On Feb 20, 2008 6:13 AM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The possibility of mind uploading to computers strictly depends on
functionalism being true; if it isn't then you may as well shoot
yourself in the head as undergo a destructive upload. Functionalism
(invented, and later
Vladimir Nesov wrote:
On Feb 20, 2008 6:13 AM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The possibility of mind uploading to computers strictly depends on
functionalism being true; if it isn't then you may as well shoot
yourself in the head as undergo a destructive upload. Functionalism
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 20/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am aware of some of those other sources for the idea: nevertheless,
they are all nonsense for the same reason. I especially single out
Searle: his writings on this subject are virtually worthless. I have
Quoting Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On Feb 20, 2008 6:13 AM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The possibility of mind uploading to computers strictly depends on
functionalism being true; if it isn't then you may as well shoot
yourself in the head as undergo a destructive
On 2/20/08, Stan Nilsen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
It seems that when philosophy is implemented it becomes like nuclear
physics e.g. break down all the things we essentially understand until
we come up with pieces, which we give names to, and then admit we don't
know what the names identify -
John Ku wrote:
By the way, I think this whole tangent was actually started by Richard
misinterpreting Lanier's argument (though quite understandably given
Lanier's vagueness and unclarity). Lanier was not imagining the
amazing coincidence of a genuine computer being implemented in a
rainstorm,
On 21/02/2008, John Ku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, I think this whole tangent was actually started by Richard
misinterpreting Lanier's argument (though quite understandably given
Lanier's vagueness and unclarity). Lanier was not imagining the
amazing coincidence of a genuine
On 2/20/08, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21/02/2008, John Ku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, I think this whole tangent was actually started by Richard
misinterpreting Lanier's argument (though quite understandably given
Lanier's vagueness and unclarity). Lanier
On 21/02/2008, John Ku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/20/08, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 21/02/2008, John Ku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, I think this whole tangent was actually started by Richard
misinterpreting Lanier's argument (though quite
On 19/02/2008, John Ku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes, you've shown either that, or that even some occasionally
intelligent and competent philosophers sometimes take seriously ideas
that really can be dismissed as obviously ridiculous -- ideas which
really are unworthy of careful thought were
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 19/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but I do not think your conclusion even remotely follows from the
premises.
But beyond that, the basic reason that this line of argument is
nonsensical is that Lanier's thought experiment was rigged in
During the late 70's when I was at McGill, I attended a public talk given by
Feynman on quantum physics. After the talk, and in answer to a question posed
from a member of the audience, Feynman said something along the lines of : I
have here in my pocket a prescription from my doctor that
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 18/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
But again, none of this touches upon Lanier's attempt to draw a bogus
conclusion from his thought experiment.
No external observer would ever be able to keep track of such a
fragmented computation and
On 19/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, but I do not think your conclusion even remotely follows from the
premises.
But beyond that, the basic reason that this line of argument is
nonsensical is that Lanier's thought experiment was rigged in such a way
that a
On 2/18/08, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
By the way, Lanier's idea is not original. Hilary Putnam, John Searle,
Tim Maudlin, Greg Egan, Hans Moravec, David Chalmers (see the paper
cited by Kaj Sotola in the original thread -
http://consc.net/papers/rock.html) have all
On 2/17/08, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If computation is multiply realizable, it could be seen as being
implemented by an endless variety of physical systems, with the right
mapping or interpretation, since anything at all could be arbitrarily
chosen to represent a tape, a
Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 17/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The first problem arises from Lanier's trick of claiming that there is a
computer, in the universe of all possible computers, that has a machine
architecture and a machine state that is isomorphic to BOTH the
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When people like Lanier allow themselves the luxury of positing
infinitely large computers (who else do we know who does this? Ah, yes,
the AIXI folks), they can make infinitely unlikely coincidences happen.
It is a commonly accepted practice
--- John Ku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/16/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer to leave behind these counterfactuals altogether and
try to use information theory and control theory to achieve a precise
understanding of what it is for something to be the
Matt Mahoney wrote:
--- Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
When people like Lanier allow themselves the luxury of positing
infinitely large computers (who else do we know who does this? Ah, yes,
the AIXI folks), they can make infinitely unlikely coincidences happen.
It is a commonly
On 2/17/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless we can make similar reductions to absurdity with respect to
qualia, that which distinguishes you from a philosophical zombie. There is no
experiment to distinguish whether you actually experience redness when you see
a red
On 18/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The last statement you make, though, is not quite correct: with a
jumbled up sequence of episodes during which the various machines were
running the brain code, he whole would lose its coherence, because input
from the world would now
--- John Ku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/17/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Nevertheless we can make similar reductions to absurdity with respect to
qualia, that which distinguishes you from a philosophical zombie. There
is no
experiment to distinguish whether you actually
--- John Ku [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2/15/08, Eric B. Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
http://www.jaronlanier.com/aichapter.html
I take it the target of his rainstorm argument is the idea that the
essential features of consciousness are its information-processing
properties.
I
Eric B. Ramsay wrote:
I don't know when Lanier wrote the following but I would be interested
to know what the AI folks here think about his critique (or direct me to
a thread where this was already discussed). Also would someone be able
to re-state his rainstorm thought experiment more clearly
On 17/02/2008, Richard Loosemore [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Lanier's rainstorm argument is spurious nonsense.
That's the response of most functionalists, but an explanation as to
why it is spurious nonsense is needed. And some such as Hans Moravec
have actually conceded that the argument is
On 2/16/08, Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would prefer to leave behind these counterfactuals altogether and
try to use information theory and control theory to achieve a precise
understanding of what it is for something to be the standard(s) in
terms of which we are able to
--- Eric B. Ramsay [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't know when Lanier wrote the following but I would be interested to
know what the AI folks here think about his critique (or direct me to a
thread where this was already discussed). Also would someone be able to
re-state his rainstorm thought
On 16/02/2008, Kaj Sotala [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, despite what is claimed, not every physical process can be
interpreted to do any computation. To do such an interpretation, you
have to do so after the fact: after all the raindrops have fallen, you
can assign their positions formal
29 matches
Mail list logo
