On Saturday, 27 April 2019 01:38:08 UTC+3, John Clark wrote: > > On Fri, Apr 26, 2019 at 10:36 AM 'Cosmin Visan' < > everyth...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>> wrote: > > >> >> *> I am a consciousness with free will. * >> > > Tell me what in hell "free will" is supposed to mean and I'll tell you if > I agree with you or not. >
The feeling of being free. > > *>>> computers don't get to any answers, they just activate certain pixels >>>> on the screen and you as a conscious being interpret those pixels as an >>>> answer. * >>>> >>> >>> >> College professors don't give any answers in their lectures, they >>> just activate certain sound waves and you as a conscious being >>> interpret those sound waves as an answer. >>> >> >> > *Of course. And you might interpret them correctly or not. * >> > > Then why is the college professor intelligent but the computer is not even > though it has the ability to give gave the exact same answers to your > difficult questions? > The college professor is intelligent because he is able to bring new qualia into existence out of nothing. The definition of an "answer" is that quale that is brought into existence out of nothing in order to satisfy a quale called "question". Since computers are deterministic systems they don't answer any questions. > > >>> *a computer (besides the fact that it doesn't even exist, of course) >>>> it doesn't even have qualia,* >>>> >>> >>> >> Two can play this silly game: Qualia doesn't exist. So there! >>> >> >> > *I was sure that you will eventually bring this meaningless assertion >> to the table. Why ?* >> > > As I said two can play this silly game. Tables don't exist. > > Yes, tables don't exist. * > Because you are not interested in having a meaningful conversation,* >> > > Conversations don't exist. > > A conversation is a set of qualia in some consciousnesses, therefore conversations exist. > you are only interested in preaching >> > > Preaching doesn't exist. > > Since preaching is a set of qualia in consciousness, preaching exists. > * > your religious * >> > > Religion doesn't exist. > > Since religion is a set of qualia in consciousness, religion exists. > *> belief in live objects.* >> > > Belief doesn't exist and exist doesn't exist either. So there, see what a > great philosopher I am! > > Since belief is a state of consciousness, belief exists. You're not that good of a philosopher. > *How did you think you learn to speak in the first place ?* >> > > From examples, same way computers have recently learned how to do. > Learning is a property of consciousness through which the access to certain qualia is strengthened by multiple experience of them. Since computers are deterministic systems, computers don't learn. > > >> >> The first time I saw a dog I knew no language and so would have been >>> unable to put a picture of a dog in the pile marked "dog", but people kept >>> pointing at the animal and saying "dog" and eventually I got the idea. And >>> recently computers have gained the ability to learn from examples the same >>> way humans do, >>> >> >> *> Yeah, and how did you get the picture of "people pointing" ?* >> > > The first time It wasn't a picture it was a living person pointing to an > animal and saying "dog"; I doubt if I got it the first time but after a few > repetitions I eventually got the idea that a sound can represent an object, > slightly later I learned a sound can also represent verbs and adjectives. A > couple of years after that I learned that certain squiggles written on a > paper can take the place of sounds. If you insist that consciousness is > required to do this, and perhaps it is, then logically you would have to > conclude that computers are conscious because over the last 5 years they > have demonstrated that they can learn the same way. > > And a "living person pointing" is some kind of abstract entity ? Isn't on its own a picture in your own consciousness ? How did you see that picture for the first time ? Learning is a property of consciousness through which the access to certain qualia is strengthened by multiple experience of them. Since computers are deterministic systems, computers don't learn. > >> *You can push this "first time" event as far back as you want to try to >> escape the inevitable, but you will not escape it. You still have to >> aknowledge a first point of creation of something out of nothing. * >> > > We were debating if computers are intelligent so the above is irrelevant > because they can now learn the same way humans do. > > Learning is a property of consciousness through which the access to certain qualia is strengthened by multiple experience of them. Since computers are deterministic systems, computers don't learn. >>>> if you want to know what it's going to do all you can do is watch it >>>>> and see. It would only take me a few minutes to write a computer program >>>>> to >>>>> find the smallest even number that is not the sum of 2 prime numbers and >>>>> then stop. Will my computer ever stop? Nobody knows, nobody can determine >>>>> that. Maybe it will stop in the next second, maybe it will stop next >>>>> year, >>>>> maybe it will stop in a billion years, maybe it will never stop and you >>>>> will be waiting forever. >>>>> >>>> >>>> * >>> No wonder people start to believe in living objects when they >>>> have no understanding of basic computer science. You have a bad >>>> understanding of determinism.* >>> >>> >>> >> You sir are a phoney. You have demonstrated little understanding of >>> computer science and apparently have never even heard of Turing or the >>> Halting Problem, you sure don't sound as if you have. Make me eat my words, >>> specify exactly what facts I got wrong in the above. Go on, *I DARE >>> YOU!* >>> >> >> *> You personified an object. You named a bunch of atoms "a computer >> doing the halting problem", and you forgot that this is only a label that >> you applied to other causal events that don't happen at the level of the >> "computer doing the halting problem", but at the level of atoms. And there >> you have determinism, regardless of whether the "computer" stops or not, >> since "computer" is just a label* >> > > First of all we've known since 1927 that atoms are NOT completely > deterministic and only obey probabilistic laws. And a "computer" may be a > label for a macroscopic collection of atoms but it is a precise one, I can > specify the exact number of atoms that are represented by that label. And > even if we ignore Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle and assume atoms > behaved like billiard balls as Newton thought they did you still couldn't > DETERMINE what that collection of atoms will do in the future, all you can > do is watch it and see and you might be watching forever. And if > something can not be determined then it is nondeterministic. > > You not knowing what those atoms will do, and the fact of those atoms not being determined what will do, are 2 different things. Are you making these "mistakes" intentionally ? > > *"computer" is just a label.* > > > So is "Cosmin Visan". > > Sure, but that label is a quale in consciousness, so it exists. > >>> Chess and everything, every moment of our lives, is a moment of >>>> creativity. >>>> >>> >>> >>Then a computer is creative because even a small computer can now >>> EASILY beat ANY human Chess player. >>> >> >> > *That's not the definition of creation. * >> > > You just said Chess is a moment of creativity! > > Chess when it is played by a consciousness. > *Creation is bringing into existence something out of nothing. And that >> something is only consciousness,* >> > > Then you are the only person on the planet know to be creative because you > are the only person on the planet known to you by direct experience to be > conscious. > > Each consciousness knows itself. >> By the way, you sound like the sort of person who believes in the >>> invisible man in the sky theory. Am i correct? >>> >> >> >> *> You are the one that believes that objects are alive. I am a rational >> person that believes in rational things. * >> > > I take that to be a big *YES*, you do believe in the invisible man in the > sky theory but are too embarrassed to come right out and say so. I don't > blame you, I'd be embarrassed too if I believed in something that dumb. > You are the one to believe in invisible objects, since you believe computers are alive, when in fact they don't even exist. > > >> >> this is indeed starting to look like an exercise in futility if the >>> only thing you can bring to the table is "X does not exist". >>> >> >> > *I can bring lots of things,* >> > > Then grow up get serious and stop saying X does not exist as if that > solves all philosophical and scientific problems. And besides, if neither > numan brains nor computer microprocessors exist then they're on equal > footing, so why is one conscious and the other not? > > The brain is not conscious. You are conscious. The "brain" is just an image in you. *>>> Thinking is a non-deterministic phenomenon* >>>> >>> >>> >> And that is a monumentally UN*REASON*ABLE thing to say. Things >>> either happen for a reason or they don't and non-deterministic >>> phenomenon can occur because there is no law of logic that demands every >>> event have a cause. But if something happens for no *REASON* then is by >>> definition random. And randomness is the very opposite of thinking or >>> intelligence, that's why you can't write a Nobel Prize winning paper by >>> just banging your fist on a keyboard, and you can't even write a good post >>> that way. >>> >> >> > >> *I don't see how that contradicts that fact that thinking is >> non-deterministic. * >> > > If you don't see that then you are not thinking, you are just banging your > fist on your keyboard. > Reason is a property of consciousness. > > >> *> Reason is a quale based on which a consciousness makes a choice.* >> > > So if you and a computer make the same Chess move are you saying you were > being rational but the computer was being irrational? Would you say the > same thing if instead of a computer another human made the same Chess move? > Would you say the same thing if the other human was of a different sex than > you or had a different skin color or spoke a different language? Or is the > only important factor, the only thing that differentiates consciousness > from non-consciousness the tactile consistency of the brain, it must be > wet and squishy and not dry and hard. > > A computer doesn't make a Chess move. This is just you personifying an object. A computer doesn't even exist. It is just a label. What happens when you say that a computer makes a Chess move, is that atoms are randomly banging into each other, and you misinterpret that banging as a "Chess move". If a human were to make a Chess move, then indeed that would be a Chess move, because it will be an act enacted by a consciousness starting from a quale that he has inside. The difference between consciousness and non-consciousness is that first exist and the second doesn't exist. It's kinda true by definition. > *Billiard balls bumping into each others are not doing this for reason, * >> > > I'm sorry but there is no other word for it, that's just stupid. Even Og > the caveman knew about cause and effect, he knew that if a moving rock hits > a stationary rock it will *CAUSE *the stationary rock to move. > > That's just an appearance. It's like saying: "Even a 7 years old child that plays World of Warcraft knows that if the elf magic hits the orc, the orc gets damaged. Is just cause and effect." *>since they don't make the bumping their choice.* >> > > I know why I believe billiard balls are not conscious, they don't behave > intelligently; but you don't think that's important and that's why you're > not impressed by what computers can do. So I want to know why you believe > billiard balls are not conscious. > > You are just tricked into believing that robots behave intelligently. Many wars and genocides happened along human history because humans believed in all kinds of fantasies. I will not be impressed when in the next war people will kill each other in the name of protecting the objects called AIs. >>> *I know what intelligence is: bringing of new qualia into existence,* >>>> >>> >>> >> A definition that has precisely zero value because there is >>> absolutely no way to ever make use of it. >>> >> >> *> Of course you can make use of it: * >> > > How? How on earth can you say any human being other than yourself is > intelligent when you are the only one that you know for a fact even > experiences qualia? If you were being consistent you'd have no alternative, > you'd have to embrace solipsism. > > I just have to assume that there are other consciousnesses out-there. And notice here that not only humans behave intelligently, but also amoeba, because also amoeba is a living being that makes choices based on qualia. So it too is intelligent, even though it doesn't play chess. > *evolution doesn't happen by random mutations.* >> > > True, random mutation is only half of Evolution, the least interesting > part in my opinion, the other half is Natural Selection. > > No, the other 2-halves are consciousness driving evolution. >> What evidence do you have that other people bring new qualia into >>> existence or even that they have the ability to experience qualia at >>> all? I know with certainty of only one fellow in the entire universe who >>> most certainly has qualia, and it ain't you. >>> >> >> *> I assume that there are other consciousnesses like me out-there. * >> > > I do too because I observe intelligent behavior and I assume intelligent > behavior implies consciousness, but you don't so I want to know why you > assume there are are other consciousnesses like you out-there. I also want > to know why you think none of those conscious beings can ever be a > computer. Is it only because other humans have a brain that is wet and > squishy like yours? Is that the only thing computers lack? Is that all > you've got? If you have a deeper reason I'd love to hear it but I don't > think you have one, at least not one that doesn't lead straight to > solipsism. > > Again you are using your upside down logic in which you conclude the hypothesis starting from the conclusion. Based on your upside down logic, every time a movie is being played, the pixels on the screen are intelligent, because they display intelligent behavior. Humans are intelligent because they are conscious, and intelligence is an inherent property of consciousness. It has nothing to do with brains. I see that you keep being stuck on the brain. "Brain" is just an image in consciousness. -- 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.
