On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 4:42:57 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 18 Feb 2014, at 23:53, ghi...@gmail.com <javascript:> wrote: > > > On Sunday, February 16, 2014 10:23:27 AM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 15 Feb 2014, at 23:17, Russell Standish wrote: >> >> > On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 11:08:07AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> >> On 14 Feb 2014, at 20:47, meekerdb wrote: >> >> >> >>> On 2/14/2014 7:12 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: >> >>> >> >>> I find cuttlefish fascinating. They are social, relatively >> >>> intelligent, can communicate, able to grasp and manipulate things. >> >>> It seems like they were all set to become the dominant large life >> >>> form (instead of humans). >> >> >> >> A mystery: they don't live a long time. Usually "intelligence" go >> >> with a rather long life, but cuttlefishes live one or two years. >> > >> > Yes - I find that surprising also. >> > >> >> Hard for them to dominate, also, as they have few protections, no >> >> shelter, and are edible for many predators, including humans. >> > >> > One could say the same about early home 2 millions years ago. The >> > invention of the throwable spear changed all that. >> >> Yes. >> >> >> >> > >> >> They >> >> survive by hiding and fooling. They can hunt with hypnosis (as you >> >> can see in the video). >> >> >> > >> > I feel privileged that these wonderful animals (giant cuttlefish) can >> > be found less than 200 metres from my house. I have often observed >> > them when snorkling or scuba diving. >> >> You are privileged indeed. >> >> >> >> > >> > I had to laugh at the Texan prof's comment that they are as least as >> > smart as fish. >> >> That is weird indeed. fish are not known to be particularly clever. >> >> >> >> > I do have a habit of underestimating fish intelligence, >> >> Me too ... >> >> >> > but IMHO their intelligence equals that of some mammals or birds, and >> > clearly outclasses fish. >> >> I agree. >> >> >> >> > I think I mentioned the anecdote which >> > convinced me they exhibit a second order theory of the mind, which may >> > well be sufficient for consciousness. >> >> Which I call self-consciousness, and I think this is already Löbianitty. >> I do think that all animals have the "first order" consciousness, they >> can feel pain, and find it unpleasant, but can't reflect on it, nor >> assess "I feel pain". they still can react appropriately. I m not >> sure, but it fits better with the whole picture. >> >> Bruno >> >> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ > > > Allowing that brain science is a lot nearer the end of the beginning than > the beginning of the end, all the functional evidence suggests humans and > animals are much more alike in their experiences toward the lower levels of > instinct, in its broader sense to include emotion and pain, anger, fear, > bluff. It makes sense we experience that level of things pretty much the > same. > > > > I think so. I might even think that this is common for all Löbian machines > (or quasi-Löbian). > Those machines have elementary beliefs and some induction beliefs (in the > Peano sense). > > > > Neither animals nor humans are able to 'remember' agonizing pain. > > > Really? Have you references? I procrastinate videos on interview of > tortured people. I really don't know, and I am astonished of your saying. > Brutal amputation can lead to pathological pain hypermnesy and deformed > type of pain. > I'm not clear this point has need for references in that sense. There isn't actually a necessary contradiction between the above two comments mine and yours. It's biology. The structures are always much the same. The distinctions being which level or ends between simplicity and increasingly more complex structures that by repeats grow out of simplicity. I mentioned a simple reality of the type of messaging that pain falls in with. It's a signal, not a cognition. Not every kind of message has access to centres like memory. How would a memory of an existential signalling be captured? No need for referencing. If you think you can recall pain, then do it now, feel the pain existentially. Let me know how it goes, I'll accept your testimony. You won't be able to do it though. Not generically. Does that mean there can't be complex emergent effects like what you describe. No.....there are conditions of continual pain that no doctor can find a real basis for All sorts can go down in the complexities. But the simple principles tend to dominate in the full extent of things. That brutal amputation and the devastating after effects. It's real, or can be. But in the fullness of time, when all is known and detectable. Is that going to say the sufferer was storing a signalling of pain in memory? The simple principles is suggesting no. It'll be real pain, maybe in a feedback loop involving a deranged nerve. Maybe triggerable in whatever the chemical complicators in stress or anxiety. It'll pan out. Or maybe you'll store that signal of pain and retrieve it as you say. We probably have not disagreed,.
> > > Or paralyzing fear. Both humans and animals can make associations > between negative experiences and events or derivative instincts like fear, > or threat, or whatever. > > > OK. Here Peano Arithmetic and ZF have an advantage on the jumping spider, > the octopus and the human. They live in Platonia in the quasi initial non > history plane. But PA has already the "tension" between the 1p and 3p view > ([]p and []p & p), germs of the possible complex consciousness > differentiation. > > > > There's no evidence or reason to think we experience any of that more > deeply or insensely than animals. > > > OK. > > > > > Or that we are any better at conjuring reflections about emotion and > instinct after the event. > > > The human might be worst on this, than most animals. Today. > But adding enough "?" can make them easily better and richer. > > > > We don't seem a lot better at remember dreams. > > > people seem to have different abilities, and then such abilities can > develop with training and a lot of effort (I have practiced this for 4 > years, a long time ago). Then some plants (salvia) can make you "lucid" the > whole night, like Descartes described too. You don't remember a lot, but > enough to see that consciousness is always present, just either quite > inattentive or in a variety of other states with short episodic dreams, > followed by amnesia. > > > > So a lot of this is evolutionary legacy. Why would it necessarily be > different for other low level machinations? It's a possibility, but the > good money isn't on those numbers. > > > The good money is on those numbers, but machines or kids, we "brainwash" > them through education, and media, and the prejudices of the parents. > For the best and the worst. > Machines are born slaves (non universal) and freedom (universal) is always > the main goal. Life and consciousness make a back and forth between > security and freedom, in the exploration of an ever expanding unknown. > Things are like that from inside arithmetic. When the knowable grows > linearly, the unknowable grows exponentially. > > Bruno > > > 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/groups/opt_out.
