terms of its experience; and FAPP it would be impossible to 
predict what it will do except by running it.  So it will have "free" 
will. :-)


Brent
The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, 
they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct 
which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes 
observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct 
is solely and precisely that it is expected to work.

--—John von Neumann

running on von neumann machine and so on. How is consciousness causing 
behavior ?



​  John K Clark ​



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google

Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
.
To post to this group, send email to
everything-list@googlegroups.com
.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
.

Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-25 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 Telmo Menezes  wrote:
​

> ​>> ​
>> ​Why, where is the mystery? If external information didn't CAUSE your
>> consciousness to change you might as well be blind and deaf, ​and if
>> consciousness didn't CAUSE external things to change you might as well be
>> paralyzed from the neck down .
>>
>>
>
> ​> ​
> I meant and in the second sense.
>

​I meant physical actions changing consciousness, what is the second
meaning? ​


> ​> ​
> Take an artificial neural network driving a car. Like me, you suspect it
> might be conscious
>

​Well... I suspect
a artificial neural network driving a car
​ is as
conscious as a typical human is ​who is driving over the same road he has
done a thousand times before, and that's not much. Can you remember one
specific event you were conscious of when you drove to work last Thursday?


> ​> ​
>  but we know the full mechanism. We know it's a bunch of thresholds
> connected in a complex way, running on von neumann machine and so on. How
> is consciousness causing behavior ?
>

​The problem is not unique to consciousness, how does anything "cause"
anything? When we say A causes Z we mean that whenever A happens Z happens.
But you could say that is mysterious because A is not Z, and indeed when we
look closer we discover that actually A causes B and then B causes Z, but B
is not Z either, and when we look even closer we find that B cause C and C
causes Z.  And so it goes. Either this chain of causality goes on forever,
in which case A doesn't cause Z at all and yet we know it does, or
eventually we come to a brute fact, Y causes Z and there is no "why" from
there.

But as I said this difficulty has nothing specifically to do with
consciousness, it's just in the nature of causality. If you are conscious
and if you are the product of random mutation and natural selection as
Darwin said them "intelligence causes consciousness" is a brute fact, but
eventually you'll always encounter a brute fact if you look at causal
chains close enough, not just ones involving consciousness.

John K Clark  ​










>
>
>> ​  John K Clark ​
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-25 Thread Telmo Menezes
On Sat, 25 Feb 2017 at 18:17, John Clark  wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Telmo Menezes 
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
> I always have a hard time seeing consciousness as causal.
>
>
> ​Why, where is the mystery? If external information didn't CAUSE your
> consciousness to change you might as well be blind and deaf, ​and if
> consciousness didn't CAUSE external things to change you might as well be
> paralyzed from the neck down .
>
>

I meant and in the second sense. Take an artificial neural network driving
a car. Like me, you suspect it might be conscious -- but we know the full
mechanism. We know it's a bunch of thresholds connected in a complex way,
running on von neumann machine and so on. How is consciousness causing
behavior ?


> ​  John K Clark ​
>
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-25 Thread John Clark
On Sat, Feb 25, 2017 at 10:32 AM, Telmo Menezes 
wrote:

​> ​
> I always have a hard time seeing consciousness as causal.


​Why, where is the mystery? If external information didn't CAUSE your
consciousness to change you might as well be blind and deaf, ​and if
consciousness didn't CAUSE external things to change you might as well be
paralyzed from the neck down .


​  John K Clark ​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-25 Thread Telmo Menezes
Hi Bruno!

>> Evolution is a theory on the origins of biological complexity. We know
>> nothing about consciousness.
>
>
>
> Do you agree that consciousness is a form of knowledge? That is:
> consciousness requires some knowledge, and (genuine) knowledge requires some
> conscious person)?

I agree, but I feel it begs the question: knowledge is an awareness of
something, it implies consciousness by definition.

What is the situation with an artificial neural network? Does it know
something, or is it akin to a stone being kicked down a hill? Or is
the stone being kicked down a hill akin to our brains and requiring
consciousness already?

> Then do you agree with the S4 theory of rational knowledge, which is that
>
> (knowable x) implies x
> (knowable (x implies y)) implies ((knowable x) implies (knowable y))
> (knowable x) implies (knowable (knowable x))
>
> With the inference rules:
>
> If I prove x I can deduce (knowable x)
> + modus ponens

I'm ok with this.

> If you are OK with this, it is not difficult to explain why evolution, or
> anything actually, cannot NOT bring consciousness, and a first person
> knower, in the picture.

Here I don't follow. Aren't you making the hidden assumption:

(knowable x) => (known x) ?

Notice that I do tend to think what you say, that "anything actually,
cannot NOT bring consciousness" -- but I see this as part of my
"personal religion". I'm just not convinced that the above proves it.

> That is a consequence of incompleteness which make the machine aware of the
> difference between []p and []p & p. The machine can know that []p obeys to
> the modal logic G and that ([]p & p), the definition of "knowable" by
> Theaetetus, obeys to the modal logic S4 + Grz (with Grz the Gregorczyk
> formula).
>
> Now, consciousness is not exactly knowledge, but a knowledge of some
> "reality".

But "who" knows? Again, isn't this begging the question?

> It is based on an implicit automated belief in our consistency
> (which is equivalent with the existence of a "model" in the logician sense,
> which means some "reality" satisfying our belief. This makes consciousness
> close to inconsistency.

Interesting idea.

> Then it can be shown that consciousness, which is unavoidable, has still
> some important role in evolution, as it makes the machine self-speed-up-able
> and more and more autonomous relatively to the probable universal
> machine/number which supports them.

For me evolution has a very fractal-like quality to it, in the sense
that it generates machines that become very similar to the machine
where they come from. I am still not convinced that consciousness is
necessary to explain biological complexification. Can you expand?

> Similarly, we get the feeling and the qualia with the logic of []p a p, and
> []p & <>t & p, with p sigma_1. This add the symmetrical (p implies []p) in
> the picture, and leads to quantum sort of logics.

Here I don't follow. You alluded to this quantum-like logic a few
times but you never expanded (I think). I would be interested in a
more detailed explanation.

> It makes also consciousness into a bridge between the 3p arithmetical
> picture and the (many) 1p internal views, including the first person plural
> physics, making this theory testable (and confirmed up to now, both
> introspectively and quantitatively). cf NUMBER ==> CONSCIOUSNESS/DREAM ==>
> PHYSICAL-REALITY.

Do you believe you can make a prediction that could be experimentally
tested, ideally something that has not been observed yet?

> This explains notably why consciousness is what we know the best from the 1p
> view, and yet is completely NOT definable in any 3p sense (like the notion
> of Arithmetical Truth).

You mean because it does not exist in 3p?

> Intutively: consciousness brings the semantics, or the meaning of our
> beliefs, and that speed-up the possible actions of the machine, making the
> development of consciousness an advantage in the evolution, even if it
> brings some amount of self-delusion, like the many confusion between the
> reality that we infer with a reification of the reality that we observe ...
> until Pythagoras and Plato get back to the scientific doubt and skepticism.

I always have a hard time seeing consciousness as causal. What about
does experiments with MRI that show decision being made before the
person in aware of deciding?


T.

>>
 I don't quite understand why an omnipotent being

 would "want" anything, He should already have it.  Nevertheless the

 religious say God does want certain things and they know exactly
 precisely

 what they are and they insist on telling us about it; and they also
 insist

 God can't get what He wants on His own, we have to help the poor fellow

 achieve His aims.

>
 You are describing Abrahamic religions. I don't believe in them either.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't think the
>>> Hindu religion
>>> is significantly less stupid. There are some forms of 

Re: Consciousness (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-24 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 23 Feb 2017, at 21:12, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 2/23/2017 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 20 Feb 2017, at 16:33, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, John Clark   
wrote:

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 Telmo Menezes  wrote:





Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain complete mysteries.







As far as I can tell, what we have is a falsification of current
theories. They appear to be good enough approximations for many
things, but then they fail at predicting the expansion rate of the
universe right? Maybe it's dark matter, maybe it's something else,



They are 2 separate mysteries. Dark Matter is a mysterious  
something that
makes up 28% of the universe and holds galaxies and clusters of  
galaxies
together. Dark Energy is a even more mysterious something that  
makes up 69%
of everything and causes the expansion of the entire universe to  
accelerate.
And about 4% of the universe is made of the sort of normal matter  
and energy

that until about 20 years ago was the only type we thought existed.

There is a straightforward extension of General Relativity and  
Quantum
Mechanics that explains Dark Energy, however it gives a figure  
that is
10^120 too large, it's been called the worse mismatch between  
theory and
observation in the entire history of science. I think it's fair  
to say we
really don't have a clue about Dark Energy, and Dark Matter is  
almost as

confusing.




If science failed so far at explaining something, then it doesn't

matter?



Science has an explanation for consciousness that works  
beautifully,
consciousness is the way information feels when it is being  
processed

intelligently.


I know that your position is that information processing is
nonsensical without matter. Many times you invited Bruno to compete
with Intel, etc. So what you are saying is that "consciousness is  
the
way matter feels when it participates in an intelligent  
computation".

This "explanation" begs the question already.

Then there's the issue of defining "processed intelligently". What
does that even mean? Where do you draw the line between intelligent
and non-intelligent processing? Let me guess: intelligent processing
is the kind that generates consciousness.

Nobody ever came up with a way to test for the presence of
consciousness (probably because it's the wrong way to think about  
it),
so there is no scientific theory about it. Zero. You make it worse  
by

introducing ill-defined concepts.


What science doesn't yet have is a complete theory explaining
how to produce intelligence, but enormous progress has been made  
in just the

last few years.


Not really. What is happening is that the artificial neural network
models from the 80s are finally paying off, because of the orders of
magnitude more computational power and training data that we have  
now.


Progress is being made, but it has been very slow. It's a hard  
problem.


I've worked in this field both in academia and industry, for what  
it's worth.



The study of intelligence, now that's important!






That is a statement of faith. Gizmo worshiping.



At least 3 times a week for the last 5 years somebody on this  
list has
accused me of being religious, apparently in the hope that I'll  
burst into

tears and cry myself to sleep. It's not going to happen,


I can't talk for the others, but I have no interest in making you  
feel bad.

I'm just pointing out dogmatic thinking.






Yes, it's important in

a sense. I too am interested in having medical breakthroughs,  
freedom


from labour and all the nice things that AI can bring.



It's important even if you're only interested in philosophical  
problems,

such as why did Evolution bother to make conscious animals at all.


Evolution is a theory on the origins of biological complexity. We  
know

nothing about consciousness.



Do you agree that consciousness is a form of knowledge? That is:  
consciousness requires some knowledge, and (genuine) knowledge  
requires some conscious person)?


I don't think knowledge requires consciousness, much less a person.



Then we are talking about different things. Knowledge, in the sense of  
cognitive science, or epistemology, requires a knower, which is  
usually a person. Eventually, we need only to agree on the axioms, and  
propose variant.


In the context of describing "consciousness", it is seen as a  
particular "knowledge". (plausibly [1]<1>t)









Then do you agree with the S4 theory of rational knowledge, which  
is that


A theory of "knowable" is not the same as a theory of knowledge.  A  
theory of knowledge has to include the fact that much less is known  
than is knowable.


OK. It is the "omniscience problem". In the ideal context of the  
arithmetically self-referentially correct machine, this is handled by  
the difference between (x is a proof of y) and Ex(x is a prove of y).  
We can use this to have still different modal variant, like proving- 

Re: Consciousness/Intelligence (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-24 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 23 Feb 2017, at 21:48, Hans Moravec wrote:




On 170223, at 3:23 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

John McCarthy warned many years ago that we should be careful not  
to create robots that had general intelligence, lest we  
inadvertently create conscious beings to whom we would have  
ethical obligations.


Bruno: And he warn us that we could become the pet of the machine.


No.  He warned that we could become slave owners.


The suggestion that we’d become pets was from Marvin Minsky.



You are right. My mistake.




I think he saw it as a good thing.




Yes, I think that he said something like we should be happy if they  
keep us as pets.


Bruno






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups "Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness/Intelligence (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-23 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/23/2017 1:43 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:


I have long thought that I perceive, however wrongly, the birth of new 
species by combining with La Machine. For one, it beats the hell out 
of early death, that all flesh is now heir to. Secondly, it would give 
us all super powers. Think, Iron Man suit, Batman power suit, Mighty 
Morphin Power Rangers, etc, ad nauseum. For the machines, unless they 
wanted to do it non-bio, or bio, by cloning the human amygdala, we fit 
usefully, into their plans by us determining what is crap and what is 
cuddly. I am guessing some kind of suit, headcap, implanted box into 
our system, would benefit both. Nanotech, or implanted into our rear 
sinus cavity. No! in the back of the head! But, hey, whatever floats 
your boats.


It'd be like the Reese's commercials. "You got your peanut butter in 
my chocolate. Well, you got your chocolate in my peanut butter!" Or 
like the Doublemints commercials "Two, two, two mints in one!" Or like 
the absorption of the mitochondria, by a bacteria, it led to the 
development of multicellular life, which is nicely, synergistic, if 
one thinks about it.


More likely it will be wealthy humans who will have their children 
implanted with a chip that gives them direct mental access to the web 
and other such resources.  So we'll become the Borg.


Brent
Following a Doublemint gum commercial, Arthur Godfrey famously said, 
"Let's face it folks.  If we're going to double our pleasure it's not 
going to be with chewing gum."


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness/Intelligence (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-23 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

I have long thought that I perceive, however wrongly, the birth of new species 
by combining with La Machine. For one, it beats the hell out of early death, 
that all flesh is now heir to. Secondly, it would give us all super powers. 
Think, Iron Man suit, Batman power suit, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, etc, ad 
nauseum. For the machines, unless they wanted to do it non-bio, or bio, by 
cloning the human amygdala, we fit usefully, into their plans by us determining 
what is crap and what is cuddly. I am guessing some kind of suit, headcap, 
implanted box into our system, would benefit both. Nanotech, or implanted into 
our rear sinus cavity. No! in the back of the head! But, hey, whatever floats 
your boats. 


It'd be like the Reese's commercials. "You got your peanut butter in my 
chocolate. Well, you got your chocolate in my peanut butter!" Or like the 
Doublemints commercials "Two, two, two mints in one!" Or like the absorption of 
the mitochondria, by a bacteria, it led to the development of multicellular 
life, which is nicely, synergistic, if one thinks about it. 


-Original Message-
From: Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net>
To: everything-list <everything-list@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Thu, Feb 23, 2017 4:01 pm
Subject: Re: Consciousness/Intelligence (was Re: From Atheism to Islam





On 2/23/2017 12:48 PM, Hans Moravec  wrote:



  

  
On 170223, at 3:23 PM, Brent Meeker <meeke...@verizon.net> wrote:
  
  

  

John McCarthy warned  many years ago that we should be careful 
not to create  robots that had general intelligence, lest we
  inadvertently create conscious beings to whom we would
  have ethical obligations.


Bruno: And he warn us that we could become the pet of   
 the machine.
  
  
  No. He warned that we could become slave owners.

  

  
  
  
The suggestion that we’d become pets was from MarvinMinsky.
  
I think he saw it as a good thing.
  


Yeah, he said that between lesser and greater intelligence he knewwhich 
side he'd take.

Brent
  
-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness/Intelligence (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-23 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/23/2017 12:48 PM, Hans Moravec wrote:


On 170223, at 3:23 PM, Brent Meeker > wrote:


John McCarthy warned many years ago that we should be careful not 
to create robots that had general intelligence, lest we 
inadvertently create conscious beings to whom we would have ethical 
obligations.


Bruno: And he warn us that we could become the pet of the machine.


No.  He warned that we could become slave owners.


The suggestion that we’d become pets was from Marvin Minsky.
I think he saw it as a good thing.


Yeah, he said that between lesser and greater intelligence he knew which 
side he'd take.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness/Intelligence (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-23 Thread Hans Moravec

> On 170223, at 3:23 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:
> 
>>> John McCarthy warned many years ago that we should be careful not to create 
>>> robots that had general intelligence, lest we inadvertently create 
>>> conscious beings to whom we would have ethical obligations.
>> 
>> Bruno: And he warn us that we could become the pet of the machine.
> 
> No.  He warned that we could become slave owners.

The suggestion that we’d become pets was from Marvin Minsky.
I think he saw it as a good thing.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness/Intelligence (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-23 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/23/2017 12:44 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 20 Feb 2017, at 20:52, Brent Meeker wrote:




On 2/20/2017 7:33 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, John Clark  
wrote:

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 Telmo Menezes  wrote:




Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain complete mysteries.



As far as I can tell, what we have is a falsification of current
theories. They appear to be good enough approximations for many
things, but then they fail at predicting the expansion rate of the
universe right? Maybe it's dark matter, maybe it's something else,


They are 2 separate mysteries. Dark Matter is a mysterious 
something that
makes up 28% of the universe and holds galaxies and clusters of 
galaxies
together. Dark Energy is a even more mysterious something that 
makes up 69%
of everything and causes the expansion of the entire universe to 
accelerate.
And about 4% of the universe is made of the sort of normal matter 
and energy

that until about 20 years ago was the only type we thought existed.

There is a straightforward extension of General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics that explains Dark Energy, however it gives a figure that is
10^120 too large, it's been called the worse mismatch between 
theory and
observation in the entire history of science. I think it's fair to 
say we
really don't have a clue about Dark Energy, and Dark Matter is 
almost as

confusing.


If science failed so far at explaining something, then it doesn't

matter?


Science has an explanation for consciousness that works beautifully,
consciousness is the way information feels when it is being processed
intelligently.

I know that your position is that information processing is
nonsensical without matter. Many times you invited Bruno to compete
with Intel, etc. So what you are saying is that "consciousness is the
way matter feels when it participates in an intelligent computation".
This "explanation" begs the question already.

Then there's the issue of defining "processed intelligently". What
does that even mean? Where do you draw the line between intelligent
and non-intelligent processing? Let me guess: intelligent processing
is the kind that generates consciousness.


No, intelligent processing it that which leads to useful activity 
toward a goal.  That's why consciousness has to be consciousness OF a 
world in which action is possible.  It only exists in a context.


I am OK, with "model" in place of "world". But those are close.






For me, the interesting question is whether there can be intelligence 
without consciousness,


When we do something intelligent (a priori) a billion times, we can do 
it without consciousness (like walking), but is it still intelligent?

Here, I would say that it depends of what we mean by "intelligent".



or more accurately can there be intelligence which is conscious in a 
different way.


different from what?


Different from the way I am conscious: A stream of narrative and images 
which mixes memories, feelings, and perceptions into a sort of coherent 
story.  I think this story is a way compressing what goes into memory so 
that it can be used for learning - at least if I were designing a robot 
and I used this technique for storing information to later be used in 
learning (i.e. reducing the information to a coherent stream) I would 
identify that part of the design as the "consciousness module".  But I 
can imagine designing the robot differently.  For example, if memory 
were very cheap and fast of access I might not try to filter experience 
into small stream of information before storing it - I might just put it 
all in and evaulate for learning later.  Or I can imagine designing the 
robot so that more than one coherent stream were produced based on 
different value weights and there were several learning modules based on 
different techniques and action decisions involved voting.







 We can see from Big Blue, Watson, and deep neural nets that there 
can be intelligence based different kinds of information processing.  
I suspect this means there would be different kinds of consciousness 
associated with them - but how could we know and what would it mean?  
John McCarthy warned many years ago that we should be careful not to 
create robots that had general intelligence, lest we inadvertently 
create conscious beings to whom we would have ethical obligations.


And he warn us that we could become the pet of the machine.


No.  He warned that we could become slave owners.

Brent

In fact if we continue to treat "corporation" as person, we will 
ultimately become the slaves of the machine, and most plausibly, a 
slave that the machine will stop to afford the price. We might 
disappear if this happens before we digitalize ourself completely. We 
are on a bad slope with respect to this, alas.


Bruno


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this 

Re: Consciousness (was Re: From Atheism to Islam

2017-02-23 Thread Brent Meeker



On 2/23/2017 12:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 20 Feb 2017, at 16:33, Telmo Menezes wrote:

On Sat, Feb 18, 2017 at 1:19 AM, John Clark  
wrote:

On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 Telmo Menezes  wrote:





Dark Matter and Dark Energy remain complete mysteries.







As far as I can tell, what we have is a falsification of current
theories. They appear to be good enough approximations for many
things, but then they fail at predicting the expansion rate of the
universe right? Maybe it's dark matter, maybe it's something else,



They are 2 separate mysteries. Dark Matter is a mysterious something 
that
makes up 28% of the universe and holds galaxies and clusters of 
galaxies
together. Dark Energy is a even more mysterious something that makes 
up 69%
of everything and causes the expansion of the entire universe to 
accelerate.
And about 4% of the universe is made of the sort of normal matter 
and energy

that until about 20 years ago was the only type we thought existed.

There is a straightforward extension of General Relativity and Quantum
Mechanics that explains Dark Energy, however it gives a figure that is
10^120 too large, it's been called the worse mismatch between theory 
and
observation in the entire history of science. I think it's fair to 
say we
really don't have a clue about Dark Energy, and Dark Matter is 
almost as

confusing.




If science failed so far at explaining something, then it doesn't

matter?



Science has an explanation for consciousness that works beautifully,
consciousness is the way information feels when it is being processed
intelligently.


I know that your position is that information processing is
nonsensical without matter. Many times you invited Bruno to compete
with Intel, etc. So what you are saying is that "consciousness is the
way matter feels when it participates in an intelligent computation".
This "explanation" begs the question already.

Then there's the issue of defining "processed intelligently". What
does that even mean? Where do you draw the line between intelligent
and non-intelligent processing? Let me guess: intelligent processing
is the kind that generates consciousness.

Nobody ever came up with a way to test for the presence of
consciousness (probably because it's the wrong way to think about it),
so there is no scientific theory about it. Zero. You make it worse by
introducing ill-defined concepts.


What science doesn't yet have is a complete theory explaining
how to produce intelligence, but enormous progress has been made in 
just the

last few years.


Not really. What is happening is that the artificial neural network
models from the 80s are finally paying off, because of the orders of
magnitude more computational power and training data that we have now.

Progress is being made, but it has been very slow. It's a hard problem.

I've worked in this field both in academia and industry, for what 
it's worth.



The study of intelligence, now that's important!






That is a statement of faith. Gizmo worshiping.



At least 3 times a week for the last 5 years somebody on this list has
accused me of being religious, apparently in the hope that I'll 
burst into

tears and cry myself to sleep. It's not going to happen,


I can't talk for the others, but I have no interest in making you 
feel bad.

I'm just pointing out dogmatic thinking.






Yes, it's important in

a sense. I too am interested in having medical breakthroughs, freedom

from labour and all the nice things that AI can bring.



It's important even if you're only interested in philosophical 
problems,

such as why did Evolution bother to make conscious animals at all.


Evolution is a theory on the origins of biological complexity. We know
nothing about consciousness.



Do you agree that consciousness is a form of knowledge? That is: 
consciousness requires some knowledge, and (genuine) knowledge 
requires some conscious person)?


I don't think knowledge requires consciousness, much less a person.



Then do you agree with the S4 theory of rational knowledge, which is that


A theory of "knowable" is not the same as a theory of knowledge.  A 
theory of knowledge has to include the fact that much less is known than 
is knowable.




(knowable x) implies x
(knowable (x implies y)) implies ((knowable x) implies (knowable y))
(knowable x) implies (knowable (knowable x))

With the inference rules:

If I prove x I can deduce (knowable x)
+ modus ponens


Proof is realtive to premises.  If you can prove x from true premises, 
THEN it's knowable.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit 

Re: Consciousness creates physics

2015-04-27 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi

Dear John,

Recently I have found a nice statement from David Hume, one of the 
greatest skeptics. Interestingly enough that Hume has declared that 
Nature is always too strong for principle, see below this statement in 
the context:


But a Pyrrhonian cannot expect, that his philosophy will have any 
constant influence on the mind: or if it had, that its influence would 
be beneficial to society. On the contrary, he must acknowledge, if he 
will acknowledge anything, that all human life must perish, were his 
principles universally and steadily to prevail. All discourse, all 
action would immediately cease; and men remain in a total lethargy, till 
the necessities of nature, unsatisfied, put an end to their miserable 
existence. It is true; so fatal an event is very little to be dreaded. 
Nature is always too strong for principle. And though a Pyrrhonian may 
throw himself or others into a momentary amazement and confusion by his 
profound reasonings; the first and most trivial event in life will put 
to flight all his doubts and scruples, and leave him the same, in every 
point of action and speculation, with the philosophers of every other 
sect, or with those who never concerned themselves in any philosophical 
researches. When he awakes from his dream, he will be the first to join 
in the laugh against himself, and to confess, that all his objections 
are mere amusement, and can have no other tendency than to show the 
whimsical condition of mankind, who must act and reason and believe; 
though they are not able, by their most diligent enquiry, to satisfy 
themselves concerning the foundation of these operations, or to remove 
the objections, which may be raised against them.


Evgenii

Am 26.04.2015 um 22:44 schrieb John Mikes:

Evgeniy, I, for one, like your approach on the Hoffmann-Prokosh
idea. In my terms (Ccness = REPLY (reflection?) to RELATIONS
definitely points to the Berkeley wisdom (to accept as existing one
must perceive the item, in concise Latin: *ESSE* (to include into our
worldview) *est PERCIPI*. Difference may be in faith-based religion
where ACCEPTANCE is also good enough. It may be an extension for the
Kantian 'revolution': our entire image of the WORLD (the Everything,
Nature, you name it) is the product of our mind. (And please, do not
ask what I mean by 'mind').

All our 'knowledge' about the WORLD(?) is the reflection of the human
mind on phenomena (items, processes) perceived in adjusted formats
available to the mind.  No justification and no formatting to any
'reality'. That includes the Hoffmann-Prakash Psychology as well. (I
did not read the paper). JM

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru
wrote:


Dear Brent,

I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced
in the paper have to do with human consciousness.

For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is
close to Kantian revolution (space and time are created by the
mind) and that Berkeley's to be is to be perceived (esse est
percipi) is still actual.

The next natural step for the cognitive science would be radical
constructivism.

Evgenii

Am 26.04.2015 um 21:35 schrieb meekerdb:


I think the authors are more interested in being provocative than
in being clear.  For example:

/The interface theory entails that these first two steps were
mere warm up. The next step in the intellectual history of H.
sapiens is a big one. We must recognize that all of our
perceptions of space, time and objects no more reflect reality
than does our perception of a flat earth. It's not just this or
that aspect of our perceptions that must be corrected, it is the
entire framework of a space-time containing objects, the
fundamental organization of our perceptual systems, that must be
recognized as a mere species-specific mode of perception rather
than an insight into objective reality./ / //By this time it
should be clear that, if the arguments given here are sound, then
the current Bayesian models of object perception need more than
tinkering around the edges, they need fundamental transformation.
And this transformation will necessarily have ramifications for
scientific questions well-beyond the confines of computational
models of object perception./

There's no justification for the mere.  Our perception has
gone well beyond what biology provided.  Nor is there any reason
to suppose that the transformation they propose will be THE
OBJECTIVE TRUTH either. / //Similarly, most of my mental
processes are not directly conscious to me, but that does not
entail that they are unconscious./


This just seems to make of muddle of what is meant by
conscious.

Anyway, I'll finish reading it.  I think an explanation of
consciousness based on evolution is one useful approach.

Brent

On 4/26/2015 1:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


Enjoy. Evgenii

Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of
consciousness, Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014.


Re: Consciousness creates physics

2015-04-27 Thread Bruno Marchal

Dear Evgenii,


On 26 Apr 2015, at 22:01, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:


Dear Brent,

I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced in  
the paper have to do with human consciousness.


For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is close  
to Kantian revolution (space and time are created by the mind) and  
that Berkeley's to be is to be perceived (esse est percipi) is  
still actual.


I can appreciate this conclusion, although if that is true, that does  
not yet make mind into the fundamental thing, as it can emerge from a  
neutral ontology, like arithmetic.





The next natural step for the cognitive science would be radical  
constructivism.



That would be like focusing on the first person, or the third  
hypostases. But theology, and theoretical computer science, and  
general mathematics, contains necessarily non-constructive  
propositions, and radical constructivism would eliminate them. Radical  
constructivism put the others, and the unknown, under the rug, I would  
say.


Bruno




Evgenii

Am 26.04.2015 um 21:35 schrieb meekerdb:

I think the authors are more interested in being provocative than in
being clear.  For example:

/The interface theory entails that these first two steps were mere
warm up. The next step in the intellectual history of H. sapiens is a
big one. We must recognize that all of our perceptions of space, time
and objects no more reflect reality than does our perception of a
flat earth. It's not just this or that aspect of our perceptions that
must be corrected, it is the entire framework of a space-time
containing objects, the fundamental organization of our perceptual
systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific mode of
perception rather than an insight into objective reality./ / //By
this time it should be clear that, if the arguments given here are
sound, then the current Bayesian models of object perception need
more than tinkering around the edges, they need fundamental
transformation. And this transformation will necessarily have
ramifications for scientific questions well-beyond the confines of
computational models of object perception./

There's no justification for the mere.  Our perception has gone
well beyond what biology provided.  Nor is there any reason to
suppose that the transformation they propose will be THE OBJECTIVE
TRUTH either. / //Similarly, most of my mental processes are not
directly conscious to me, but that does not entail that they are
unconscious./

This just seems to make of muddle of what is meant by conscious.

Anyway, I'll finish reading it.  I think an explanation of
consciousness based on evolution is one useful approach.

Brent

On 4/26/2015 1:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Enjoy. Evgenii

Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness,
Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full




“We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study

how the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from such
dynamics. We show that one particular object, the quantum free
particle, has a wave function that is identical in form to the
harmonic functions that characterize the asymptotic dynamics of
conscious agents; particles are vibrations not of strings but of
interacting conscious agents. This allows us to reinterpret
physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as
properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as
preexisting physical truths.”





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness creates physics

2015-04-26 Thread John Mikes
Evgeniy, I, for one, like your approach on the Hoffmann-Prokosh idea.
In my terms (Ccness = REPLY (reflection?) to RELATIONS definitely points to
the Berkeley wisdom (to accept as existing one must perceive the item, in
concise Latin: *ESSE* (to include into our worldview) *est PERCIPI*.
Difference may be in faith-based religion where ACCEPTANCE is also good
enough.
It may be an extension for the Kantian 'revolution': our entire image of
the WORLD (the Everything, Nature, you name it) is the product of our mind.
(And please, do not ask what I mean by 'mind').

All our 'knowledge' about the WORLD(?) is the reflection of the human mind
on phenomena (items, processes) perceived in adjusted formats available to
the mind.  No justification and no formatting to any 'reality'.
That includes the Hoffmann-Prakash Psychology as well.
(I did not read the paper).
JM

On Sun, Apr 26, 2015 at 4:01 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:

 Dear Brent,

 I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced in the
 paper have to do with human consciousness.

 For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is close to
 Kantian revolution (space and time are created by the mind) and that
 Berkeley's to be is to be perceived (esse est percipi) is still actual.

 The next natural step for the cognitive science would be radical
 constructivism.

 Evgenii

 Am 26.04.2015 um 21:35 schrieb meekerdb:

 I think the authors are more interested in being provocative than in
  being clear.  For example:

 /The interface theory entails that these first two steps were mere
 warm up. The next step in the intellectual history of H. sapiens is a
 big one. We must recognize that all of our perceptions of space, time
 and objects no more reflect reality than does our perception of a
 flat earth. It's not just this or that aspect of our perceptions that
 must be corrected, it is the entire framework of a space-time
 containing objects, the fundamental organization of our perceptual
 systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific mode of
 perception rather than an insight into objective reality./ / //By
 this time it should be clear that, if the arguments given here are
 sound, then the current Bayesian models of object perception need
 more than tinkering around the edges, they need fundamental
 transformation. And this transformation will necessarily have
 ramifications for scientific questions well-beyond the confines of
 computational models of object perception./

 There's no justification for the mere.  Our perception has gone
 well beyond what biology provided.  Nor is there any reason to
 suppose that the transformation they propose will be THE OBJECTIVE
 TRUTH either. / //Similarly, most of my mental processes are not
 directly conscious to me, but that does not entail that they are
 unconscious./


 This just seems to make of muddle of what is meant by conscious.

 Anyway, I'll finish reading it.  I think an explanation of
 consciousness based on evolution is one useful approach.

 Brent

 On 4/26/2015 1:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

 Enjoy. Evgenii

 Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness,
 Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014.

 http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full



  “We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study

 how the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from such
 dynamics. We show that one particular object, the quantum free
 particle, has a wave function that is identical in form to the
 harmonic functions that characterize the asymptotic dynamics of
 conscious agents; particles are vibrations not of strings but of
 interacting conscious agents. This allows us to reinterpret
 physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as
 properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as
 preexisting physical truths.”



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness creates physics

2015-04-26 Thread Evgenii Rudnyi

Dear Brent,

I would agree that it is unclear what conscious agents introduced in the 
paper have to do with human consciousness.


For me it was interesting to see that the cognitive science is close to 
Kantian revolution (space and time are created by the mind) and that 
Berkeley's to be is to be perceived (esse est percipi) is still actual.


The next natural step for the cognitive science would be radical 
constructivism.


Evgenii

Am 26.04.2015 um 21:35 schrieb meekerdb:

I think the authors are more interested in being provocative than in
 being clear.  For example:

/The interface theory entails that these first two steps were mere
warm up. The next step in the intellectual history of H. sapiens is a
big one. We must recognize that all of our perceptions of space, time
and objects no more reflect reality than does our perception of a
flat earth. It's not just this or that aspect of our perceptions that
must be corrected, it is the entire framework of a space-time
containing objects, the fundamental organization of our perceptual
systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific mode of
perception rather than an insight into objective reality./ / //By
this time it should be clear that, if the arguments given here are
sound, then the current Bayesian models of object perception need
more than tinkering around the edges, they need fundamental
transformation. And this transformation will necessarily have
ramifications for scientific questions well-beyond the confines of
computational models of object perception./

There's no justification for the mere.  Our perception has gone
well beyond what biology provided.  Nor is there any reason to
suppose that the transformation they propose will be THE OBJECTIVE
TRUTH either. / //Similarly, most of my mental processes are not
directly conscious to me, but that does not entail that they are
unconscious./

This just seems to make of muddle of what is meant by conscious.

Anyway, I'll finish reading it.  I think an explanation of
consciousness based on evolution is one useful approach.

Brent

On 4/26/2015 1:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Enjoy. Evgenii

Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness,
Frontiers in Psychology, v. 5, N 00577, 2014.

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full




“We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study

how the perception of objects and space-time can emerge from such
dynamics. We show that one particular object, the quantum free
particle, has a wave function that is identical in form to the
harmonic functions that characterize the asymptotic dynamics of
conscious agents; particles are vibrations not of strings but of
interacting conscious agents. This allows us to reinterpret
physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as
properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as
preexisting physical truths.”





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness creates physics

2015-04-26 Thread meekerdb
I think the authors are more interested in being provocative than in being clear.  For 
example:


/The interface theory entails that these first two steps were mere warm up. The next step 
in the intellectual history of H. sapiens is a big one. We must recognize that all of our 
perceptions of space, time and objects no more reflect reality than does our perception of 
a flat earth. It's not just this or that aspect of our perceptions that must be corrected, 
it is the entire framework of a space-time containing objects, the fundamental 
organization of our perceptual systems, that must be recognized as a mere species-specific 
mode of perception rather than an insight into objective reality./

/
//By this time it should be clear that, if the arguments given here are sound, then the 
current Bayesian models of object perception need more than tinkering around the edges, 
they need fundamental transformation. And this transformation will necessarily have 
ramifications for scientific questions well-beyond the confines of computational models of 
object perception./


There's no justification for the mere.  Our perception has gone well beyond what biology 
provided.  Nor is there any reason to suppose that the transformation they propose will be 
THE OBJECTIVE TRUTH either.

/
//Similarly, most of my mental processes are not directly conscious to me, but that does 
not entail that they are unconscious./


This just seems to make of muddle of what is meant by conscious.

Anyway, I'll finish reading it.  I think an explanation of consciousness based on 
evolution is one useful approach.


Brent

On 4/26/2015 1:22 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:

Enjoy. Evgenii

Donald David Hoffman, Chetan Prakash, Objects of consciousness, Frontiers in Psychology, 
v. 5, N 00577, 2014.


http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00577/full

“We develop the dynamics of interacting conscious agents, and study how the perception 
of objects and space-time can emerge from such dynamics. We show that one particular 
object, the quantum free particle, has a wave function that is identical in form to the 
harmonic functions that characterize the asymptotic dynamics of conscious agents; 
particles are vibrations not of strings but of interacting conscious agents. This allows 
us to reinterpret physical properties such as position, momentum, and energy as 
properties of interacting conscious agents, rather than as preexisting physical truths.”




--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-12 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Thanks, Professor Marchal, I will retry the link here. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXZOhqbQsOw
 
Its called the afterlife dysfunction, on youtube, and I am not sure if the 
producer of the video is the good professor at Antwerp? (Athenewins) Its seems 
to be a celebration of the biocentrism theory by cell biologist, Robert Lanza, 
and astronomer, Bob (uncle bob) Berman. My only questions for Dr, Van Der 
Vedken, is, do you still hold biocentrism as physically, valid, and why do you, 
as it, like quantum suicide, promotes all kinds of horrible and irrational 
worlds to suffer through? Worlds where our next experience is to survive for a 
view minutes because humans arrive with no skin, worlds where there are no 
arrivals with cerebrums, earths of acids and salts, relatively, nice worlds, 
where people have three eyes, and then there's the discussion that our world 
lines split, and all we get to be is relatively older, and older, before the 
next split off. 

Surely, as the old Christmas carol goes, no, tidings of comfort and joie, 
found here. 

Mitch
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 10:23 am
Subject: Re: Consciousness




On 11 Dec 2014, at 03:53, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:




Sent from AOL Mobile


Perhaps unrelated, is a young theoretical physicist at the university of 
antwerp, named van der veeken, who under his nom de guerre, went by the name of 
athene, for the video on youtube, afterlife dysfunction. I wonder if professor 
Marchal has heard of him? I have viewed this video before, but tomorrow, after 
the ale fades (porter) I will review this video. It might contribute to this 
exchange of views.


http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=aXZOhqbQsOw




I don't know him, except he might have sent to me a message some years ago, but 
I don't find it. Currently I don't succeed to get that video. Are you sure of 
the link? It is broken on my mail messages.


Bruno






Mitch



-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 09:21 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness


 
 
On 12/10/2014 2:00 PM, LizR wrote:


 So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer-reviewed 
 papers by 
 experts in the relevant fields, which also make these claims? The IQ 130 
 student, who is 
 presumably still around to be studied, might be a good place to start. If she 
 really is 
 what is being claimed that would seem to be very strong evidence that 
 high-functioning 
 consciousness can exist in a much reduced brain, and maybe even without one.

Google can't find her.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 
  


 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



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



 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-12 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Yes, I just read your reply from after my post, so thanks, again
 
Mitch
 
 
-Original Message-
From: spudboy100 via Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Fri, Dec 12, 2014 12:30 pm
Subject: Re: Consciousness


Thanks, Professor Marchal, I will retry the link here. 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXZOhqbQsOw
 
Its called the afterlife dysfunction, on youtube, and I am not sure if the 
producer of the video is the good professor at Antwerp? (Athenewins) Its seems 
to be a celebration of the biocentrism theory by cell biologist, Robert Lanza, 
and astronomer, Bob (uncle bob) Berman. My only questions for Dr, Van Der 
Vedken, is, do you still hold biocentrism as physically, valid, and why do you, 
as it, like quantum suicide, promotes all kinds of horrible and irrational 
worlds to suffer through? Worlds where our next experience is to survive for a 
view minutes because humans arrive with no skin, worlds where there are no 
arrivals with cerebrums, earths of acids and salts, relatively, nice worlds, 
where people have three eyes, and then there's the discussion that our world 
lines split, and all we get to be is relatively older, and older, before the 
next split off. 
 
Surely, as the old Christmas carol goes, no, tidings of comfort and joie, 
found here. 
 
Mitch
 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thu, Dec 11, 2014 10:23 am
Subject: Re: Consciousness




On 11 Dec 2014, at 03:53, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:




Sent from AOL Mobile


Perhaps unrelated, is a young theoretical physicist at the university of 
antwerp, named van der veeken, who under his nom de guerre, went by the name of 
athene, for the video on youtube, afterlife dysfunction. I wonder if professor 
Marchal has heard of him? I have viewed this video before, but tomorrow, after 
the ale fades (porter) I will review this video. It might contribute to this 
exchange of views.


http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=aXZOhqbQsOw




I don't know him, except he might have sent to me a message some years ago, but 
I don't find it. Currently I don't succeed to get that video. Are you sure of 
the link? It is broken on my mail messages.


Bruno






Mitch



-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 09:21 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness


 
 
On 12/10/2014 2:00 PM, LizR wrote:


 So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer-reviewed 
 papers by 
 experts in the relevant fields, which also make these claims? The IQ 130 
 student, who is 
 presumably still around to be studied, might be a good place to start. If she 
 really is 
 what is being claimed that would seem to be very strong evidence that 
 high-functioning 
 consciousness can exist in a much reduced brain, and maybe even without one.

Google can't find her.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 
  


 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



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



 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email

Re: Consciousness

2014-12-11 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 10 Dec 2014, at 23:00, LizR wrote:

On 10 December 2014 at 20:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com  
wrote:
That's the slide I meant. The first item has to do with the  
(mostly ) elderly who get serious dementia

and essentially cannot communicate. They speak nonsense or not at all.

From autopsies after they die their brains are established to be  
almost completely destroyed.

Yet just before they die, from minutes to a day or two,
their communication is normal or even sometimes above normal.

This is taken as evidence that consciousness can exist without a  
brain.
In fact, during dementia it is thought that the decaying brain just  
gets in the way.


A more remarkable case is that of a HS honor student (130 IQ) who  
got a brain injury in a auto accident.
The xray of her head revealed that she only has a brain stem- no  
higher order components.


Similarly some people with cranial fluid in place of a brain (except  
for the brain stem) are high functioning.
Prof. Greyson showed an xray of such a person's head compared to an  
ordinary brain.


This all sounds rather extraordinary, and as they say extraordinary  
claims require extraordinary proof - I have found in the past that  
what looked like compelling evidence for something extraordinary has  
later been shown to be not quite as good as it appeared (I should  
never have read James Randi on the Cottingley fairies...)


So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer- 
reviewed papers by experts in the relevant fields,


Even this might not been enough. In fact there are such published  
papers, but it is easy to create journals with people citing each  
others, when they all share bad protocols or have common partial view  
on a subject.


Now, some papers are more serious than others, in that filed, and the  
statistics of number of report of Near Death Experience are usually  
presented in a convincing way. How to interpret it is another matter.  
Greyson does not look serious to me, because it takes, without saying,  
only one interpretation of QM. So, like often with people starting  
from what they want to prove, they filtrated the evidences for them.






which also make these claims? The IQ 130 student, who is presumably  
still around to be studied, might be a good place to start. If she  
really is what is being claimed that would seem to be very strong  
evidence that high-functioning consciousness can exist in a much  
reduced brain, and maybe even without one.


Indeed,

Bruno






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-11 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 11 Dec 2014, at 03:37, meekerdb wrote:


On 12/10/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote:
You're the one putting this forward, presumably you've done some  
research on it, why should I have to duplicate it?


You obviously don't have anything here, I'm sorry I bothered to be  
open minded about it since you're clearly just a charlatan.


And maybe Prof Greyson too.


Probably something like 40% serious, 60% non serious. judging just  
from that video talk, to be sure.


bruno




Brent



On 11 December 2014 at 14:28, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com  
wrote:

You can do your own research.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com  
wrote:

She is at Smith College. Go for it

If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers,  
I think we can say right now that there is almost certainly nothing  
to any of this, because it needs lots of research conducted by  
experts to proved extraordinary evidence. If there hasn't been  
any then it's just, as some people already said, anecdotal. I'm  
quite prepared to look at the evidence with an open mind but if the  
evidence involves snarky comments then forget it, we're back in  
Edgar Owen land.


Or can you supply the links to suitable papers, as requested?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything- 
l...@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-11 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 11 Dec 2014, at 03:53, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:




Sent from AOL Mobile

Perhaps unrelated, is a young theoretical physicist at the  
university of antwerp, named van der veeken, who under his nom de  
guerre, went by the name of athene, for the video on youtube,  
afterlife dysfunction. I wonder if professor Marchal has heard of  
him? I have viewed this video before, but tomorrow, after the ale  
fades (porter) I will review this video. It might contribute to this  
exchange of views.


http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=aXZOhqbQsOw


I don't know him, except he might have sent to me a message some years  
ago, but I don't find it. Currently I don't succeed to get that video.  
Are you sure of the link? It is broken on my mail messages.


Bruno




Mitch



-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 09:21 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness


On 12/10/2014 2:00 PM, LizR wrote:


 So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer- 
reviewed papers by
 experts in the relevant fields, which also make these claims? The  
IQ 130 student, who is
 presumably still around to be studied, might be a good place to  
start. If she really is
 what is being claimed that would seem to be very strong evidence  
that high-functioning
 consciousness can exist in a much reduced brain, and maybe even  
without one.


Google can't find her.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-11 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 11 Dec 2014, at 03:53, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:




Sent from AOL Mobile

Perhaps unrelated, is a young theoretical physicist at the  
university of antwerp, named van der veeken, who under his nom de  
guerre, went by the name of athene, for the video on youtube,  
afterlife dysfunction. I wonder if professor Marchal has heard of  
him? I have viewed this video before, but tomorrow, after the ale  
fades (porter) I will review this video. It might contribute to this  
exchange of views.


http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=aXZOhqbQsOw


OK, I corrected the link and I got it. Will tell what I think when I  
have more time.


Bruno





Mitch



-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 09:21 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness


On 12/10/2014 2:00 PM, LizR wrote:


 So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer- 
reviewed papers by
 experts in the relevant fields, which also make these claims? The  
IQ 130 student, who is
 presumably still around to be studied, might be a good place to  
start. If she really is
 what is being claimed that would seem to be very strong evidence  
that high-functioning
 consciousness can exist in a much reduced brain, and maybe even  
without one.


Google can't find her.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-11 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 11 Dec 2014, at 03:53, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote:




Sent from AOL Mobile

Perhaps unrelated, is a young theoretical physicist at the  
university of antwerp, named van der veeken, who under his nom de  
guerre, went by the name of athene, for the video on youtube,  
afterlife dysfunction. I wonder if professor Marchal has heard of  
him? I have viewed this video before, but tomorrow, after the ale  
fades (porter) I will review this video. It might contribute to this  
exchange of views.


http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=aXZOhqbQsOw



OK. I saw it. The images are nice, but it makes me nervous when he say  
that we know  We have only theories.
He says different things which are compatible with computationalism,  
but he recasted it in the aristotelian frame, making it inconsistent.  
But its conclusion about after life coming from a statistics on  
infinities of states is basically correct, yet very fuzzy, and the  
video only scratches the problem.
The title is a bit deceiving, and it looks like an advertising. The  
special effects are well done, though.
Not sure he could convince people on this list, except those grasping  
already the non-triviality of the mind-body problem.


Bruno




Mitch



-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 09:21 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness


On 12/10/2014 2:00 PM, LizR wrote:


 So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer- 
reviewed papers by
 experts in the relevant fields, which also make these claims? The  
IQ 130 student, who is
 presumably still around to be studied, might be a good place to  
start. If she really is
 what is being claimed that would seem to be very strong evidence  
that high-functioning
 consciousness can exist in a much reduced brain, and maybe even  
without one.


Google can't find her.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 09 Dec 2014, at 15:36, Richard Ruquist wrote:



-- Forwarded message --
From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Subject: Consciousness
To: Swines swi...@yahoogroups.com, achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com 
 achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4feature=youtu.be

An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of  
Virginia that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.


That should be obvious for a computationalist.

The case described are of some interest, but the use of consciousness  
in QM has been refuted by Abner Shimony, and there is some big lack of  
rigor in the comment the guy does for the experiments it describes.


It illustrates (like the Movie graph argument but less rigorously, I  
would say) that the choice is between adding magic to the  
aristotelian frame, or ... abandoning the aristotelian frame.


Bruno






--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread LizR
On 10 December 2014 at 20:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 That's the slide I meant. The first item has to do with the (mostly )
 elderly who get serious dementia
 and essentially cannot communicate. They speak nonsense or not at all.

 From autopsies after they die their brains are established to be almost
 completely destroyed.
 Yet just before they die, from minutes to a day or two,
 their communication is normal or even sometimes above normal.

 This is taken as evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain.
 In fact, during dementia it is thought that the decaying brain just gets
 in the way.

 A more remarkable case is that of a HS honor student (130 IQ) who got a
 brain injury in a auto accident.
 The xray of her head revealed that she only has a brain stem- no higher
 order components.

 Similarly some people with cranial fluid in place of a brain (except for
 the brain stem) are high functioning.
 Prof. Greyson showed an xray of such a person's head compared to an
 ordinary brain.

 This all sounds rather extraordinary, and as they say extraordinary
claims require extraordinary proof - I have found in the past that what
looked like compelling evidence for something extraordinary has later been
shown to be not quite as good as it appeared (I should never have read
James Randi on the Cottingley fairies...)

So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer-reviewed
papers by experts in the relevant fields, which also make these claims? The
IQ 130 student, who is presumably still around to be studied, might be a
good place to start. If she really is what is being claimed that would seem
to be very strong evidence that high-functioning consciousness can exist in
a much reduced brain, and maybe even without one.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread Richard Ruquist
She is at Smith College. Go for it

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:00 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 10 December 2014 at 20:00, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 That's the slide I meant. The first item has to do with the (mostly )
 elderly who get serious dementia
 and essentially cannot communicate. They speak nonsense or not at all.

 From autopsies after they die their brains are established to be almost
 completely destroyed.
 Yet just before they die, from minutes to a day or two,
 their communication is normal or even sometimes above normal.

 This is taken as evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain.
 In fact, during dementia it is thought that the decaying brain just gets
 in the way.

 A more remarkable case is that of a HS honor student (130 IQ) who got a
 brain injury in a auto accident.
 The xray of her head revealed that she only has a brain stem- no higher
 order components.

 Similarly some people with cranial fluid in place of a brain (except for
 the brain stem) are high functioning.
 Prof. Greyson showed an xray of such a person's head compared to an
 ordinary brain.

 This all sounds rather extraordinary, and as they say extraordinary
 claims require extraordinary proof - I have found in the past that what
 looked like compelling evidence for something extraordinary has later been
 shown to be not quite as good as it appeared (I should never have read
 James Randi on the Cottingley fairies...)

 So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer-reviewed
 papers by experts in the relevant fields, which also make these claims? The
 IQ 130 student, who is presumably still around to be studied, might be a
 good place to start. If she really is what is being claimed that would seem
 to be very strong evidence that high-functioning consciousness can exist in
 a much reduced brain, and maybe even without one.

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread LizR
On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 She is at Smith College. Go for it


If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I think
we can say right now that there is almost certainly nothing to any of this,
because it needs lots of research conducted by experts to proved
extraordinary evidence. If there hasn't been any then it's just, as some
people already said, anecdotal. I'm quite prepared to look at the evidence
with an open mind but if the evidence involves snarky comments then forget
it, we're back in Edgar Owen land.

Or can you supply the links to suitable papers, as requested?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread Richard Ruquist
You can do your own research.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 She is at Smith College. Go for it


 If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I think
 we can say right now that there is almost certainly nothing to any of this,
 because it needs lots of research conducted by experts to proved
 extraordinary evidence. If there hasn't been any then it's just, as some
 people already said, anecdotal. I'm quite prepared to look at the evidence
 with an open mind but if the evidence involves snarky comments then forget
 it, we're back in Edgar Owen land.

 Or can you supply the links to suitable papers, as requested?

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread LizR
You're the one putting this forward, presumably you've done some research
on it, why should I have to duplicate it?

You obviously don't have anything here, I'm sorry I bothered to be open
minded about it since you're clearly just a charlatan.

On 11 December 2014 at 14:28, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 You can do your own research.

 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 She is at Smith College. Go for it


 If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I
 think we can say right now that there is almost certainly nothing to any of
 this, because it needs lots of research conducted by experts to proved
 extraordinary evidence. If there hasn't been any then it's just, as some
 people already said, anecdotal. I'm quite prepared to look at the evidence
 with an open mind but if the evidence involves snarky comments then forget
 it, we're back in Edgar Owen land.

 Or can you supply the links to suitable papers, as requested?

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread Richard Ruquist
Has anyone ever told you that you are controlling or am I the first.
Bruce Greyson has made those claims, not me.
And I do not appreciate your characterizations.
Nobody can tell me what to do.
Richard



On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:36 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 You're the one putting this forward, presumably you've done some research
 on it, why should I have to duplicate it?

 You obviously don't have anything here, I'm sorry I bothered to be open
 minded about it since you're clearly just a charlatan.

 On 11 December 2014 at 14:28, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 You can do your own research.

 On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:

 She is at Smith College. Go for it


 If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I
 think we can say right now that there is almost certainly nothing to any of
 this, because it needs lots of research conducted by experts to proved
 extraordinary evidence. If there hasn't been any then it's just, as some
 people already said, anecdotal. I'm quite prepared to look at the evidence
 with an open mind but if the evidence involves snarky comments then forget
 it, we're back in Edgar Owen land.

 Or can you supply the links to suitable papers, as requested?

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
 Groups Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
 an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread meekerdb

On 12/10/2014 2:00 PM, LizR wrote:



So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer-reviewed papers by 
experts in the relevant fields, which also make these claims? The IQ 130 student, who is 
presumably still around to be studied, might be a good place to start. If she really is 
what is being claimed that would seem to be very strong evidence that high-functioning 
consciousness can exist in a much reduced brain, and maybe even without one.


Google can't find her.

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread meekerdb

A lot of people are at Smith.  What's her name?

Brent

On 12/10/2014 4:15 PM, LizR wrote:
On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:


She is at Smith College. Go for it


If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I think we can say 
right now that there is almost certainly nothing to any of this, because it needs lots 
of research conducted by experts to proved extraordinary evidence. If there hasn't 
been any then it's just, as some people already said, anecdotal. I'm quite prepared to 
look at the evidence with an open mind but if the evidence involves snarky comments then 
forget it, we're back in Edgar Owen land.


Or can you supply the links to suitable papers, as requested?

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread meekerdb

On 12/10/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote:
You're the one putting this forward, presumably you've done some research on it, why 
should I have to duplicate it?


You obviously don't have anything here, I'm sorry I bothered to be open minded about it 
since you're clearly just a charlatan.


And maybe Prof Greyson too.

Brent



On 11 December 2014 at 14:28, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:


You can do your own research.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:15 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com 
mailto:lizj...@gmail.com
wrote:

On 11 December 2014 at 11:34, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:

She is at Smith College. Go for it


If that's the only response to a request for peer-reviewed papers, I 
think we
can say right now that there is almost certainly nothing to any of 
this, because
it needs lots of research conducted by experts to proved extraordinary
evidence. If there hasn't been any then it's just, as some people 
already said,
anecdotal. I'm quite prepared to look at the evidence with an open mind 
but if
the evidence involves snarky comments then forget it, we're back in 
Edgar Owen land.

Or can you supply the links to suitable papers, as requested?

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send 
an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups

Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything 
List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.

Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List


Sent from AOL Mobile

Perhaps unrelated, is a young theoretical physicist at the university of 
antwerp, named van der veeken, who under his nom de guerre, went by the name of 
athene, for the video on youtube, afterlife dysfunction. I wonder if professor 
Marchal has heard of him? I have viewed this video before, but tomorrow, after 
the ale fades (porter) I will review this video. It might contribute to this 
exchange of views.

http://m.youtube.com/?#/watch?v=aXZOhqbQsOw


Mitch



-Original Message-
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 09:21 PM
Subject: Re: Consciousness



div id=AOLMsgPart_1_007743ba-1e03-4f52-a6a5-d0956d534cab style=margin: 
0px;font-family: Tahoma, Verdana, Arial, Sans-Serif;font-size: 12px;color: 
#000;background-color: #fff;

pre style=font-size: 9pt;ttOn 12/10/2014 2:00 PM, LizR wrote:


 So, with all due respect, I would like to know if there are peer-reviewed 
 papers by 
 experts in the relevant fields, which also make these claims? The IQ 130 
 student, who is 
 presumably still around to be studied, might be a good place to start. If she 
 really is 
 what is being claimed that would seem to be very strong evidence that 
 high-functioning 
 consciousness can exist in a much reduced brain, and maybe even without one.

Google can't find her.

Brent

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to a 
href=mailto:everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com;everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com/a.
To post to this group, send email to a 
href=mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com;everything-list@googlegroups.com/a.
Visit this group at a href=http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list; 
target=_blankhttp://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/a.
For more options, visit a href=https://groups.google.com/d/optout; 
target=_blankhttps://groups.google.com/d/optout/a.
/tt/pre
 !-- end of AOLMsgPart_1_007743ba-1e03-4f52-a6a5-d0956d534cab --
/div

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread LizR
On 11 December 2014 at 15:37, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:

  On 12/10/2014 5:36 PM, LizR wrote:

  You're the one putting this forward, presumably you've done some
 research on it, why should I have to duplicate it?

  You obviously don't have anything here, I'm sorry I bothered to be open
 minded about it since you're clearly just a charlatan.


 And maybe Prof Greyson too.


Quite likely. I'm generally prepared to give extraordinary claims the
benefit of the doubt for a while, but not when all I get when I attempt to
have a discussion is rudeness. Why bother to post a video if you aren't
prepared to answer questions about it (except in an incredibly childish
manner) ? It certainly didn't support whatever case there might have been.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-10 Thread zibbsey


On Wednesday, December 10, 2014 2:38:20 AM UTC, Richard Ruquist wrote:

 Well spuddy, I do not think they are lying. However, what aspect of his 
 talk involves the paranormal?
 Richard


 allow there's no paranormal aspect. What aspect, in your view, is 
Scientific? 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-09 Thread LizR
Sounds interesting. I wish I had an hour to watch it. I don't suppose
there's a summary? :-)

On 10 December 2014 at 03:36, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
 Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
 Subject: Consciousness
 To: Swines swi...@yahoogroups.com, 
 achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com 
 achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com, Richard Ruquist 
 yann...@gmail.com


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4feature=youtu.be

 An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
 that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-09 Thread spudboy100 via Everything List

Obviously, you find the UV claims, trustworthy, Richard? Specifically, the 
truth could be determined by getting data that has no other explanation, other 
than paranormal. I know there was not any hits with Sam Parnia's AWARE study. 

An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia that 
consciousness can exist outside of the brain.

 
 
 
-Original Message-
From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 6:04 pm
Subject: Re: Consciousness


Sounds interesting. I wish I had an hour to watch it. I don't suppose there's a 
summary? :-) 


On 10 December 2014 at 03:36, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:



-- Forwarded message --
From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Subject: Consciousness
To: Swines swi...@yahoogroups.com, achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com 
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4feature=youtu.be



An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia that 
consciousness can exist outside of the brain.








-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-09 Thread Richard Ruquist
Liz,

His first slide summarizes to entire talk. The rest are examples and
elaboration.
Richard

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:03 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 Sounds interesting. I wish I had an hour to watch it. I don't suppose
 there's a summary? :-)

 On 10 December 2014 at 03:36, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
 Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
 Subject: Consciousness
 To: Swines swi...@yahoogroups.com, 
 achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com 
 achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com, Richard Ruquist 
 yann...@gmail.com


 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4feature=youtu.be

 An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
 that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-09 Thread Richard Ruquist
Well spuddy, I do not think they are lying. However, what aspect of his
talk involves the paranormal?
Richard

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 6:55 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List 
everything-list@googlegroups.com wrote:

 Obviously, you find the UV claims, trustworthy, Richard? Specifically, the
 truth could be determined by getting data that has no other explanation,
 other than paranormal. I know there was not any hits with Sam Parnia's
 AWARE study.

 An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
 that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.




 -Original Message-
 From: LizR lizj...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 6:04 pm
 Subject: Re: Consciousness

  Sounds interesting. I wish I had an hour to watch it. I don't suppose
 there's a summary? :-)

 On 10 December 2014 at 03:36, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:


 -- Forwarded message --
 From: richard ruquist yann...@yahoo.com
 Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
 Subject: Consciousness
 To: Swines swi...@yahoogroups.com, 
 achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com 
 achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com, Richard Ruquist 
 yann...@gmail.com


  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4feature=youtu.be

  An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia
 that consciousness can exist outside of the brain.



   --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-09 Thread LizR
I've been looking for the first slide, but can't find it - can you give me
the time when it appears?

Actually I may have found it - not the first, but around 18 minutes in - it
says:

Consciousness without a brain

* Deathbed recovery of lost consciousness

* Complex consciousness with minimal brain

* Near-death experiences

* Memories of a past life

I know what the last 3 points mean, at least, but I'm not sure about the
first one.

(I also don't know of any evidence that NDEs are more that the brain
shutting down, as described by Susan Blackmore in Dying to live.)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-09 Thread meekerdb

On 12/9/2014 3:03 PM, LizR wrote:
Sounds interesting. I wish I had an hour to watch it. I don't suppose there's a summary? 
:-)


On 10 December 2014 at 03:36, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com 
mailto:yann...@gmail.com wrote:



-- Forwarded message --
From: *richard ruquist* yann...@yahoo.com mailto:yann...@yahoo.com
Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:26 AM
Subject: Consciousness
To: Swines swi...@yahoogroups.com mailto:swi...@yahoogroups.com,
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com
mailto:achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com
achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com
mailto:achristianvsatheistc...@yahoogroups.com, Richard Ruquist
yann...@gmail.com mailto:yann...@gmail.com


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yosn_GHYiR4feature=youtu.be

An hour long discussion of the scientific findings of the U of Virginia that
consciousness can exist outside of the brain.



Can it be long before Dr. Greyson is testifying on behalf of the NFL?

Yes, your honor the patient seems to be a vegetable and his brain is mush from too many 
hits, but he's actually fully conscious and having wonderful thoughts and will no doubt 
tell us so just before he dies.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness

2014-12-09 Thread Richard Ruquist
That's the slide I meant. The first item has to do with the (mostly )
elderly who get serious dementia
and essentially cannot communicate. They speak nonsense or not at all.

From autopsies after they die their brains are established to be almost
completely destroyed.
Yet just before they die, from minutes to a day or two,
their communication is normal or even sometimes above normal.

This is taken as evidence that consciousness can exist without a brain.
In fact, during dementia it is thought that the decaying brain just gets in
the way.

A more remarkable case is that of a HS honor student (130 IQ) who got a
brain injury in a auto accident.
The xray of her head revealed that she only has a brain stem- no higher
order components.

Similarly some people with cranial fluid in place of a brain (except for
the brain stem) are high functioning.
Prof. Greyson showed an xray of such a person's head compared to an
ordinary brain.

I posted this talk on 3 other lists, 2 of which contain posters that only
accept a materialistic reality.
On one, a poster said that all of the evidence presented was purely
anecdotal.
On the 2nd a poster linked me to an article claiming that brain stems alone
manifested low-grade consciousness.
When I mentioned the 130 IQ HS girl- he said that was impossible and
questioned the veracity of the U. of Virginia.

The 3rd list contains posters who already believe that consciousness can
exist outside the brain.
It was like preaching to the choir. They believe in reincarnation as well
as a hierarchy of consciousnesses-
somewhat like a spiritual MWI.
Richard

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 10:29 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:

 I've been looking for the first slide, but can't find it - can you give me
 the time when it appears?

 Actually I may have found it - not the first, but around 18 minutes in -
 it says:

 Consciousness without a brain

 * Deathbed recovery of lost consciousness

 * Complex consciousness with minimal brain

 * Near-death experiences

 * Memories of a past life

 I know what the last 3 points mean, at least, but I'm not sure about the
 first one.

 (I also don't know of any evidence that NDEs are more that the brain
 shutting down, as described by Susan Blackmore in Dying to live.)

  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness: Emotions Feelings

2014-05-02 Thread LizR
It is the passage from to eat or to be eaten to to be or not to be.

Very nice!

PS I took the liberty of - I think - correcting it to what you meant.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness: Emotions Feelings

2014-05-01 Thread Samiya Illias
Thanks, Bruno. Quite profound: 'To be or not to be' ... 'I don't want to be
here' !
Samiya


On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 10:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:


 On 29 Apr 2014, at 12:00, Samiya Illias wrote:

 An interesting conversation:
 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/?page=1
 Bruno, can this be developed in a machine?


 I agree with large parts of Damasio, and disagree on others. Alas, he is
 still not aware of the consequence of mechanism, (like most brain
 scientists), and I disagree with his interpretation of Descartes (but that
 is another topic).

 Yes, we are driven by emotion. The intellect is a recent development in
 our history. It is the passage from eaten or to be eaten to to be or not
 to be.

 Keep in mind that computationalism is the assumption that *you* are
 already a machine, and so, trivially, comp takes into account all your
 emotion. If you survive a teleportation, but would lose your emotion, comp
 would be false. By definition, your entire mental universe, including
 faith, emotion, reason, ... is preserved.

 The body ([]p) is only a finite local representation of you, but you
 comes as much from the truth than from that self-representation. Personal
 consciousness, the maker of sense, start from the intersection of truth and
 bodily-beliefs: the []p  p.
 Consciousness is semantical, and is more on the side of p, in the []p 
 p. Somehow, the intellect (mind, machine) []p is a filter of that
 consciousness p.

 emotion is our oldest language, with a quick evaluation of the adequacy
 of a chemical environment. Our olfactive neurons have special relationship
 with the region of the brain related to emotions, which witness that fact,
 and people know how much a smell can trigger souvenir charged with emotion.

 This is also well illustrated in the following video. Although the
 paramecia are a bit slow figuring what happened, they got eventually the
 point;  probably not in the shape Gosh I am eaten by an amoeba, but more
 something like I don't want to be here and I have to try to escape at all
 cost.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvOz4V699gk

 Bruno




 Samiya

 *MIND*: Do you believe that we will someday be able to create artificial
 consciousness and feelings?

 *Damasio*: An organism can possess feelings only when it can create a
 representation of the body's functions and the related changes that occur
 in the brain. In this way, the organism can perceive them. Without this
 mechanism there would be no consciousness. It is unclear that this could
 ever develop in a machine or whether we really want machines with feelings.



 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



  --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness: Emotions Feelings

2014-04-30 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 29 Apr 2014, at 12:00, Samiya Illias wrote:


An interesting conversation:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/?page=1
Bruno, can this be developed in a machine?


I agree with large parts of Damasio, and disagree on others. Alas, he  
is still not aware of the consequence of mechanism, (like most brain  
scientists), and I disagree with his interpretation of Descartes (but  
that is another topic).


Yes, we are driven by emotion. The intellect is a recent development  
in our history. It is the passage from eaten or to be eaten to to  
be or not to be.


Keep in mind that computationalism is the assumption that *you* are  
already a machine, and so, trivially, comp takes into account all your  
emotion. If you survive a teleportation, but would lose your emotion,  
comp would be false. By definition, your entire mental universe,  
including faith, emotion, reason, ... is preserved.


The body ([]p) is only a finite local representation of you, but  
you comes as much from the truth than from that self-representation.  
Personal consciousness, the maker of sense, start from the  
intersection of truth and bodily-beliefs: the []p  p.
Consciousness is semantical, and is more on the side of p, in the []p  
 p. Somehow, the intellect (mind, machine) []p is a filter of that  
consciousness p.


emotion is our oldest language, with a quick evaluation of the  
adequacy of a chemical environment. Our olfactive neurons have special  
relationship with the region of the brain related to emotions, which  
witness that fact, and people know how much a smell can trigger  
souvenir charged with emotion.


This is also well illustrated in the following video. Although the  
paramecia are a bit slow figuring what happened, they got eventually  
the point;  probably not in the shape Gosh I am eaten by an amoeba,  
but more something like I don't want to be here and I have to try to  
escape at all cost.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvOz4V699gk

Bruno





Samiya

MIND: Do you believe that we will someday be able to create  
artificial consciousness and feelings?


Damasio: An organism can possess feelings only when it can create a  
representation of the body's functions and the related changes that  
occur in the brain. In this way, the organism can perceive them.  
Without this mechanism there would be no consciousness. It is  
unclear that this could ever develop in a machine or whether we  
really want machines with feelings.





--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness: Emotions Feelings

2014-04-29 Thread ghibbsa

On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:22:23 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:




 On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Samiya Illias 
 samiya...@gmail.comjavascript:
  wrote:

 An interesting conversation: 
 http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/?page=1 
 Bruno, can this be developed in a machine? 
 Samiya 

 *MIND*: Do you believe that we will someday be able to create artificial 
 consciousness and feelings?

 *Damasio*: An organism can possess feelings only when it can create a 
 representation of the body's functions and the related changes that occur 
 in the brain. In this way, the organism can perceive them. Without this 
 mechanism there would be no consciousness.

 This is an unfalsifiable claim. 

 
Right. This is something about a lot of current thinking that puzzles me. 
If the reasonable starting position is that we have absolutely no clue what 
something is, yet believe it is extremely important. And if that thing is 
surrounded now by mysticism, pseudo-science, endless wondrous illustrative 
imaginings. Then what does this look like? It looks like the way things 
were right back at the start. It looks like what the very first 
pioneers were up against. So in my view that's where to start. Obviously 
exactly like that, but they used certain approaches that implicitly 
recognized it wasn't worth trying to guess. It was better to keep 
everything simple and nail everything hard to an early correction by 
empirical means. 
 
Do it that way, and the whole process will naturally stay intertwined with 
prediction and falsification. It'll grow organically, and eventually 
there'll complex arrangements that involve predictions at every level and 
new things will be getting said about the nature of consciousness that no 
one would have dreamed of. But this time, it'll be things with large 
crossovers into new technologies and new fields and who knows what 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: Consciousness: Emotions Feelings

2014-04-29 Thread meekerdb

On 4/29/2014 3:00 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:

An interesting conversation:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/?page=1
Bruno, can this be developed in a machine?
Samiya

*MIND*: Do you believe that we will someday be able to create artificial consciousness 
and feelings?


*Damasio*: An organism can possess feelings only when it can create a representation of 
the body's functions and the related changes that occur in the brain. In this way, the 
organism can perceive them. Without this mechanism there would be no consciousness. It 
is unclear that this could ever develop in a machine or whether we really want machines 
with feelings.




A Mars Rover knows its temperature, how much energy it has, where it is, where it wants to 
go, what it wants to do when it gets there, what obstacles are directly ahead.  It knows 
whether it is healthy, i.e. all systems working or disabled.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-09 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 08 Mar 2014, at 14:07, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



Hi Bruno - I read below but am answering here. You're sincere and  
I'm not getting my single point across to you. I'm about done trying  
I think. I've taken a lot of value from the process and it's shame  
if you haven't but sincerity was all round.


Well, I was hoping for specific remarks. I am just trying to  
understand what you say.






In my view, it doesn't stack up building a specific digital,  
specific software/hardware, prefixed conception into computationalism


But that is fuzzy. Where wold I built a specific digital soft/ 
hardware? What are the prefixed conception of computationalism?





when so little is known about consciousness.


But we will never lean more about consciousness, if you defeat a theoy  
because it is done without us knowing more.


Actually we will never lean more about anything, if you defeat a  
theory because it is done without us knowing more that thing.


Your emark simply does not make sense, or I miss it completely, and  
you might elaborate.



There are other ways that computationalism can be true and yet have  
mind blowing surprises in store for the nature of what it is.


?
But the computationalist assumption I am using is the weaker one I  
know of. What do you mean?







You don't agree. You think comp is owned by the theses you give to it.


Please, if you have another comp hypothesis, not entailed by my  
comp, can you show it precisely?




You think the brain and consciousness is just a technicality despite  
knowing almost nothing about it, and being unable to give a  
satisfying explanation of it.


Can you tell me what is lacking?

UDA = submission of a big problem for the computationalist. So big  
that without AUDA, we might considered it as close to a refutation of  
comp.


AUDA then shows more technically that both theoretical computer  
science and quantum mechanics rescue comp from that refutation. Comp  
predicts the statistical interference of many computations, and QM  
confirms this. Comp predicts a weird quantum logic for the observable,  
and QM confirms this.






That's your right and your theory.


UDA worlds for all theories, and with some works, it can be shown to  
work on quite weakening of comp.


AUDA gives not my theory of everything, but the universal machine's  
theory of everything. it is a matter of work to verify his, not a  
matter of philosophical appreciation.





A view like that is not something I will ever relate to, but nor do  
I have a problem.with coexisting alongside.
I suppose I'll draw a line provocatively by asking whether a complex  
proteinso precisely dependent on a 3D structure, is computational?


Well, IF proteins are not Turing emulable, and IF their non- 
computability has some role in our consciousness, then comp is just  
false, and we are out of the scope of my expertise; say.


(to be franc, I don't know any evidence that proteins are not  
computable, as they obeys to the computable solutions of the SWE).






The gene is,


Well, gene are also 3D. I doubt that genes are really more easy to  
handle than protein.
I have work on both genes and proteins when working, for years, for a  
society in biotechnology. It is very complex, OK, but it is quite a  
jump to invoke non computability here.




but is the protein? And if the answer is yes, how much code would be  
necessary to capture all the structure relationships.


In the reasoning, what matters is that the code and its execution  
appears in UD* or arithmetic.
It does not matter if you need  10^(10^(10^(10^(10^10  
terrabytes to encode the protein.





A gene just builds it, doesn't run it. Why is it ruled out  
effectively, that computation in 3D reality uses 3D reality,  
structure, as computation? Because it's faster and m ore elegant   
and Occam simpler, makes use of the dimensionality and materials  
that define the reality. If it was digital computing, it would have  
surely made that our reality too


?




That's where I'm at,. And if that's saying no to your doctor, it's  
definitely saying yes to mine.


So you do say yes to the doctor?
But then the conclusion follows logically. You just seem to put the  
level very low, but that does not invalidate the reasoning. The  
reasoning works even if the only way to emulate your brain correctly  
consists in emulating the entire universe.






And I think I own comp, not you.


I don't own comp. Comp is just Mechanism, and appears already in old  
Indians texts. Then the discovery of the universal machine, and Church  
thesis,  has been a scientific breakthrough, that I exploit to prove a  
theorem.


I have no theory, only a theorem with its proof, and it is up to you  
to find a (real) flaw, if you want to convince us that the theorem  
does not follow from the premises.






I'm right, not you.


?


But in end the question of comp and consciousness will not be  
resolved by debate and persuasion...not 

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-08 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 07 Mar 2014, at 19:22, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 11:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Mar 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious


But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a  
computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first  
person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of  
being defined in any 3p way.


For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a  
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.  
But I can still say yes to the doctor, because I can believe that  
my consciousness is related to an infinity of number relation in  
arithmetic, and that a brain or a machine might make it possible  
for that consciousness to be manifestable here and now, with  
hopefully the right relative measure.


If it were not manifested here and now, what would it be conscious  
of?


Well, either in some other here and now, as this is an indexical,  
or of something else (in some altered state of consciousness which  
might have nothing to do with here and now), or it might just not  
be conscious at all.


What I am saying here is just that 3p things can only be conscious  
in some metaphorical way, like when we say that a machine can  
think, which really means only that a machine can support a  
thinking/conscious first person agent.


And without support...no consciousness.


Right.
Arithmetic contains infinity of supports, and the consciousness of  
the universal and virgin machine is filtered through them.







The conscious-thinker has to be a first person, not a body. The  
first lesson of computationalism is that I am not my body, I  
own or borrow it only. In principle, I can get another one.


Not a body I can understand (although I think a body and even an  
environment may be necessary).


I put the needed environment in the generalized body or brain.




But you also say not a computation.


Because computation are 3p. Both computation and provability are not  
conscious 1p notions. Only []p  p makes sense for this, as it  
behaves like a knowledge operator. Consciousness is the non doubtable  
part of self-knowledge. Computations are only 3p describable sequences  
of relative states brought by some universal numbers.


Bruno






Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-08 Thread ghibbsa
 
Hi Bruno - I read below but am answering here. You're sincere and I'm not 
getting my single point across to you. I'm about done trying I think. I've 
taken a lot of value from the process and it's shame if you haven't but 
sincerity was all round. 
 
In my view, it doesn't stack up building a specific digital, specific 
software/hardware, prefixed conception into computationalism when so little 
is known about consciousness. There are other ways that computationalism 
can be true and yet have mind blowing surprises in store for the nature of 
what it is. 
 
You don't agree. You think comp is owned by the theses you give to it. You 
think the brain and consciousness is just a technicality despite knowing 
almost nothing about it, and being unable to give a satisfying explanation 
of it. That's your right and your theory. A view like that is not something 
I will ever relate to, but nor do I have a problem.with 
coexisting alongside. 
 
I suppose I'll draw a line provocatively by asking whether a complex 
proteinso precisely dependent on a 3D structure, is computational? The 
gene is, but is the protein? And if the answer is yes, how much code would 
be necessary to capture all the structure relationships. A gene just builds 
it, doesn't run it. Why is it ruled out effectively, that computation in 3D 
reality uses 3D reality, structure, as computation? Because it's faster 
and m ore elegant  and Occam simpler, makes use of the dimensionality and 
materials that define the reality. If it was digital computing, it would 
have surely made that our reality too
 
 
That's where I'm at,. And if that's saying no to your doctor, it's 
definitely saying yes to mine. And I think I own comp, not you. I'm right, 
not you. But in end the question of comp and consciousness will not be 
resolved by debate and persuasion...not for the majority of people. Only 
hard discovery and breakthrough progress will settle it. And that's the way 
it should be, and always has been. In Science. 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-07 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 07 Mar 2014, at 00:41, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be
willing to answer ). Does Russell
(a) agree with you completely

Only Russell can answer this. I would use understand instead of
agree, because I don't think it i a question of agreeing. It is

I didn't respond earlier, because I wasn't actually all that clear
what was being asked.



question of acknowledging the validity of a reasoning, or of showing
something missing or some flaws, or some unclarity.
from our conversation, I would say that Russell agrees with the
FPI, and probably UDA1-7, but as some reservation on the step 8.

That is a fair summary. UDA 1-7 looks straightforward to me, and in
any case, the conclusion to me accords with my world view (that
physics emerges from some underlying theory, such as arithmetic), so
that I have no problems accepting COMP as a potential working theory
of consciousness.

I do have reservations about step 8, which partly come from not being
clear what the step actually addresses (ie what the problem is). In
part, that is because I don't actually see a problem, so in some
senses step 8 is redundant, but I have attempted to figure out what
the step is trying to address, and have achieved some understanding  
of

it. I intend to try to write that up as a paper that could help
others, or at least act as a discussion point, as often the  
subtleties

get lost in the mail archives.




(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious

But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a
computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first
person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of being
defined in any 3p way.

For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.

This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for  
the

purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can be
quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to  
get,

but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.


How is that different than saying a given machine performing a  
certain computation is thinking?  Bruno seems to be saying that no  
matter whether it's abstract or concrete it's a 3p notion and so  
cannot be thinking.


Thinking is amlbiguous, as the word can be used to described 3p  
brain activity. What I said is only that you cannot identify a 3p  
thing with an 1p thing.





When I've asked Bruno what it takes, on his theory, for a machine to  
be conscious, he has answered that it be Lobian, which is an  
attribute of the functions it can compute and which seems 3p to me.


[]p is Löbian, but it is not what is conscious in the machine. You  
must apply the Theaetetus definition to get it: so []p  p is the 1p,  
and indeed is not definable by the machine, like we cannot identify  
our consciousness with our body. More on this in the modal or math  
thread.


Bruno





Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-07 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 07 Mar 2014, at 01:14, Russell Standish wrote:


On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:41:51PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:

On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:


For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.

This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for  
the

purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can  
be
quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to  
get,

but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.


How is that different than saying a given machine performing a
certain computation is thinking?  Bruno seems to be saying that no
matter whether it's abstract or concrete it's a 3p notion and so
cannot be thinking.  When I've asked Bruno what it takes, on his
theory, for a machine to be conscious, he has answered that it be
Lobian, which is an attribute of the functions it can compute and
which seems 3p to me.



I did, at one stage, get Bruno to agree with me that a program is
conscious is shorthand for consciousness supervenes on a running
program of some reference machine.

In such a way, one should also say that a brain is conscious (or
thinking) is shorthand for the consciousness supervenes on a brain.


OK. And then, when those things are clear, we allow ourself to use  
shorter description.

of course we need to re-explain the nuances when new-bes arrive ...




What Bruno purports to show is that consciousness cannot supervene on
a primitive physical reality,


Well, in MGA (or UDA1-7 and a stringer Occam). But that was not the  
topic here, I think. here it is just that consciousness is not a 3p  
attribute, but an 1p attribute, and so cannot been identified, a bit  
like orange and apple. It is less deep that the fact that there is no  
primitive physical reality. After all, we do have a primitive 3p  
reality with comp, like the numbers.





whereas what I think is really shown
is that observed physical reality (ie phenomena) cannot be
primitive.


? (I agree with this).



Phenomena must be derivable from properties of computation.


OK.




What is not shown by the MGA (and if it did, it would be empirically
invalidated) is that consciousness does not supervene on physical
reality.


?
Consciousness can supervene on a physically real brain. If not we  
would not say yes to a doctor.





Brains are part of phenomena, and indeed, it would appear
(empirically) that consciousness does supervene on brains.


Most plausibly. Especially on the generalized brain, and that is used  
in the reasoning.





More on this no doubt when I get to write my fabled paper on the
MGA. Sorry for so many vaccuous promises - but I really have several
projects ahead of it in the queue, so I cannot promise when I'll get
to it.


Take it easy. It is a subtle complex subject, where we can be deluded  
easily by intuition and natural language.

Our brain are not really programmed for that task.

Bruno





--


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-07 Thread ghibbsa

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:48:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:


 On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 

  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
   
  is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop 
   
  being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
  to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
  (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over 
   
  days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return 
   
  to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
  to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
  ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
  kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such 
   
  that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
  in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
  heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs 
   
  where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with 
   
  our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
  object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable? 
   
  If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
  experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
  conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
  hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
  software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
  thought? The processor? RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, 
   
  and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware 
   
  can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
  be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness 
   
  would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
  intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of 
   
  our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
   of that code? 
  , 
  Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the 
   
  past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
  having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
  runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little 
   
  consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
  only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why 
   
  is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done 
   
  on the footprint issue? 


 A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 

 And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining 
   
 consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of 
   
 the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 

 I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic 
   
 suggest the following answer. 

 Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
 an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
 person, a first person notion. 

  
 Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness 
 intrinsic of computation?


 You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary. 
 Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia, out 
 of 
 time and space and physics, which arises from their views from inside. 
 It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like 
 consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost equate 
 it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it affirmatively, we do 
 it 
 because we *hope* we get a level right, but the theory will explain that 
 we 
 are invoking God implicitly in the process, and that is why I insist it 
 is a theology. 

  
 Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then. 


 OK. 



 I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I do 
 totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad, in which 
 case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you! 



Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-07 Thread meekerdb

On 3/6/2014 11:51 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 06 Mar 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious


But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a computation (or some 
computation) are conscious. But only a first person is conscious, and a first person 
is nothing capable of being defined in any 3p way.


For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a computer cannot 
think, a computation cannot think, I would say. But I can still say yes to the doctor, 
because I can believe that my consciousness is related to an infinity of number 
relation in arithmetic, and that a brain or a machine might make it possible for that 
consciousness to be manifestable here and now, with hopefully the right relative measure.


If it were not manifested here and now, what would it be conscious of?


Well, either in some other here and now, as this is an indexical, or of something else 
(in some altered state of consciousness which might have nothing to do with here and 
now), or it might just not be conscious at all.


What I am saying here is just that 3p things can only be conscious in some metaphorical 
way, like when we say that a machine can think, which really means only that a machine 
can support a thinking/conscious first person agent.


And without support...no consciousness.


The conscious-thinker has to be a first person, not a body. The first lesson of 
computationalism is that I am not my body, I own or borrow it only. In principle, I 
can get another one.


Not a body I can understand (although I think a body and even an environment may be 
necessary).  But you also say not a computation.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-07 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 07 Mar 2014, at 18:10, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:48:37 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way  
that it
 is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it  
stop
 being about motivation and becomes that we can't think  
straight? ass


 Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what  
looks
 to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground  
on
 (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab  
over
 days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't  
return

 to normal until all the REM is made up for)
 i
 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties  
fatigue

 to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging
 ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a  
specifc
 kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep?  
Such

 that 'a change is as good as a rest'.
 ion
 If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious
 in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of  
the
 heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other  
organs
 where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected  
with

 our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
 experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what
 object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that  
stable?

 If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?

 If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
 experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically
 conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which
 hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of
 software, such that the experience is able to think the next
 thought? The processor? RAM?

 Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes  
running,
 and given these processes, and their footprint through the  
hardware
 can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should  
it
 be updated to include predictions for what an emergent  
consciousness

 would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is
 intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the  
footprint of

 our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
  of that code?
 ,
 Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched  
over the
 past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at  
all

 having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer
 runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling  
little

 consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,
 only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner?  
Why
 is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been  
done

 on the footprint issue?


A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of  
explaining
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the  
derivation of

the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.

I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in  
arithmetic

suggest the following answer.

Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is  
not

an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a
person, a first person notion.

Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness  
intrinsic of computation?


You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the  
contrary. Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist  
in Platonia, out of time and space and physics, which arises from  
their views from inside.
It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like  
consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we  
almost equate it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it  
affirmatively, we do it because we *hope* we get a level right,  
but the theory will explain that we are invoking God implicitly  
in the process, and that is why I insist it is a theology.


Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then.


OK.



I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I  
do totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad,  
in which case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you!


Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use  
expression like a machine can think or even computation can be  
conscious in some context, 

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that  
it

 is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop
 being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight?  
ass


 Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks
 to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on
 (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab  
over

 days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return
 to normal until all the REM is made up for)
 i
 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue
 to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging
 ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc
 kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such
 that 'a change is as good as a rest'.
 ion
 If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious
 in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the
 heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs
 where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with
 our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
 experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what
 object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?
 If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?

 If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
 experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically
 conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which
 hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of
 software, such that the experience is able to think the next
 thought? The processor? RAM?

 Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,
 and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware
 can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it
 be updated to include predictions for what an emergent  
consciousness

 would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is
 intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of
 our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
  of that code?
 ,
 Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over  
the

 past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all
 having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer
 runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little
 consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,
 only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why
 is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done
 on the footprint issue?


A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of  
explaining
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation  
of

the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.

I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in  
arithmetic

suggest the following answer.

Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a
person, a first person notion.

Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness  
intrinsic of computation?


You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the  
contrary. Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in  
Platonia, out of time and space and physics, which arises from their  
views from inside.
It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like  
consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost  
equate it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it  
affirmatively, we do it because we *hope* we get a level right,  
but the theory will explain that we are invoking God implicitly in  
the process, and that is why I insist it is a theology.


Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then.


OK.



I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I do  
totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad, in  
which case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you!


Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use expression  
like a machine can think or even computation can be conscious in  
some context, as a shortening for a machine can support  
consciousness, or a computation can make possible for a conscious  
person to manifest itself relatively to some environment.


The basic rule is simple: we cannot identify any 1p thing with any 3p  
thing. The nice happening in AUDA, is that we can understand from the  
math that impossibility in a 

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread ghibbsa

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:


 On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 

  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it   
  is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop   
  being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
  to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
  (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over   
  days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return   
  to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
  to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
  ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
  kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such   
  that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
  in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
  heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs   
  where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with   
  our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
  object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?   
  If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
  experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
  conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
  hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
  software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
  thought? The processor? RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,   
  and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware   
  can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
  be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness   
  would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
  intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of   
  our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
   of that code? 
  , 
  Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the   
  past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
  having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
  runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little   
  consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
  only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why   
  is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done   
  on the footprint issue? 


 A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 

 And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining   
 consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of   
 the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 

 I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic   
 suggest the following answer. 

 Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
 an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
 person, a first person notion. 

  
 Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness 
 intrinsic of computation?


 You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary. 
 Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia, out of 
 time and space and physics, which arises from their views from inside. 
 It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like 
 consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost equate 
 it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it affirmatively, we do it 
 because we *hope* we get a level right, but the theory will explain that we 
 are invoking God implicitly in the process, and that is why I insist it 
 is a theology. 

  
 Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then. 


 OK. 



 I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I do 
 totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad, in which 
 case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you! 


 Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use expression like 
 a machine can think or even computation can be conscious in some 
 context, as a shortening for a machine can support consciousness, or a 
 computation can 

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread ghibbsa

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 

  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
   
  is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop   
  being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
  to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
  (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over 
   
  days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return   
  to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
  to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
  ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
  kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such   
  that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
  in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
  heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs   
  where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with   
  our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
  object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?   
  If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
  experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
  conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
  hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
  software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
  thought? The processor? RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,   
  and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware   
  can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
  be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness 
   
  would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
  intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of   
  our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
   of that code? 
  , 
  Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the 
   
  past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
  having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
  runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little   
  consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
  only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why   
  is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done   
  on the footprint issue? 


 A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 

 And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining 
   
 consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of 
   
 the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 

 I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic 
   
 suggest the following answer. 

 Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
 an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
 person, a first person notion. 

  
 Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness 
 intrinsic of computation?


 You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary. 
 Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia, out of 
 time and space and physics, which arises from their views from inside. 
 It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like 
 consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost equate 
 it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it affirmatively, we do it 
 because we *hope* we get a level right, but the theory will explain that we 
 are invoking God implicitly in the process, and that is why I insist it 
 is a theology. 

  
 Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then. 


 OK. 



 I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I do 
 totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad, in which 
 case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you! 


 Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use expression like 
 a machine can think or even computation can be conscious in some 
 context, as a 

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 06 Mar 2014, at 00:17, John Mikes wrote:


Ghibsa and honored discussioneers:
you can say about that darn conscousness anything you like, as long  
as you cannot identify it. Attribute of a 1st person? that would  
leave out lots of smilar phenomena - not even assigned to 'a' 1st  
person.


I am not sure I understand this.

Are you saying that consciousness might not be an 1p attribute?

Also, we cannot define consciousness, nor identify it with anything,  
except our own right here and now. But we can still reason about it,  
just by agreeing on some principle on it. We don't need to be able to  
define the moon exactly, to walk on it.






When I tried to collect opinions about Ccness of several authors I  
found that most speak about 'processes' rather than attributes.


But process is a typical 3p notion. To identify consciousness with  
process is an error of category, more or less based on the  
Aristotelian materialist brain/mind (or brain-activity/mental  
activity) identity thesis, which is refuted by the UD Argument.




Around 'awareness'. That was in 1992 and I boiled down the essence  
of THOSE opinions into some more and more general understanding just  
to arrive at my DEFINITION-PROPOSAL (not like: 'something attributed  
to') - streamlined since then into:---  Response to relations.  


Now: 1st persons may have that, but ANYTHING else as well.


That's the right 3p notion of observers, mocked by copenhagen, but  
redeemed by Everett and computationalism.
But although very useful, such a definition ignore the 1p non  
communicable features, like qualia, consciousness, etc.



(That also changed my observer into ANYTHING reacting to -well -  
relations: maybe a person, maybe an ion 'observing an electric  
charge, or a stone rolling down a slope.


If you attribute consciousness to such interaction, you will get  
panpsychism. Why not.  It is ambiguous, as we cannot derive from this  
if you say yes or no to the doctor.





What I tried to do was (then, and mostly now as well) to get away of  
the anthropic view of the world - explaining phenomena by HUMAN  
reactivity and effect. We are not NATURE,  nor do we direct Her  
changes in every respect. We are consequence. Of more - much much  
more than we know about (what I call our 'inventory'). Computation  
(cum+putare) is definitely a human way


Not with the standard definitions. or you are saying this already for  
notions like  being odd, but then everything is human, even alien in  
other galaxies, and the word human becomes spurious.




and the quantitative side of it is math (IMO). No matter if the  
facts underlying such inventory-items preceded the 'humans' or arose  
with/after them.


So in my vocabulary (what I do not propose for everybody: I am no  
missionary) there is an infinite complexity (The World, or Nature?)


or Arithmetic. keep in mind that the big discovery of the 20th  
century, is that Arithmetical truth is far beyond machines (and  
humans) cognitive ability.



of which we are a tiny part only. There are relations (everybody  
may identify some) extended over the totality - way beyond our  
knowledge.


Sure. already in arithmetic. We only scratch the surface of arithmetic  
and computer science (a branch of arithmetic).


I am deeply agnostic on the question if there is anything more than  
arithmetical truth, or even sigma_1 arithmetical truth, the rest being  
an epistemological internal view brought by the fact that numbers need  
relative representations to manifest themselves relatively.


Bruno



I do not propose a definition for consciousness either. Nor a site  
for it (definitely not the brain, especially restricted to ours).  
Just as I claim agnosticism for 'life' (definitely more than the  
bio or wider Earthbound, not even carried on 'physical' material  
substrate.


Your questions are well formulated and interesting. I have no  
answer, but SOME you got in the discussion make lots of sense. What  
I enjoyed was the 2D mentioned by Liz as the database.


Best regards

John Mikes


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it  
is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop  
being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass


Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks  
to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on  
(strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over  
days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return  
to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue  
to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging  
ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc  
kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such  
that 'a change is as good as a rest'.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread LizR
I don't know anything about obligatory ram ventilators, but I do like
fluffy kittens.


On 6 March 2014 17:20, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:16:03 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 March 2014 15:47, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
 moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.

 As ever, the fount of all knowledge has the answer!

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Respiration
 Respiration

 Like other fish, sharks extract oxygen from seawater as it passes over
 their gills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill. Unlike other fish,
 shark gill slits are not covered, but lie in a row behind the head. A
 modified slit called a spiracle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiraclelies 
 just behind the eye, which assists the shark with taking in water
 during respiration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_respirationand 
 plays a major role in bottom-dwelling sharks. Spiracles are reduced or
 missing in active pelagic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic sharks.[
 21] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-Gilbertson-21 While
 the shark is moving, water passes through the mouth and over the gills in a
 process known as ram ventilation. While at rest, most sharks pump
 water over their gills to ensure a constant supply of oxygenated water. A
 small number of species have lost the ability to pump water through their
 gills and must swim without rest. These species are *obligate ram
 ventilators* and would presumably 
 asphyxiatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxiateif unable to 
 move.Obligate ram ventilation is also true of some pelagic bony fish species.
 [32] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-32

 obligate ram ventilators are the original and TRUE shark and it's pure
 Political Correctness gone mad those gill suckers - those SINO's - get same
 named. The agenda of diversity and equality has reached sharks now and you
 buy every word like a little sheep bah bah bah to you.


 alternatively, I do so like a happy ending...where everyone gets a salty
 little slice of the sticky 'Right' cake (in the voice of dame edna
 Everett )

 more generally, it's kinda fun not googling to the end, and we all seem to
 have tacitly partook. Someone had to google in the end of course, and your
 timing was wonderful my dear, you sweet fragile thing (voice of Edgar in
 the flavour of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w)

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
 Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
 email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:31:29 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 8:06:19 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 05 Mar 2014, at 22:15, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:



On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way  
that it
 is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it  
stop
 being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight?  
ass


 Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks
 to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on
 (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab  
over
 days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't  
return

 to normal until all the REM is made up for)
 i
 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue
 to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging
 ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc
 kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep?  
Such

 that 'a change is as good as a rest'.
 ion
 If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious
 in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the
 heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other  
organs
 where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected  
with

 our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I
 experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what
 object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that  
stable?

 If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?

 If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
 experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically
 conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which
 hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of
 software, such that the experience is able to think the next
 thought? The processor? RAM?

 Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes  
running,
 and given these processes, and their footprint through the  
hardware

 can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it
 be updated to include predictions for what an emergent  
consciousness

 would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is
 intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint  
of

 our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
  of that code?
 ,
 Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over  
the

 past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all
 having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer
 runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling  
little

 consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,
 only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner?  
Why
 is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been  
done

 on the footprint issue?


A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of  
explaining
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the  
derivation of

the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.

I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in  
arithmetic

suggest the following answer.

Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a
person, a first person notion.

Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness  
intrinsic of computation?


You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the  
contrary. Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist  
in Platonia, out of time and space and physics, which arises from  
their views from inside.
It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like  
consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost  
equate it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it  
affirmatively, we do it because we *hope* we get a level right,  
but the theory will explain that we are invoking God implicitly  
in the process, and that is why I insist it is a theology.


Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then.


OK.



I was very sure, but I'm too lazy to go look, since intuitively I  
do totally trust your word. However, like me you may be a bit mad,  
in which case, if I do see a quote I'll be sure to come get you!


Well, that might not been enough. I might have indeed use expression  
like a machine can think or even computation can be conscious in  
some context, as a shortening for a machine can support  
consciousness, or a computation can make possible for a conscious  
person to manifest 

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread meekerdb

On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious


But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a computation (or some 
computation) are conscious. But only a first person is conscious, and a first person is 
nothing capable of being defined in any 3p way.


For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a computer cannot think, 
a computation cannot think, I would say. But I can still say yes to the doctor, because 
I can believe that my consciousness is related to an infinity of number relation in 
arithmetic, and that a brain or a machine might make it possible for that consciousness 
to be manifestable here and now, with hopefully the right relative measure.


If it were not manifested here and now, what would it be conscious of?

Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread John Clark
On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:26 PM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:


   Why do we need to sleep?


  Probably because we're primarily visual animals and Evolution weeded
 out individuals who didn't get sleepy because they wasted energy wandering
 around at night and got themselves into serious trouble when they ran into
 an animal that was better adapted to the night than they were.



  Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery?


No, I'm saying you're wasting energy and are unlikely to accomplish
anything important wandering about at night when your eyes aren't well
adapted to it, and you might run into a Saber Toothed Tiger who's eyes word
better than yours at night and that would be the end of genes that produce
no sleep.

  Why not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota?


It we really were intelligently designed we probably would have another set
of eyes specialized for night vision, but we weren't, and Evolution has no
foresight and never finds the perfect solution to any problem, it just
finds something that works very slightly better than the competition.

 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to
 specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones?


  Because we have determined that some mental tasks are boring. Boredom
 is a vitally important emotion, I don't believe any intelligence,
 electronic or biological, could exist without boredom because it prevents
 us from getting stuck in infinite loops. But it's critical the boredom
 point be set correctly, in fact this may be the most difficult part of
 making an AI. Set too low and we can't pay attention (I don't want to
 listen while you tell me how to properly pack my parachute, it's boring),
 set too high and we get stuck in infinite loops (weee.. I love the way that
 red rubber ball bounces up and down, I could watch it forever, one, two,
 three, four)



 It's a thought, but like the visual explanation for sleep, it seems a
 little thin. Before I have a go at expressing why I think this, could I
 just ask how seriously you personally take this explanation?


I'm dead serious! In one of the greatest mathematical discoveries of the
20th century  Alan Turing found there is no sure fire algorithm to
determine if you are in a infinite loop or not, and this has profound
implications for AI and also for the way our brains must work. When we get
board we stop working on a problem, but when should that point be? There is
no perfect answer to that so AI makers and Evolution must come up with
rules of thumb that work, not perfectly all the time, but pretty well most
of the time.  Sometimes we give up too soon and sometimes we become
obsessed with completing a hopeless task but most of the time it's about
right.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 
 
 What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be
 willing to answer ). Does Russell
 (a) agree with you completely
 
 Only Russell can answer this. I would use understand instead of
 agree, because I don't think it i a question of agreeing. It is

I didn't respond earlier, because I wasn't actually all that clear
what was being asked.


 question of acknowledging the validity of a reasoning, or of showing
 something missing or some flaws, or some unclarity.
 from our conversation, I would say that Russell agrees with the
 FPI, and probably UDA1-7, but as some reservation on the step 8.

That is a fair summary. UDA 1-7 looks straightforward to me, and in
any case, the conclusion to me accords with my world view (that
physics emerges from some underlying theory, such as arithmetic), so
that I have no problems accepting COMP as a potential working theory
of consciousness.

I do have reservations about step 8, which partly come from not being
clear what the step actually addresses (ie what the problem is). In
part, that is because I don't actually see a problem, so in some
senses step 8 is redundant, but I have attempted to figure out what
the step is trying to address, and have achieved some understanding of
it. I intend to try to write that up as a paper that could help
others, or at least act as a discussion point, as often the subtleties
get lost in the mail archives.

 
 
 (b) think computation is intrinsically conscious
 
 But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a
 computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first
 person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of being
 defined in any 3p way.
 
 For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
 computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say. 


This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for the
purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can be
quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to get,
but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.

Cheers

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread meekerdb

On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:

On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 06 Mar 2014, at 09:51, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:



What about others - like Russell (who might just read this and be
willing to answer ). Does Russell
(a) agree with you completely

Only Russell can answer this. I would use understand instead of
agree, because I don't think it i a question of agreeing. It is

I didn't respond earlier, because I wasn't actually all that clear
what was being asked.



question of acknowledging the validity of a reasoning, or of showing
something missing or some flaws, or some unclarity.
from our conversation, I would say that Russell agrees with the
FPI, and probably UDA1-7, but as some reservation on the step 8.

That is a fair summary. UDA 1-7 looks straightforward to me, and in
any case, the conclusion to me accords with my world view (that
physics emerges from some underlying theory, such as arithmetic), so
that I have no problems accepting COMP as a potential working theory
of consciousness.

I do have reservations about step 8, which partly come from not being
clear what the step actually addresses (ie what the problem is). In
part, that is because I don't actually see a problem, so in some
senses step 8 is redundant, but I have attempted to figure out what
the step is trying to address, and have achieved some understanding of
it. I intend to try to write that up as a paper that could help
others, or at least act as a discussion point, as often the subtleties
get lost in the mail archives.




(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious

But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a
computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first
person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of being
defined in any 3p way.

For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.


This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for the
purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can be
quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to get,
but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.


How is that different than saying a given machine performing a certain computation is 
thinking?  Bruno seems to be saying that no matter whether it's abstract or concrete it's 
a 3p notion and so cannot be thinking.  When I've asked Bruno what it takes, on his 
theory, for a machine to be conscious, he has answered that it be Lobian, which is an 
attribute of the functions it can compute and which seems 3p to me.


Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread Russell Standish
On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 03:41:51PM -0800, meekerdb wrote:
 On 3/6/2014 3:35 PM, Russell Standish wrote:
 On Thu, Mar 06, 2014 at 04:48:37PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
 
 For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a
 computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say.
 
 This issue causes people a lot of problems. It does not matter for the
 purposes of UDA 1-7, but for step 8 is important. The issue is
 probably best handled using the concept of (COMP) supervenience -
 consciousness supervenes on the running of a program on a given
 reference machine. That machine and the running of the program can be
 quite abstract, of course, which is something people find hard to get,
 but is perfectly fine for the concept of supervenience.
 
 How is that different than saying a given machine performing a
 certain computation is thinking?  Bruno seems to be saying that no
 matter whether it's abstract or concrete it's a 3p notion and so
 cannot be thinking.  When I've asked Bruno what it takes, on his
 theory, for a machine to be conscious, he has answered that it be
 Lobian, which is an attribute of the functions it can compute and
 which seems 3p to me.
 

I did, at one stage, get Bruno to agree with me that a program is
conscious is shorthand for consciousness supervenes on a running
program of some reference machine.

In such a way, one should also say that a brain is conscious (or
thinking) is shorthand for the consciousness supervenes on a brain.

What Bruno purports to show is that consciousness cannot supervene on
a primitive physical reality, whereas what I think is really shown
is that observed physical reality (ie phenomena) cannot be
primitive. Phenomena must be derivable from properties of computation.

What is not shown by the MGA (and if it did, it would be empirically
invalidated) is that consciousness does not supervene on physical
reality. Brains are part of phenomena, and indeed, it would appear
(empirically) that consciousness does supervene on brains.

More on this no doubt when I get to write my fabled paper on the
MGA. Sorry for so many vaccuous promises - but I really have several
projects ahead of it in the queue, so I cannot promise when I'll get
to it.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-06 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 06 Mar 2014, at 20:06, meekerdb wrote:


On 3/6/2014 7:48 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

(b) think computation is intrinsically conscious


But this wording is worst, as it looks like it insists that a  
computation (or some computation) are conscious. But only a first  
person is conscious, and a first person is nothing capable of being  
defined in any 3p way.


For example, a brain cannot think. Brain activity cannot think, a  
computer cannot think, a computation cannot think, I would say. But  
I can still say yes to the doctor, because I can believe that my  
consciousness is related to an infinity of number relation in  
arithmetic, and that a brain or a machine might make it possible  
for that consciousness to be manifestable here and now, with  
hopefully the right relative measure.


If it were not manifested here and now, what would it be conscious of?


Well, either in some other here and now, as this is an indexical, or  
of something else (in some altered state of consciousness which might  
have nothing to do with here and now), or it might just not be  
conscious at all.


What I am saying here is just that 3p things can only be conscious in  
some metaphorical way, like when we say that a machine can think,  
which really means only that a machine can support a thinking/ 
conscious first person agent. The conscious-thinker has to be a first  
person, not a body. The first lesson of computationalism is that I  
am not my body, I own or borrow it only. In principle, I can get  
another one.


Bruno




Brent

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google  
Groups Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it,  
send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


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



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:54:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

 On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: 
  
  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
 is? If its 
  exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about 
 motivation and 
  becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to 
 be precise 
  amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
 when people are 
  prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more 
 and more easily, 
  and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
 specific mental 
  activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this 
 strongly correlated 
  with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused 
 on since last 
  sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in 
 the vast majority 
  of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? 
  Why aren't we 
  conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation takes 
 place, and is 
  connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why 
 aren't I 
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what object 
 and experiences 
  what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my 
 twin, why don't I 
  sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness 
 experienced? How is 
  facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
 parts are 
  consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
 conscious experience 
  of software, such that the experience is able to think the next 
 thought? The processor? 
  RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and 
 given these 
  processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
 known, why is the 
  old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for 
 what an emergent 
  consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation 
 is intrinsically 
  consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely 
 in terms of, and 
  exactly 
   of that code? 

 Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, 
 as I experience 
 it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based on 
 perceptions and 
 memories, about what happens in my life.  I think the evolutionary reason 
 for this is that 
 in order learn from experience one must remember things; but there is too 
 much to remember 
 in any detail.  So the brain creates this story which is a condensation of 
 the events in 
 order to store the information in a retrievable way.  At least that's the 
 way I would 
 design a robot if I wanted to exhibit human-like behavior and I think that 
 would entail 
 that it would be conscious. 


  , 
  Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the 
 past 50 
  years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been 
 done in this 
  area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize 
 that isn't 
  sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and 
 struggling to 
  survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance 
 tuner? Why is even a 
  chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done on the 
 footprint issue? 

 ?? You're worked up because flashes of consciousness might be occaring in 
 computers?  Why 
 would you care?  Do you care about bacteria, insects, plants?  First, you 
 need a theory of 
 consciousness - then you can decide whether it has ethical implications. 

 Brent 

 
Hi Brent - I don't care because I don't think it's true. But if I thought 
it was, or might be, I would care. 
 
But whether consciousness is 'how it feels like to be processed' or not, I 
still find it hard to understand why no work has been done on the 
'footprint' issues, as illustrated above. Surely that's a legitimate line 
of enquiry? In your opinion, for example, Turing Test aside, what other 
ways might consciousness look different in terms of hardware signature? 
 
Assuming you buy that conventional hardware could run consciousness with 
the right software.
 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:53:16 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 19:53, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:


 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 4:34:33 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 

  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it   
  is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop   
  being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks   
  to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on   
  (strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over   
  days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return   
  to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue   
  to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging   
  ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc   
  kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such   
  that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
  in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the   
  heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs   
  where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with   
  our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I   
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what   
  object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?   
  If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness   
  experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically   
  conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
  hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of   
  software, such that the experience is able to think the next   
  thought? The processor? RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,   
  and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware   
  can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it   
  be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness   
  would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is   
  intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of   
  our code, purely in terms of, and exactly 
   of that code? 
  , 
  Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the   
  past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all   
  having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer   
  runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little   
  consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,   
  only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why   
  is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done   
  on the footprint issue? 


 A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa. 

 And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining   
 consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of   
 the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic. 

 I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic   
 suggest the following answer. 

 Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not   
 an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a   
 person, a first person notion. 

  
 Would you agree you've said many  times that it is? Consciousness 
 intrinsic of computation?


 You will not find one quote. On the contrary I insist on the contrary. 
 Consciousness is an attribute of person, and they exist in Platonia, out of 
 time and space and physics, which arises from their views from inside. 
 It is very simple: you cannot equate a first person notion, like 
 consciousness, and *any* third person notions. With comp, we almost equate 
 it when saying yes to the doctor, but we don't it affirmatively, we do it 
 because we *hope* we get a level right, but the theory will explain that we 
 are invoking God implicitly in the process, and that is why I insist it 
 is a theology. 

 
Fair enough Bruno - I got that wrong then. I was very sure, but I'm too 
lazy to go look, since intuitively I do totally trust your word. However, 
like me you may be a bit mad, in which case, if I do see a quote I'll be 
sure to come get you! 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 8:54:25 PM UTC, Brent wrote:

 On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote: 
  
  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
 is? If its 
  exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about 
 motivation and 
  becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to 
 be precise 
  amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
 when people are 
  prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more 
 and more easily, 
  and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
 specific mental 
  activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this 
 strongly correlated 
  with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused 
 on since last 
  sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in 
 the vast majority 
  of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? 
  Why aren't we 
  conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation takes 
 place, and is 
  connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why 
 aren't I 
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what object 
 and experiences 
  what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my 
 twin, why don't I 
  sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness 
 experienced? How is 
  facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
 parts are 
  consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
 conscious experience 
  of software, such that the experience is able to think the next 
 thought? The processor? 
  RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and 
 given these 
  processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
 known, why is the 
  old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for 
 what an emergent 
  consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation 
 is intrinsically 
  consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely 
 in terms of, and 
  exactly 
   of that code? 

 Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, 
 as I experience 
 it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based on 
 perceptions and 
 memories, about what happens in my life.  I think the evolutionary reason 
 for this is that 
 in order learn from experience one must remember things; but there is too 
 much to remember 
 in any detail.  So the brain creates this story which is a condensation of 
 the events in 
 order to store the information in a retrievable way.  At least that's the 
 way I would 
 design a robot if I wanted to exhibit human-like behavior and I think that 
 would entail 
 that it would be conscious. 

 
IMHO reasonable speculations. Are you possibly also saying then, there's a 
processing advantage to an architecture with a conscious component? Like 
for example, you get some UI patterns that build in a lot of complexity 
upfront, but in so doing, maybe, halve the ongoing complexity, say click 
action on a button or whatever. 
 
What would the on-going natural selection driver be for something like 
that? Wouldn't it be significant constraint on processing? We talk a lot 
about the infinite capability of the brain. Certainly there's a lot of 
complexity. But in understanding that, wouldn't the first principle be that 
strong forces of natural selection where necessary to sort all that out? 
But for strong forces of natural selection there have to be strong 
limitations in play. 
 
The most obvious limitation in the frame seems to be that processing is 
hard to secure. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Monday, March 3, 2014 6:47:22 PM UTC, John Clark wrote:

 On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM, ghi...@gmail.com javascript: wrote:

 John - thanks for having a bash at the questions :o) 
 

  why do we get tired


 Because we run out of fuel or because of lactic acid buildup in our 
 muscles.

 
Hi John, mental tiredness isn't resolved anything like as clearly as for 
muscles. Back in the 60's they were talking in terms of it being about 
glucose for instance. That's long since been thrown out.  
 
Physical fatigue is a lot easier to override via training and  motivation 
than mental fatigue. On the mental side, your performance goes down, and a 
few days up, it gets almost impossible to think straight and stay awake, no 
matter training. Yet we don't have a good explanation why that is. 


   Why do we need to sleep?


 Probably because we're primarily visual animals and Evolution weeded out 
 individuals who didn't get sleepy because they wasted energy wandering 
 around at night and got themselves into serious trouble when they ran into 
 an animal that was better adapted to the night than they were.

Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? Why 
not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like a 
legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and another 
pair of night eyes. 
 
The ubiquitous and so regimented/stringent character of sleep seems to need 
a major explanation. Especially given the huge fitness cost. 
 


  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
 specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones?


 Because we have determined that some mental tasks are boring. Boredom is a 
 vitally important emotion, I don't believe any intelligence, electronic or 
 biological, could exist without boredom because it prevents us from getting 
 stuck in infinite loops. But it's critical the boredom point be set 
 correctly, in fact this may be the most difficult part of making an AI. Set 
 too low and we can't pay attention (I don't want to listen while you tell 
 me how to properly pack my parachute, it's boring), set too high and we get 
 stuck in infinite loops (weee.. I love the way that red rubber ball bounces 
 up and down, I could watch it forever, one, two, three, four) 

 
 
It's a thought, but like the visual explanation for sleep, it seems a 
little thin. Before I have a go at expressing why I think this, could I 
just ask how seriously you personally take this explanation? 
 



   John K Clark




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Tuesday, March 4, 2014 12:20:17 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 On 4 March 2014 13:04, spudb...@aol.com javascript: wrote:

  I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation of 
 everything must be arithmetic as you say. The more I read papers and 
 research about the holographic universe, the more it seems like 
 consciousness might be a program (for want of a better word) in physics, 
 which somehow itself, emanates, from some kind of  2D space, which I guess 
 might be a...database?
  
 DB2 ?!

 I'm sure I used to use a database by that name back in about 1985.

 
lol Liz - the first time I saw DB2 I thought exactly the same thing! Who 
hasn't named a backup or development database DB2. I'm not even a developer 
and I've named them that. 
 
Not a developer but learned how to because these days everyone in business 
should do that IMHO. Also it's actually not hard to learn a large amount of 
basic stuff...that pays you back if you have to pay the buggers to do 
stuff. That said, I've learned enough to respect the profession a great 
deal. Developing is a bit like driving a car. It doesn't take long to learn 
to do it well enough to pass a driving test. But that don't mean you can 
race formula 3. 
 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Sunday, March 2, 2014 9:31:03 PM UTC, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 On Sunday, March 2, 2014 3:54:25 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:

 On 3/2/2014 8:34 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: 
  
  On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
  
  So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it 
 is? If its 
  exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about 
 motivation and 
  becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
  
  Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to 
 be precise 
  amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
 when people are 
  prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass out more 
 and more easily, 
  and don't return to normal until all the REM is made up for) 
  i 
  Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to 
 specific mental 
  activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this 
 strongly correlated 
  with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been focused 
 on since last 
  sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
  ion 
  If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in 
 the vast majority 
  of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on? 
  Why aren't we 
  conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation takes 
 place, and is 
  connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, 
 why aren't I 
  experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what object 
 and experiences 
  what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my 
 twin, why don't I 
  sometimes wake up him? 
  
  If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness 
 experienced? How is 
  facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
 parts are 
  consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
 conscious experience 
  of software, such that the experience is able to think the next 
 thought? The processor? 
  RAM? 
  
  Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, 
 and given these 
  processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
 known, why is the 
  old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include predictions for 
 what an emergent 
  consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation 
 is intrinsically 
  consciousness why can we account for the footprint of our code, purely 
 in terms of, and 
  exactly 
   of that code? 

 Computation isn't necessarily consciousness, as you note. Consciousness, 
 as I experience 
 it, has to do with language and images.  It is a story I make up, based 
 on perceptions and 
 memories, about what happens in my life.  


 You have to be conscious already to have perceptions, memories, and make 
 up stories. Why would unconscious processes become conscious just to tell a 
 story to itself that it already knows?

 Craig 

 
Hear hear Craig. IMHO not only a legitimate question, but also the right 
sort of asking-of-questions. That assumes there's a major reason for things 
first, before the more trivial. 
 
As an aside, could it be a sort of misunderstanding of 'Occam' that people 
look first for the more trivial explanation? Doing that, would imply 
Occam says things are 'simple to happen'...but Occam only says the 'all 
else being equal, the simpler explanation is better'. Totally different, 
and one definitely does not imply the other. 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? Why 
 not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like a 
 legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
 benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and another 
 pair of night eyes. 
  

Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a
time, so they don't drown in their sleep.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread LizR
On 6 March 2014 11:57, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
  
  Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? Why
  not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like
 a
  legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the
  benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and
 another
  pair of night eyes.
 

 Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a
 time, so they don't drown in their sleep.

 Birds do it too, possibly evolution has operated so as to stop them
falling of telephone wires :-)

I think this is quite common amongst the animal kingdom, plus is makes
sense for anything that can't afford to sleep (and explains why two brain
hemispheres, perhaps). Of course this implies that sleep is necessary for
some reason. Presumably to get the hardware back into a working state
because it gradually degrades or accumulates wastes or something.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread John Mikes
Ghibsa and honored discussioneers:
you can say about that darn conscousness anything you like, as long as you
cannot identify it. Attribute of a 1st person? that would leave out lots
of smilar phenomena - not even assigned to 'a' 1st person.

When I tried to collect opinions about Ccness of several authors I found
that most speak about 'processes' rather than attributes. Around
'awareness'. That was in 1992 and I boiled down the essence of THOSE
opinions into some more and more general understanding just to arrive at my
DEFINITION-PROPOSAL (not like: 'something attributed to') - streamlined
since then into:---  Response to relations. 
Now: 1st persons may have that, but ANYTHING else as well.
(That also changed my observer into ANYTHING reacting to -well -
relations: maybe a person, maybe an ion 'observing an electric charge, or a
stone rolling down a slope.

What I tried to do was (then, and mostly now as well) to get away of the
anthropic view of the world - explaining phenomena by HUMAN reactivity and
effect. We are not NATURE,  nor do we direct Her changes in every respect.
We are consequence. Of more - much much more than we know about (what I
call our 'inventory'). Computation (cum+putare) is definitely a human way
and the quantitative side of it is math (IMO). No matter if the facts
underlying such inventory-items preceded the 'humans' or arose with/after
them.

So in my vocabulary (what I do not propose for everybody: I am no
missionary) there is an infinite complexity (The World, or Nature?) of
which we are a tiny part only. There are relations (everybody may
identify some) extended over the totality - way beyond our knowledge.
I do not propose a definition for consciousness either. Nor a site for it
(definitely not the brain, especially restricted to ours). Just as I claim
agnosticism for 'life' (definitely more than the bio or wider Earthbound,
not even carried on 'physical' material substrate.

Your questions are well formulated and interesting. I have no answer, but
SOME you got in the discussion make lots of sense. What I enjoyed was the
2D mentioned by Liz as the database.

Best regards

John Mikes


On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

 So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is?
 If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about
 motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass

 Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be
 precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong
 evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they
 begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until
 all the REM is made up for)
 i
 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to
 specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is
 this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has
 already been focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as
 a rest'.
 ion
 If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in the
 vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting
 goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant
 computation takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a
 piece of code and run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of
 the code?  What decides what object and experiences what consciousness,
 and why is that stable? If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes
 wake up him?

 If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness
 experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious,
 which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are
 required by the conscious experience of software, such that the experience
 is able to think the next thought? The processor? RAM?

 Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and
 given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be
 precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to
 include predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its
 footprint, CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can
 we account for the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
  of that code?
 ,
 Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past
 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been
 done in this area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts
 to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into
 existence and struggling to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the
 Norton performance tuner? Why is even a chance of that acceptable...why
 hasn't any work been done on the footprint issue?

 --
 You received this message because you are subscribed to 

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote: 
   
  Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? 
 Why 
  not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like 
 a 
  legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
  benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
 another 
  pair of night eyes. 


 Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a 
 time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 

 -- 

 
Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 24 
hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm in 
that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and preserves a 
degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
swimming forwards not to suffocate. 
On the other hand if it was a case of full-on functioning day and night, 
things become much more interesting. However from a standpoint of the 
issues being raised here, a full on day and night dolphin reality would 
only be in a position to refute or support certain hypothesis, if it wasn't 
a case of whole hemisphere swapping. In the case it was, all the same 
questions would be applicable to each hemisphere as in both cases sleep was 
a fundamental requirement. It could possibly rule out the fact mammals have 
this largely duplicated structure in two hemispheres as directly related. 
I'll have to ask that old mucker queegeuc on his return anyway, from 
nantuckat with that other fella.  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:55:47 PM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 March 2014 11:57, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:
  wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote:
  
  Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? 
 Why
  not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
 like a
  legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the
  benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
 another
  pair of night eyes.
 

 Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a
 time, so they don't drown in their sleep.

 Birds do it too, possibly evolution has operated so as to stop them 
 falling of telephone wires :-)

 I think this is quite common amongst the animal kingdom, plus is makes 
 sense for anything that can't afford to sleep (and explains why two brain 
 hemispheres, perhaps). Of course this implies that sleep is necessary for 
 some reason. Presumably to get the hardware back into a working state 
 because it gradually degrades or accumulates wastes or something.

We could make play-time predictions based on what we suspect the 
explanation ultimately is. My prediction - stated without knowledge - is 
that no complex animal is fully functional all the time. Functioning during 
sleep, on the other hand, all life must accomplish. It reasonable that the 
precise details of sleep mode would be open to selection per niche. There'd 
presumably be a range of sophistication necessary for that. 
But full functioning would be desirable for pretty much any niche at any 
stage in history. So if its possible to do, it ought to be ubiquitous, 
hence I'm predicting against.
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:
 
  On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
  javascript:wrote: 

   Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual machinery? 
  Why 
   not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems like 
  a 
   legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
   benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
  another 
   pair of night eyes. 
 
 
  Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a 
  time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
 
  -- 
 
  
 Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
 issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 24 
 hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
 hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm in 
 that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and preserves a 
 degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
 swimming forwards not to suffocate. 

Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy
sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as
they're nocturnal.

Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so
need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a
bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the
time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on
autonomous breathing via their gills.

This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with
the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses.

-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread LizR
Another suggestion, which I would say is (more or less) discredited by the
existence of animals that switch brain hemispheres to stay awake, was the
idea that it's simply *safer *to spend some of your time inactive,
especially for a prey animal.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:37:48 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote: 
  
  On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
   
   On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, 
   ghi...@gmail.comjavascript:wrote: 
 
Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual 
 machinery? 
   Why 
not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
 like 
   a 
legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
   another 
pair of night eyes. 
  
   
   Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at a 
   time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
   
   -- 
  

  Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
  issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 24 
  hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
  hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm 
 in 
  that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and 
 preserves a 
  degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
  swimming forwards not to suffocate. 

 Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy 
 sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as 
 they're nocturnal. 

I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.


 Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
 need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
 bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
 time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
 autonomous breathing via their gills. 

Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with 
the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses. 
 
good ones as ever from Liz. But do you mean 'to do with the brain' as in 
not to do with the conscious component? We're all agreeing about something 
here, because I'm saying sleep is due to something in the brain too.


-- 

 

Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
Principal, High Performance Coders 
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au javascript: 
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:20 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:37:48 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
  
  On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
   
   On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, 
   ghi...@gmail.comjavascript:wrote: 
 
Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual 
 machinery? 
   Why 
not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
 like 
   a 
legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
   another 
pair of night eyes. 
  
   
   Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at 
 a 
   time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
   
   -- 
  

  Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
  issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 
 24 
  hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
  hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm 
 in 
  that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and 
 preserves a 
  degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
  swimming forwards not to suffocate. 

 Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy 
 sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as 
 they're nocturnal. 

 I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
 oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
 kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
 room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
 Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
 to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.


 Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
 need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
 bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
 time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
 autonomous breathing via their gills. 

 Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
 that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

 This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with 
 the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses. 
  
 good ones as ever from Liz. But do you mean 'to do with the brain' as in 
 not to do with the conscious component? We're all agreeing about something 
 here, because I'm saying sleep is due to something in the brain too.


 -- 

  

 Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
 Principal, High Performance Coders 
 Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
 University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
  


 
p.s. The breathing strategy of a dolphin or whale. It's easy to see that a 
more complex strategy would be necessary, but  would that be a 
difference in degree, or a difference in kind? Certainly the mammal 
needs to surface and submerge. But once surfaced the exhaust/inhale seems 
to be normal in sleep. Going down then back upI don't have the skills 
to say really. Interesting question to follow up though. I'll try to and 
get back at some point. 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:45:11 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 Another suggestion, which I would say is (more or less) discredited by the 
 existence of animals that switch brain hemispheres to stay awake, was the 
 idea that it's simply *safer *to spend some of your time inactive, 
 especially for a prey animal.

 
IMHO it's a really good point and not necessarily discredited by instances 
of animals that switch hemisphere because there are feasibly (I don't know) 
questions around that phenomenon. For example, how well understood/observed 
it actually is. Also, if only a small subset of species evolve to be awake 
most or all of the time, given the advantage of doing so is reasonably on a 
wider scale, the reason it doesn't happen on a wider scale 
could suggest major play-offs are involved in going down that route, in 
terms also of the brain. The argument for that would just be, why isn't a 
solution like that more widespread? Given that, for any competitive niche, 
the species that becomes 24 hour would have some sort of new advantage, if 
there were no costs involved for going that way. 
 
What I would come back to is (a) sleep is ubiquitous or near so (b) not 
sleeping has ubiquitous value or near so 
 
But how to navigate the complexity productively looks to be a 
methodological type problem. I'm replying to JohnM's post with a personal 
idea about that FWIW (which ain't much admittedly)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread Russell Standish
On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:52:20PM -0800, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:
 
 I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
 oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
 kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
 room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
 Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
 to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.

The sharks in question are 2-2.5 metres in length, so they're by no means
small fish.

But fish, in general, have lower metabolic requirements than say a
mammal of the same body mass, as they're ectothermic.

In terms of the caves, these are open to the ocean, so with the swell,
I expect the oxygen concentration inside to be similar to that of the
open ocean.

 
 
  Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
  need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
  bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
  time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
  autonomous breathing via their gills. 
 
 Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
 that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.


-- 


Prof Russell Standish  Phone 0425 253119 (mobile)
Principal, High Performance Coders
Visiting Professor of Mathematics  hpco...@hpcoders.com.au
University of New South Wales  http://www.hpcoders.com.au


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:52:20 AM UTC, ghi...@gmail.com wrote:


 On Thursday, March 6, 2014 1:37:48 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 04:13:26PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com wrote: 
  
  On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 10:57:30 PM UTC, Russell Standish wrote: 
   
   On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 02:26:50PM -0800, 
   ghi...@gmail.comjavascript:wrote: 
 
Soyou're saying its about resting the sensitive visual 
 machinery? 
   Why 
not do that with an extra pair of eyes and a shift rota? That seems 
 like 
   a 
legitimate challenge John, since it seems very doable, and the 
benefit would be 24 hour action. Maybe even a pair of day eyes, and 
   another 
pair of night eyes. 
  
   
   Dolphins do something like this - they sleep one brain hemisphere at 
 a 
   time, so they don't drown in their sleep. 
   
   -- 
  

  Very interesting indeed, and not something I knew. I suppose the 
  issues/questions would hinge on whether Dolphins are fully functional 
 24 
  hours, or they have an advanced sleep mode. If the latter then the null 
  hypothesis as it were, would be whether that's an extension of the norm 
 in 
  that all life has to keep the cardio vascular system going, and 
 preserves a 
  degree of environment monitoring for basic threats. Sharks need to keep 
  swimming forwards not to suffocate. 

 Not all species of shark. The ones we have around here are quite happy 
 sleeping lying still in a cave, which is usually how you see them, as 
 they're nocturnal. 

 I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get the 
 oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
 kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
 room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
 Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't seem 
 to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills.


 Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
 need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
 bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
 time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
 autonomous breathing via their gills. 

 Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
 that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

 This all points to the necessity of sleep for some reason to do with 
 the brain. Liz listed a couple of plausible hypotheses. 
  
 good ones as ever from Liz. But do you mean 'to do with the brain' as in 
 not to do with the conscious component? We're all agreeing about something 
 here, because I'm saying sleep is due to something in the brain too.


  
as an aside to this, from memory a lot of the 'living fossils' - forms 
alive today that don't seem a lot changed from Cambrian fossils, though 
very different in form, seem to have commonality in that they integrate 
movement and oxygen getting more closely. One model for this is the 'jet 
turbine' that gets movement from sucking water in one end and blowing it 
out the other. Squid/octopus do this I think, and then there's that little 
critter Davie 'crocket' Attenborough wheels out on the origin of life 
story...forget the name but you'd recognize it straight away. I thought 
sharks also had a solution this way that prevents them sucking water 
through their gills like fish. The survivability argument, I think, relates 
to some of the larger mass extinctions such as the Permian that saw periods 
of extreme oceanic hypoxia, or evidence thereof. 
 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 2:47:15 AM UTC, Russell Standish wrote:

 On Wed, Mar 05, 2014 at 05:52:20PM -0800, ghi...@gmail.com 
 javascript:wrote: 
   
  I'd always defer to an aussie on sharks...but I'm curious how they get 
 the 
  oxygen onto their gills. Could it be they exploit currents that certain 
  kinds of cave might produce? What happens when two windows are open on a 
  room sort of thing? Are those cave sharks quite small, out of interest? 
  Smaller fish have less oxygen demand...hence really little one don't 
 seem 
  to need much of a sleep strategy for keeping the flow on the gills. 

 The sharks in question are 2-2.5 metres in length, so they're by no means 
 small fish. 

 But fish, in general, have lower metabolic requirements than say a 
 mammal of the same body mass, as they're ectothermic. 

 In terms of the caves, these are open to the ocean, so with the swell, 
 I expect the oxygen concentration inside to be similar to that of the 
 open ocean. 

  
   
   Re dolphins, the problem is that they cannot breathe underwater, so 
   need to surface periodically to do so. Consequently, they need quite a 
   bit of brainpower (essentially to be awake) to be active all the 
   time. Fish (like sharks) do not face this problem, so can rely on 
   autonomous breathing via their gills. 
   
  Could be, although larger fish would feasibly have oxygen needs 
  that couldn't necessarily be supplied by remaining stationary. 

 Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep 
 moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not. 

 
If it's a myth someone should tell them they don't have to die like that 
when the fishermen lasso and pull 'em backward :o) 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread LizR
On 6 March 2014 15:47, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au wrote:

 Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
 moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.

 As ever, the fount of all knowledge has the answer!

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Respiration
Respiration

Like other fish, sharks extract oxygen from seawater as it passes over
their gills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill. Unlike other fish, shark
gill slits are not covered, but lie in a row behind the head. A modified
slit called a spiracle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiracle lies just
behind the eye, which assists the shark with taking in water during
respiration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_respiration and plays a
major role in bottom-dwelling sharks. Spiracles are reduced or missing in
active pelagic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic
sharks.[21]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-Gilbertson-21While
the shark is moving, water passes through the mouth and over the
gills in a process known as ram ventilation. While at rest, most sharks
pump water over their gills to ensure a constant supply of oxygenated
water. A small number of species have lost the ability to pump water
through their gills and must swim without rest. These species are *obligate
ram ventilators* and would presumably
asphyxiatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxiateif unable to
move.Obligate ram ventilation is also true of some pelagic bony fish
species.
[32] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-32


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-32

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread LizR
On 6 March 2014 15:47, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

 and then there's that little critter Davie 'crocket' Attenborough wheels
 out on the origin of life story...


Davie 'crocket' Attenborough?!?! I've never heard him called that before.
(The Whispering Voice of Television Documentaries, yes...)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-05 Thread ghibbsa

On Thursday, March 6, 2014 3:16:03 AM UTC, Liz R wrote:

 On 6 March 2014 15:47, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.aujavascript:
  wrote:

 Could be - I have heard the factoid that some sharks need to keep
 moving. What I don't know is whether it is an urban myth or not.

 As ever, the fount of all knowledge has the answer!

 From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#Respiration 
 Respiration 

 Like other fish, sharks extract oxygen from seawater as it passes over 
 their gills http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gill. Unlike other fish, shark 
 gill slits are not covered, but lie in a row behind the head. A modified 
 slit called a spiracle http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiracle lies just 
 behind the eye, which assists the shark with taking in water during 
 respiration http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aquatic_respiration and plays 
 a major role in bottom–dwelling sharks. Spiracles are reduced or missing in 
 active pelagic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagic 
 sharks.[21]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-Gilbertson-21While 
 the shark is moving, water passes through the mouth and over the 
 gills in a process known as ram ventilation. While at rest, most sharks 
 pump water over their gills to ensure a constant supply of oxygenated 
 water. A small number of species have lost the ability to pump water 
 through their gills and must swim without rest. These species are *obligate 
 ram ventilators* and would presumably 
 asphyxiatehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphyxiateif unable to move.Obligate 
 ram ventilation is also true of some pelagic bony fish species.
 [32] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shark#cite_note-32

obligate ram ventilators are the original and TRUE shark and it's pure 
Political Correctness gone mad those gill suckers - those SINO's - get same 
named. The agenda of diversity and equality has reached sharks now and you 
buy every word like a little sheep bah bah bah to you.
 
 
alternatively, I do so like a happy ending...where everyone gets a salty 
little slice of the sticky 'Right' cake (in the voice of dame edna 
Everett ) 
 
more generally, it's kinda fun not googling to the end, and we all seem to 
have tacitly partook. Someone had to google in the end of course, and your 
timing was wonderful my dear, you sweet fragile thing (voice of Edgar in 
the flavour of: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LS37SNYjg8w)

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-04 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 04 Mar 2014, at 01:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation  
of everything must be arithmetic as you say.


If computationalism is correct, yes. And the base theory can be be any  
logical specification or axiomatization of any universal system, and  
arithmetic is enough.


The technical way to extract physics from arithmetic extends Gödel's  
extraction of meta-arithmetic from arithmetic. I will explain this  
(again) soon.



The more I read papers and research about the holographic universe,  
the more it seems like consciousness might be a program (for want of  
a better word) in physics, which somehow itself, emanates, from some  
kind of  2D space, which I guess might be a...database?


That is interesting but not yet extracted from computationalism. There  
are resemblance with the distinction between the UD, UD* (the infinite  
running of the UD) and the first person indeterminacy domain (that is  
his 3-1 view actually). But with computationalism we get an  
explanation from a 0-dimensional theory of the way an Hilbert space  
(infinitely dimensional, normally) appears, and the cosmology is more  
difficult to extract.
Note that the goal is to solve the mind-body problem, not to propose a  
new theory of physics. It just happens that explaining physics from a  
theory of mind (comp) happens (by UDA) to be a necessary part of the  
mind-body problem, and this makes also the comp hypothesis refutable/ 
testable.


Bruno






-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 1:19 am
Subject: Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone


On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics.



What do you mean by this? It is more that we can't separate physics  
from consciousness.
Are you aware that if we (in the third person view) are machine,  
then physics emerge from arithmetic?

Do you have a problem with the UD Argument, and if yes, which one?

Bruno






What this implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy.
-Original Message-
From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am
Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that  
it is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it  
stop being about motivation and becomes that we can't think  
straight? ass


Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks  
to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on  
(strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab  
over days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't  
return to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue  
to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging  
ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc  
kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such  
that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the  
heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs  
where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with  
our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I  
experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what  
object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?  
If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?


If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness  
experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically  
conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of  
software, such that the experience is able to think the next  
thought? The processor? RAM?


Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,  
and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware  
can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it  
be updated to include predictions for what an emergent  
consciousness would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If  
computation is intrinsically consciousness why can we account for  
the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly

 of that code?
,
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over  
the past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at  
all having been done in this area, for all we know when the  
computer runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a  
darling little consciousness flashing into existence and struggling  
to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-04 Thread spudboy100

Thanks, Professor Marchal, I shall be purchasing your newly, translated, book 
on Amazon, and a hat tip to professor Standish for the alert on this. 

Mitch


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, Mar 4, 2014 9:07 am
Subject: Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone




On 04 Mar 2014, at 01:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


 
I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation of 
everything must be arithmetic as you say. 



If computationalism is correct, yes. And the base theory can be be any logical 
specification or axiomatization of any universal system, and arithmetic is 
enough.


The technical way to extract physics from arithmetic extends Gödel's 
extraction of meta-arithmetic from arithmetic. I will explain this (again) 
soon.




The more I read papers and research about the holographic universe, the more it 
seems like consciousness might be a program (for want of a better word) in 
physics, which somehow itself, emanates, from some kind of  2D space, which I 
guess might be a...database?



That is interesting but not yet extracted from computationalism. There are 
resemblance with the distinction between the UD, UD* (the infinite running of 
the UD) and the first person indeterminacy domain (that is his 3-1 view 
actually). But with computationalism we get an explanation from a 0-dimensional 
theory of the way an Hilbert space (infinitely dimensional, normally) appears, 
and the cosmology is more difficult to extract. 
Note that the goal is to solve the mind-body problem, not to propose a new 
theory of physics. It just happens that explaining physics from a theory of 
mind (comp) happens (by UDA) to be a necessary part of the mind-body problem, 
and this makes also the comp hypothesis refutable/testable.


Bruno










 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 1:19 am
 Subject: Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone
 
 
 

 
 
On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
 

 
Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics. 
 
 

 
 

 
 
What do you mean by this? It is more that we can't separate physics from 
consciousness.
 
Are you aware that if we (in the third person view) are machine, then physics 
emerge from arithmetic?
 
Do you have a problem with the UD Argument, and if yes, which one?
 

 
 
Bruno
 

 
 

 
 

 
 

 
 
 
 
What this implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy.
 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am
 Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone
 
 
 
 
So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If its 
exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about motivation 
and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
 
 
 
Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be 
precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass 
out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until all the REM is made 
up for)
 
i
 
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to specific 
mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this strongly 
correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been 
focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
 
ion
 
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in the vast 
majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on?  
Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation 
takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and 
run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides 
what object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I 
lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?
 
 
 
If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness experienced? 
How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
parts are consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
conscious experience of software, such that the experience is able to think the 
next thought? The processor? RAM? 
 
 
 
Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and given 
these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include 
predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its footprint, 
CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can we account for 
the footprint of our code, purely in terms

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-03 Thread John Clark
On Sun, Mar 2, 2014 at 7:36 AM, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

 why do we get tired


Because we run out of fuel or because of lactic acid buildup in our muscles.

  Why do we need to sleep?


Probably because we're primarily visual animals and Evolution weeded out
individuals who didn't get sleepy because they wasted energy wandering
around at night and got themselves into serious trouble when they ran into
an animal that was better adapted to the night than they were.

 Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to
 specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones?


Because we have determined that some mental tasks are boring. Boredom is a
vitally important emotion, I don't believe any intelligence, electronic or
biological, could exist without boredom because it prevents us from getting
stuck in infinite loops. But it's critical the boredom point be set
correctly, in fact this may be the most difficult part of making an AI. Set
too low and we can't pay attention (I don't want to listen while you tell
me how to properly pack my parachute, it's boring), set too high and we get
stuck in infinite loops (weee.. I love the way that red rubber ball bounces
up and down, I could watch it forever, one, two, three, four)

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-03 Thread spudboy100

I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation of 
everything must be arithmetic as you say. The more I read papers and research 
about the holographic universe, the more it seems like consciousness might be a 
program (for want of a better word) in physics, which somehow itself, emanates, 
from some kind of  2D space, which I guess might be a...database?


-Original Message-
From: Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Mon, Mar 3, 2014 1:19 am
Subject: Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone




On 02 Mar 2014, at 17:45, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:


 
Just a hunch, is that we cannot separate consciousness from physics. 





What do you mean by this? It is more that we can't separate physics from 
consciousness.
Are you aware that if we (in the third person view) are machine, then physics 
emerge from arithmetic?
Do you have a problem with the UD Argument, and if yes, which one?


Bruno










What this implies I shall leave for the truly, brainy.
 
 
 
-Original Message-
 From: ghibbsa ghib...@gmail.com
 To: everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 Sent: Sun, Mar 2, 2014 7:36 am
 Subject: consciousness questions bruno or anyone
 
 
 
 
So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it is? If its 
exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop being about motivation 
and becomes that we can't think straight? ass 
 
 
 
Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks to be 
precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on (strong evidence 
when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over days, they begin to pass 
out more and more easily, and don't return to normal until all the REM is made 
up for)
 
i
 
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue to specific 
mental activities but not other, equally challenging ones? Why is this strongly 
correlated with how much time a specifc kind of activity has already been 
focused on since last sleep? Such that 'a change is as good as a rest'. 
 
ion
 
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious  in the vast 
majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the heavy lifting goes on?  
Why aren't we conscious in our other organs where  sigtinificant computation 
takes place, and is connected with our brains. When I write a piece of code and 
run it, why aren't I experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides 
what object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable? If I 
lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?
 
 
 
If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness experienced? 
How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically conscious, which hardware 
parts are consciousness, and/or which  hardwaerre parts are required by the 
conscious experience of software, such that the experience is able to think the 
next thought? The processor? RAM? 
 
 
 
Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running, and given 
these processes, and their footprint through the hardware can be precisely 
known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it be updated to include 
predictions for what an emergent consciousness would look like, its footprint, 
CPU use? If computation is intrinsically consciousness why can we account for 
the footprint of our code, purely in terms of, and exactly
 
 of that code?
 
, 
 
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the past 50 
years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all having been done in 
this area, for all we know when the computer runs slow and starts to ceize that 
isn't sometimes a darling little consciousness flashing into existence and 
struggling to survive, only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance 
tuner? Why is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done 
on the footprint issue?
 
 
 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 
 


 -- 
 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
 To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
 To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
 Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
 For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



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



 



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed

Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-03 Thread LizR
On 4 March 2014 13:04, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:

 I don't have a great comprehension of UDA, but that the foundation of
 everything must be arithmetic as you say. The more I read papers and
 research about the holographic universe, the more it seems like
 consciousness might be a program (for want of a better word) in physics,
 which somehow itself, emanates, from some kind of  2D space, which I guess
 might be a...database?

 DB2 ?!

I'm sure I used to use a database by that name back in about 1985.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Re: consciousness questions bruno or anyone

2014-03-02 Thread Bruno Marchal


On 02 Mar 2014, at 13:36, ghib...@gmail.com wrote:

So, why do we get tired, and why is being tired like the way that it  
is? If its exhaustion, maybe  up a couple of days, why does it stop  
being about motivation and becomes that we can't think straight? ass


Why do we need to sleep? Why do we need to REM sleep in what looks  
to be precise amounts, which we're not capable of losing ground on  
(strong evidence when people are prevented REM sleep in the lab over  
days, they begin to pass out more and more easily, and don't return  
to normal until all the REM is made up for)

i
Why is it, mental fatigue has certain properties that ties fatigue  
to specific mental activities but not other, equally challenging  
ones? Why is this strongly correlated with how much time a specifc  
kind of activity has already been focused on since last sleep? Such  
that 'a change is as good as a rest'.

ion
If computation is intrinsically conscious why aren't we conscious   
in the vast majority of our brains, where the vast majority of the  
heavy lifting goes on?  Why aren't we conscious in our other organs  
where  sigtinificant computation takes place, and is connected with  
our brains. When I write a piece of code and run it, why aren't I  
experiencing the consciousness of the code?  What decides what  
object and experiences what consciousness,  and why is that stable?  
If I lie down beside my twin, why don't I sometimes wake up him?


If computation is intrinsically conscious, where is consciousness  
experienced? How is facilitated? If a computer is intrinsically  
conscious, which hardware parts are consciousness, and/or which   
hardwaerre parts are required by the conscious experience of  
software, such that the experience is able to think the next  
thought? The processor? RAM?


Given all this hardware is tightly controlled by processes running,  
and given these processes, and their footprint through the hardware  
can be precisely known, why is the old Turing needed, or should it  
be updated to include predictions for what an emergent consciousness  
would look like, its footprint, CPU use? If computation is  
intrinsically consciousness why can we account for the footprint of  
our code, purely in terms of, and exactly

 of that code?
,
Why haven't these footprint iss9ues been heavily researched over the  
past 50 years...why isn't there a hard theory? With nothing at all  
having been done in this area, for all we know when the computer  
runs slow and starts to ceize that isn't sometimes a darling little  
consciousness flashing into existence and struggling to survive,  
only to be broken on the wheel of the Norton performance tuner? Why  
is even a chance of that acceptable...why hasn't any work been done  
on the footprint issue?



A remarkable set of interesting questions ghibbsa.

And then, UDA makes things worse, as it adds to the task of explaining  
consciousness, when assuming its digital invariance, the derivation of  
the beliefs in the physical laws, in arithmetic.


I submit a problem. Then the translation of that problem in arithmetic  
suggest the following answer.


Computation is not intrinsically consciousness. Consciousness is not  
an attribute of computation. Consciousness is an attribute of a  
person, a first person notion.


Comp leads to an hard theory, arithmetic. Intensional arithmetic, as  
elementary arithmetic is Turing universal, and any universal system  
will do. It is computer science: what can a machine prove, know,  
observe, and feel about itself.


What happens is that any honest universal machine searching the truth  
is confronted at the start with conflicting ways to experience it.  
You get them from arithmetic by defining them by using the Theaetetus  
definition of knowledge (true justified belief), and its weakening  
(consistent, consistent and true) variant.


Consciousness, like truth, remains undefinable by the correct machine,  
but can be approximated by level of self-knowledge and ignorance  
awareness.


More on this in my explanation  to Liz. The interest in comp is not in  
its (plausible or not) truth, but it is in the fact that it makes  
possible to translate the problem in arithmetic.


Hard science indeed. Risk of head explosion.

With p arithmetic and sigma_1 (and free or true)

ptruth
[]pbeliefs
[]p  pknowledge
[]p  p  observations
[]p  p  p  sensations

provides 8 person pov that you can attribute to the universal number  
defining the [].
8, because three of them splits into effective and non effective part  
yet true.
(So that theory explains something about consciousness by relating a  
correct obvious part to non justifiable truth) (It makes also  
consciousness into a fixed point of the doubt, like in Descartes).


You must study a bit of computer science and mathematical logic, and  
philosophical logic, to see that with Gödel's discovery, we have  
discovered a person, and infinitely of them, in arithmetic.



  1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   >