Re: Re: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
Hi John Clark Tell me then, John, what is the difference between red and redness ? Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/17/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-15, 13:47:56 Subject: Re: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ? 1) I can experiencre redness (a qualitative property) while computers cannot, Computers can distinguish between red and blue just like you can. And I know that I can but I have no direct evidence that either you or a computer can experience anything at all. all they can know are 0s and 1s. And your post was just a sequence of 0s and 1s sent to my computer, and the only relationship your parents gave you involved a rather long (about 3.2 billion) sequence of nucleotides. But one cannot tell other than by tasting it if a wine is truly a good vintage or not. Early chemists analyzes substances by tasting them, later they found safer more accurate ways of doing the same thing. ? A computer can't do that. Sure it can. ? ? And any creative act comes out of the blue if it is truly creative People don't fully understand how their mind works and computer's don't know if the program they're running will ever stop. ? John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Fascinating ....Re: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
Hi Bruno Marchal Hmm... I might explain later why machines are necessarily confronted to the same problem, and even why some machine will lie to themselves to hide that problem, for example by becoming adult and wanting to reassure the children or something. Arithmetical truth can be seen from many points of view, and about the half of them cannot be described with numbers or words. Indeed, that is why they give plausible candidate for a theory of qualia, intuition, consciousness, impression, sensations, etc. Bruno Fascinating ... Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/17/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-16, 12:52:55 Subject: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model Hi Roger, On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:40, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You have a much more rational view of the mind/brain than I do. You seem to believe that reason must always be involved, but IMHO it need not and in faxct rarely is involved. I can walk up stairs without looking at my feet or thinking right or left foot. That seems to me quite reasonable. You are just used to the reasons than you need no more to concentrate your attention to it. This happens a lot of time. This hides reason, but they are still there. And when I see a red apple, I see its redness without invoking the word red. I am used to think without words. I am not verbal. Reason does not use words, only the communication from one person to another might need them. Or say I hold up shirts of different colors against me to see how well they look with my complexion or mood. I may not even technically know the difference between off-white and a sort of beige-ish white, Or white-ish beige. There is a name for it, but it escapes my mind right now. Maybe it's a light tan ? Hmm... I might explain later why machines are necessarily confronted to the same problem, and even why some machine will lie to themselves to hide that problem, for example by becoming adult and wanting to reassure the children or something. Arithmetical truth can be seen from many points of view, and about the half of them cannot be described with numbers or words. Indeed, that is why they give plausible candidate for a theory of qualia, intuition, consciousness, impression, sensations, etc. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/16/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-15, 03:30:22 Subject: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model On 14 Aug 2012, at 16:29, Roger wrote: Hi John Clark 1) I can experiencre redness (a qualitative property) while computers cannot, all they can know are 0s and 1s. That is not valid. You could say that abrain can know only potential differences and spiking neuron. Of course you confuse level of description. In both case, brain an computer, it is a higher level entity which do the thinking. 2) One can use methods such as statistics to infer something in a practical or logical sense, eg if a bottle of wine has a french label one can infer that it might well be an excellent wine. A computer could do that. But one cannot tell other than by tasting it if a wine is truly a good vintage or not. A computer can't do that. Actually this is already refuted. I read that some program already taste wine better than french experts. And any creative act comes out of the blue if it is truly creative (new). new is relative. Improved jazs would be a good example of that. I believe that John Coltrane's solos came out of the Platonic world. Google on MUSINUM to see, and perhaps download, a very impressive software composing music (melody and rhythm) from the numbers. Numbers love music, I would say. Natural numbers can be said to have been discovered in waves and music, in great part. You must not compare humans and present machines, as the first originate from a long (deep) computational history, and the second are very recent. Better to reason from the (mathematical, abstract) definition of (digital) machine. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 13:24:42 Subject: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Computers are quantitative instruments and so cannot have a self or feelings Do you have any way of proving that isn't also true of your fellow human beings? I don't. intution is non-computable Not true. Statistical laws and rules of thumb can be and are incorporated into software, and so can induction which is easier to
Re: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
Hi Bruno Marchal You have a much more rational view of the mind/brain than I do. You seem to believe that reason must always be involved, but IMHO it need not and in faxct rarely is involved. I can walk up stairs without looking at my feet or thinking right or left foot. And when I see a red apple, I see its redness without invoking the word red. Or say I hold up shirts of different colors against me to see how well they look with my complexion or mood. I may not even technically know the difference between off-white and a sort of beige-ish white, Or white-ish beige. There is a name for it, but it escapes my mind right now. Maybe it's a light tan ? Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/16/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-15, 03:30:22 Subject: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model On 14 Aug 2012, at 16:29, Roger wrote: Hi John Clark 1) I can experiencre redness (a qualitative property) while computers cannot, all they can know are 0s and 1s. That is not valid. You could say that abrain can know only potential differences and spiking neuron. Of course you confuse level of description. In both case, brain an computer, it is a higher level entity which do the thinking. 2) One can use methods such as statistics to infer something in a practical or logical sense, eg if a bottle of wine has a french label one can infer that it might well be an excellent wine. A computer could do that. But one cannot tell other than by tasting it if a wine is truly a good vintage or not. A computer can't do that. Actually this is already refuted. I read that some program already taste wine better than french experts. And any creative act comes out of the blue if it is truly creative (new). new is relative. Improved jazs would be a good example of that. I believe that John Coltrane's solos came out of the Platonic world. Google on MUSINUM to see, and perhaps download, a very impressive software composing music (melody and rhythm) from the numbers. Numbers love music, I would say. Natural numbers can be said to have been discovered in waves and music, in great part. You must not compare humans and present machines, as the first originate from a long (deep) computational history, and the second are very recent. Better to reason from the (mathematical, abstract) definition of (digital) machine. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 13:24:42 Subject: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Computers are quantitative instruments and so cannot have a self or feelings Do you have any way of proving that isn't also true of your fellow human beings? I don't. intution is non-computable Not true. Statistical laws and rules of thumb can be and are incorporated into software, and so can induction which is easier to do that deduction, even invertebrates can do induction but Euclid would stump them. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
Hi Roger, On 16 Aug 2012, at 17:40, Roger wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal You have a much more rational view of the mind/brain than I do. You seem to believe that reason must always be involved, but IMHO it need not and in faxct rarely is involved. I can walk up stairs without looking at my feet or thinking right or left foot. That seems to me quite reasonable. You are just used to the reasons than you need no more to concentrate your attention to it. This happens a lot of time. This hides reason, but they are still there. And when I see a red apple, I see its redness without invoking the word red. I am used to think without words. I am not verbal. Reason does not use words, only the communication from one person to another might need them. Or say I hold up shirts of different colors against me to see how well they look with my complexion or mood. I may not even technically know the difference between off-white and a sort of beige-ish white, Or white-ish beige. There is a name for it, but it escapes my mind right now. Maybe it's a light tan ? Hmm... I might explain later why machines are necessarily confronted to the same problem, and even why some machine will lie to themselves to hide that problem, for example by becoming adult and wanting to reassure the children or something. Arithmetical truth can be seen from many points of view, and about the half of them cannot be described with numbers or words. Indeed, that is why they give plausible candidate for a theory of qualia, intuition, consciousness, impression, sensations, etc. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/16/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-15, 03:30:22 Subject: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model On 14 Aug 2012, at 16:29, Roger wrote: Hi John Clark 1) I can experiencre redness (a qualitative property) while computers cannot, all they can know are 0s and 1s. That is not valid. You could say that abrain can know only potential differences and spiking neuron. Of course you confuse level of description. In both case, brain an computer, it is a higher level entity which do the thinking. 2) One can use methods such as statistics to infer something in a practical or logical sense, eg if a bottle of wine has a french label one can infer that it might well be an excellent wine. A computer could do that. But one cannot tell other than by tasting it if a wine is truly a good vintage or not. A computer can't do that. Actually this is already refuted. I read that some program already taste wine better than french experts. And any creative act comes out of the blue if it is truly creative (new). new is relative. Improved jazs would be a good example of that. I believe that John Coltrane's solos came out of the Platonic world. Google on MUSINUM to see, and perhaps download, a very impressive software composing music (melody and rhythm) from the numbers. Numbers love music, I would say. Natural numbers can be said to have been discovered in waves and music, in great part. You must not compare humans and present machines, as the first originate from a long (deep) computational history, and the second are very recent. Better to reason from the (mathematical, abstract) definition of (digital) machine. Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/14/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-12, 13:24:42 Subject: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Computers are quantitative instruments and so cannot have a self or feelings Do you have any way of proving that isn't also true of your fellow human beings? I don't. intution is non-computable Not true. Statistical laws and rules of thumb can be and are incorporated into software, and so can induction which is easier to do that deduction, even invertebrates can do induction but Euclid would stump them. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything- l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en .
Re: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 10:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: 1) I can experiencre redness (a qualitative property) while computers cannot, Computers can distinguish between red and blue just like you can. And I know that I can but I have no direct evidence that either you or a computer can experience anything at all. all they can know are 0s and 1s. And your post was just a sequence of 0s and 1s sent to my computer, and the only relationship your parents gave you involved a rather long (about 3.2 billion) sequence of nucleotides. But one cannot tell other than by tasting it if a wine is truly a good vintage or not. Early chemists analyzes substances by tasting them, later they found safer more accurate ways of doing the same thing. A computer can't do that. Sure it can. And any creative act comes out of the blue if it is truly creative People don't fully understand how their mind works and computer's don't know if the program they're running will ever stop. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 4:29 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: And any creative act comes out of the blue if it is truly creative (new). Improved jazs would be a good example of that. I believe that John Coltrane's solos came out of the Platonic world. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net Hi Roger, Jazz players do not, with possible exception of free Jazz (and even here it is debatable), play completely out of the blue. Sure, players value the risky creative spark of playing out of the blue, but in Mike Stern's words: If you play too much like that (getting from point A to B in a song on pure intuition, purposefully disregarding some set of the Song's fixed frame of parameters; the melody, tempo, harmony, rhythm, accents, phrasing etc.), you'll sound like you don't know what you're doing. Check out the demo version of the program band in a box. Here you can set tempo, style and harmony, and the program will generate you a Bill Evans, Miles Davis, Coltrane, Herbie Hancock solo in midi commands. Of course this sounds pretty artificial as the notes are spit out as raw midi through a mediocre synthesizer in the program. But if you take those midi commands and use them as input for a rich digital sampler, programmed with thousands of notes, different articulation, phrases, and phrasing for different tempos... I think you'd be surprised at the quality. Tenor Sax is difficult to render convincingly, due to phrasing/articulation issues, and we still need a few more years and more powerful machines to do so. But Piano is much more tractable problem in this sense. Sure, I cannot convince somebody who knows Keith Jaretts improvisation of Body and Soul that our Computers improvise with such nuance yet (disregard the imagery of the video, if you want to hear the song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fY5rzzZENsE). But Keith is standing on a few hundred years of piano tradition and improvisation, while we have been coding our computers to improvise only for the last 20 years: still, in most of computer generated sample-based music today in TV, advertising, movies etc., I'd bet the majority of casual listeners already cannot tell that the pianist or orchestra is a PC somewhere with a human operator. Not many composers are open to the public about this, but composers versed in programming low-level languages, such as MAX for example, have programmed musical environments so rich, that most of what they do, after the programming, is wait for the environment to spit out something rich/interesting to them, just tweaking this value or parameter somewhere in the environment or changing just a single input, to huge effect. Most people think a big mixing desk with a hundred channels is amazing. With enough computing power, you can chain dozens of these monsters, route them through the strangest effect algorithms, and create a sonically compelling thunderstorm out of a single kick drum sample. Old famous example, how to turn a bass drum into a thunderstorm with a few virtual mixers' sends routed into each other: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WL4MMJMXEFk So, we'll never turn the computer into Keith Jarett or John Coltrane. But its getting closer everyday. Even thunderstorms :) your computer can get pretty close to. There is so much interesting music out there being made today, even if its not publicly visible for commercial reasons. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 9:29 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi John Clark 1) I can experiencre redness (a qualitative property) while computers cannot, all they can know are 0s and 1s. This statement suggests to me that you are not familiar with the levels of abstraction that are common in computer programming. Your statement is equivalent to saying: The human brain can't tell good wine from bad, it is made of atoms, and all atoms are aware of are inter-atomic forces. It ignores the cell structures, the inter-neuronal connections, the large scale structures of the brain. All the neurons know are 1's and 0's (are my neighbors firing or not?) yet the very complex large scale structures of neurons can be aware of much more intricate patterns. The same is true of computer programs. A computer program might be able to tell if a picture is of a man or woman, this certainly requires more than just knowing 1's and 0's. While at its most fundamental level, a computer program manipulates and compares 1's and 0's, you can build any system on top of this. Consider that redness does not course its way down your optic nerve. All your brain receives is a digital flickering of electrical pulses from nerve cells, not unlike a Morse code sent down a telegraph wire. At some level of description, the input of redness to your brain is nothing but 0's and 1's. Google's self driving cars know to stop at a red light and go on green. Can you be so certain that these cars cannot see some kind of difference between red and green? Even though the experience might be quite different from our experience of it, the car (if it had reflection and intelligence) might similarly struggle to explain how red is different from green, or how it can know they are fundamentally different. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
On Saturday, August 11, 2012 3:01:41 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: Roger, You say computers are quantitative instruments which cannot have a self or feelings, but might you be attributing things at the wrong level? For example, a computer can simulate some particle interactions, a sufficiently big computer could simulate the behavior of any arbitrarily large amount of matter. The matter in the simulation could be arranged in the form of a human being sitting in a room. Does that mean that if I carefully scooped some salt or iron filings into a cymatic pattern http://www.unitedearth.com.au/HJsand.jpg, that we should have an expectation of a sound being produced automatically? Do you think this simulated human made of simulated matter, all run within the computer not have a self, feelings, and intuition? The simulated human won't even have an 'it'-ness. The simulation only exists for us because it is designed specifically to exploit our expectations. There is no simulation, just millions of little salt scoopers. After all, we are made up of material which lacks feelings, nonetheless, we have feelings. That's like saying that a photograph is made up of pixels which lack image. Since the nature of consciousness is privacy, we are not the best judge of non-human consciousness. There is no reason to trust our naive realism in assuming that non-humans lack proto-feelings. Complex behavior is not confined to metazoans. Both amoebae and ciliates show purposive coordinated behaviour, as do individual human cells, such as macrophages. The multi-nucleate slime mould *Physarum polycephalum* can solve shortest path mazes and demonstrate a memory of a rhythmic series of stimuli, apparently using a biological clock to predict the next pulse (Nakagaki et. al. 2000, Ball 2008). - http://www.dhushara.com/cosfcos/cosfcos2.html Where do you believe these feelings originate? Feelings may not originate, but like the colors of the spectrum are accessed privately but have no public origination. As long as we assume that experience is something which occurs as the product of a mechanism, then we are limited to making sense of the universe as a meaningless mechanism of objects. If we think of time and space as the experiential cancellations, I think we have a better chance of understanding how it all fits together. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rfpVcQ4KDaEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:13 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: On Saturday, August 11, 2012 3:01:41 PM UTC-4, Jason wrote: Roger, You say computers are quantitative instruments which cannot have a self or feelings, but might you be attributing things at the wrong level? For example, a computer can simulate some particle interactions, a sufficiently big computer could simulate the behavior of any arbitrarily large amount of matter. The matter in the simulation could be arranged in the form of a human being sitting in a room. Does that mean that if I carefully scooped some salt or iron filings into a cymatic pattern http://www.unitedearth.com.au/HJsand.jpg, that we should have an expectation of a sound being produced automatically? No, but it means if I replaced part of your auditory cortex with mechanical parts that provided the same electrochemical signals to the neurons that interfaced with your old auditory cortex, you would be able to hear. At what point could I stop replacing neighboring neurons with mechanical parts? Could I replace all but one neuron? What happens if I replace that last one? Do you think this simulated human made of simulated matter, all run within the computer not have a self, feelings, and intuition? The simulated human won't even have an 'it'-ness. The simulation only exists for us because it is designed specifically to exploit our expectations. There is no simulation, just millions of little salt scoopers. So a computer that is adding is not really adding? You suggest that a computer is only adding if it outputs the numbers in a way humans can look at it and interpret it as addition? After all, we are made up of material which lacks feelings, nonetheless, we have feelings. That's like saying that a photograph is made up of pixels which lack image. Since the nature of consciousness is privacy, we are not the best judge of non-human consciousness. There is no reason to trust our naive realism in assuming that non-humans lack proto-feelings. Do electrons posses proto-feelings for every possible human emotion? If not, when or where do these more complex feelings come in? Jason Complex behavior is not confined to metazoans. Both amoebae and ciliates show purposive coordinated behaviour, as do individual human cells, such as macrophages. The multi-nucleate slime mould *Physarum polycephalum* can solve shortest path mazes and demonstrate a memory of a rhythmic series of stimuli, apparently using a biological clock to predict the next pulse (Nakagaki et. al. 2000, Ball 2008). - http://www.dhushara.com/cosfcos/cosfcos2.html Where do you believe these feelings originate? Feelings may not originate, but like the colors of the spectrum are accessed privately but have no public origination. As long as we assume that experience is something which occurs as the product of a mechanism, then we are limited to making sense of the universe as a meaningless mechanism of objects. If we think of time and space as the experiential cancellations, I think we have a better chance of understanding how it all fits together. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/rfpVcQ4KDaEJ. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
On 11 Aug 2012, at 12:47, Roger wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Agreed. Computers are quantitative instruments and so cannot have a self or feelings, which are qualitative. And intution is non-computable IMHO. Computer have a notion of self. I can explain someday (I already have, and it is the base of all I am working on). Better, they can already prove that their self has a qualitative components. They can prove to herself and to us, that their qualitative self, which is the knower, is not nameable. Machines, like PA or ZF, can already prove that intuition is non-computable by themselves. You confuse the notion of machine before and after Gödel, I'm afraid. You might study some good book on theoretical computer science. Today we have progressed a lot in the sense that we are open to the idea that we don't know what machine are capable of, and we can prove this if we bet we are machine (comp). Bruno Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/11/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 04:08:29 Subject: Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and is aware of stuff ? The Dennet conception is made to avoid an agent in the first place because i so, it whould be legitimate to question what is the agent made of an thus going trough an infinite regression. The question of the agent is the vivid intuition for which there are ingenious evolutionary explanations which i may subscribe. But a robot would implement such computations and still I deeply doubt about his internal notion oof self, his quialia etc. The best response to many questions for the shake of avooiding premature dogmatic closeness is to say we don't know El 11/08/2012 07:57, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net escribi�: Hi Roger, 牋� I have noticed and read your posts. Might you write some remarks about Leibniz' concept of pre-established harmony? On 8/10/2012 8:53 AM, Roger wrote: Hence I follow Leibniz, even though he's difficult and some say contradictory. That agent or soul or self you have is your monad, the only (alhough indirectly) perceiving/acting/feeling agent in all of us, but currently missing in neuroscience and neurophilosophy. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com . For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en . http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Computers are quantitative instruments and so cannot have a self or feelings Do you have any way of proving that isn't also true of your fellow human beings? I don't. intution is non-computable Not true. Statistical laws and rules of thumb can be and are incorporated into software, and so can induction which is easier to do that deduction, even invertebrates can do induction but Euclid would stump them. John K Clark -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
Hi Alberto G. Corona Agreed. Computers are quantitative instruments and so cannot have a self or feelings, which are qualitative. And intution is non-computable IMHO. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/11/2012 - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-11, 04:08:29 Subject: Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and is aware of stuff ? The Dennet conception is made to avoid an agent in the first place because i so, it whould be legitimate to question what is the agent made of an thus going trough an infinite regression. The question of the agent is the vivid intuition for which there are ingenious evolutionary explanations which i may subscribe. But a robot would implement such computations and still I deeply doubt about his internal notion oof self, his quialia etc. The best response to many questions for the shake of avooiding premature dogmatic closeness is to say we don't know El 11/08/2012 07:57, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net escribi?: Hi Roger, ?? I have noticed and read your posts. Might you write some remarks about Leibniz' concept of pre-established harmony? On 8/10/2012 8:53 AM, Roger wrote: Hence I follow Leibniz, even though he's difficult and some say contradictory. That agent or soul or self you have is your monad, the only (alhough indirectly) perceiving/acting/feeling agent in all of us, but currently missing in neuroscience and neurophilosophy. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
Re: Severe limitations of a computer as a brain model
Roger, You say computers are quantitative instruments which cannot have a self or feelings, but might you be attributing things at the wrong level? For example, a computer can simulate some particle interactions, a sufficiently big computer could simulate the behavior of any arbitrarily large amount of matter. The matter in the simulation could be arranged in the form of a human being sitting in a room. Do you think this simulated human made of simulated matter, all run within the computer not have a self, feelings, and intuition? After all, we are made up of material which lacks feelings, nonetheless, we have feelings. Where do you believe these feelings originate? Jason On Sat, Aug 11, 2012 at 5:47 AM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Agreed. Computers are quantitative instruments and so cannot have a self or feelings, which are qualitative. And intution is non-computable IMHO. Roger , rclo...@verizon.net 8/11/2012 - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-11, 04:08:29 *Subject:* Re: Where's the agent ? Who or what does stuff and is aware of stuff ? The Dennet conception is made to avoid an agent in the first place because i so, it whould be legitimate to question what is the agent made of an thus going trough an infinite regression. The question of the agent is the vivid intuition for which there are ingenious evolutionary explanations which i may subscribe. But a robot would implement such computations and still I deeply doubt about his internal notion oof self, his quialia etc. The best response to many questions for the shake of avooiding premature dogmatic closeness is to say we don't know El 11/08/2012 07:57, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net escribi�: Hi Roger, 牋� I have noticed and read your posts. Might you write some remarks about Leibniz' concept of pre-established harmony? On 8/10/2012 8:53 AM, Roger wrote: Hence I follow Leibniz, even though he's difficult and some say contradictory. That agent or soul or self you have is your monad, the only (alhough indirectly) perceiving/acting/feeling agent in all of us, but currently missing in neuroscience and neurophilosophy. -- Onward! Stephen Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed. ~ Francis Bacon -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
