Re: Survey of Consciousness Models
On 10.10.2012 21:45 Craig Weinberg said the following: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:27:52 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... Then there is Reductive Physicalisms: Mental states are identical to physical states. It is not functionalism though, as everything goes through physical states directly. The difference with eliminativism is subtle. Too subtle for me maybe. What does one say that the other doesn't? Reductive Physicalisms starts with a metaphysical assumptions that mental states are identical to physical states. Hence it is a starting point that consciousness is identical with some physical states. Eliminativism on the other side plays induction. They say that the history of science shows us that physics explains us more and more from the area of consciousness. The conclude by induction that at some day physics will explains everything of consciousness. Evgenii You will find nice podcasts about it at A Romp Through the Philosophy of Mind http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/romp-through-philosophy-mind Thanks! Will check em out when I can! Craig Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/08/philosophy-of-mind.html -- 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.
Confusions of types
Hi Richard Ruquist You keep getting physical strings mixed up with theoretical strings. And then you mix this up with monads. Theoretical strings are not physical and monads are not physical. Period. You'd do better to stick to straight materialism since you seem to have no understranding of idealism. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 15:52:29 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes everything. String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still expanding, monads are apparently still being made. The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, they (the monads) exist. You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be correct, even if my modelling is incorrect. All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that probably can never be proven. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:32:40 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard I agree that the names aren't important, but why are there two different unrelated kinds of experiences? Do the monads make the neurons, and if so, why? Or do the neurons make monads, and again, why? If you have either one, why have the other? Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it
Impossible connections
Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- 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/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. 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: Conscious robots
On 26.09.2012 20:35 meekerdb said the following: An interesting paper which comports with my idea that the problem of consciousness will be solved by engineering. Or John Clark's point that consciousness is easy, intelligence is hard. Consciousness in Cognitive Architectures A Principled Analysis of RCS, Soar and ACT-R I have started reading the paper. Thanks a lot for the link. An interesting quote from the beginning. p. 13 A possible path to the solution of the increasing control software complexity is to extend the adaptation mechanism from the core controller to the whole implementation of it. Adaptation of a technical system like a controller can be during construction or at runtime. In the first case the amount of rules for cases and situations results in huge codes, besides being impossible to anticipate all the cases at construction time. The designers cannot guarantee by design the correct operation of a complex controller. The alternative is *move the adaptation from the implementation phase into the runtime phase*. To do it while addressing the pervasive requirement for increasing autonomy the single possibility is to move the responsibility for correct operation to the system itself. I guess that this is exactly what happens within the software industry. *move the adaptation from the implementation phase into the runtime phase* They just do something and then test in the runtime phase what happens and what should be corrected. I am not sure if I like it although it seems to be impossible to change it. One typical way out is not to use the newest versions of the software and let the software companies to test them on freaks. Unfortunately this does not work well as often features needed are available in the newest version only. In this case, another typical strategy would be to keep both versions (the newest and previous) running and when necessary to change them. The complexity growths indeed. Evgenii -- 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.
The non-existence of spacetime
Hi Richard, Somewhow I seem to have lost my reply to your criticism of my (and Leibniz's) philosophical concept of space. I believe with Einstein that space consists only of relative distances, not absolute ones, and also with him that space and time only exist as spacetime, whose increment is dxdydzdt. Although spacetime has the dimensions of distance, there's nothing in it. There's no ether, nothing. Nothing. So it is quite logical not to refer to or consider time, space, or spacetime itself as a thing, a physical entity, it is merely the location of an entity. Similarly, Kant referred to space and time as intuitions, not objects. Monads exist in two forms, the physical substances they refer to and the corresponding mental idea, which Leibniz unfortunately also usually calls a substance. But there is nothing there with merely spacetime but no object in them. It's just a formality. So neither space and time nor spacetime physically exist, and can't appear as monads. That being so, the universe consists only of monads in Leibniz's philosophy, an infinite overlay of dots of true reality. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 23:20:19 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:37:33 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: The why is that your conception of space is unscientific. You sound like a New Ager. Also, not to pick a fight or to diminish the work that you are doing (which I respect), but your conception of space is: . 24 space-like dimensions of which all but 6 Space Dimensions have compactified into two effectively zero-volume matrices of wires of thickness near the Planck scale and Calabi-Yau fourfolds of 1000 Planck scales at their junctions. What do you think that people of Earth would say about that theory, say, any time before 1970? Compare that with my conception of space, which is that it is a text which is encoded and decoded through the coordinated experiences of matter itself, and that rather than telepathic memory in familiarized particles, quantum entanglement is evidence that space is in fact a 0 dimensional semiotic facade. Which sounds more New Agey to you? What is a space-like dimension? A semi-measurable, semi-nothing? What happens if you try thinking of it my way, just for an hour or so, and see what happens? I have already thought of it your way, and it just leads right back to a classical world connected mathematically to a quantum never never land, but not to the color red or the feeling of an itch. What universe are we talking about if we are not the ones living there? On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:46:17 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: I disagree with everything you suggest. You are welcome to disagree, but without knowing why, I can only assume that you don't really have an argument against my view. The bottom line is that without some theory which gets us from matter to *us right here* it really is more of in interesting curiosity. It may turn out to be incredibly useful/important/profitable from an engineering and technology standpoint, but it really doesn't answer the timeless questions of who we are and what awareness is. My model does that. Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:52:30 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes everything. String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still expanding, monads are apparently still being made. The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, they (the monads) exist. You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be correct, even if my modelling is incorrect. All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that probably can never be proven. Richard All that I suggest is that string theory and especially string monads only really address the hard problem if they are understood as
Re: Conscious robots
On 11.10.2012 11:36 Evgenii Rudnyi said the following: On 26.09.2012 20:35 meekerdb said the following: An interesting paper which comports with my idea that the problem of consciousness will be solved by engineering. Or John Clark's point that consciousness is easy, intelligence is hard. Consciousness in Cognitive Architectures A Principled Analysis of RCS, Soar and ACT-R I have started reading the paper. Thanks a lot for the link. Another interesting quote. p. 18 Architectures that model human cognition. One of the mainstreams in cognitive science is producing a complete theory of human mind integrating all the partial models, for example about memory, vision or learning, that have been produced. These architectures are based upon data and experiments from psychology or neurophysiology, and tested upon new breakthroughs. However, this architectures do not limit themselves to be theoretical models, and have also practical application, i.e. ACT-R is applied in software based learning systems: the Cognitive Tutors for Mathematics, that are used in thousands of schools across the United States. Examples of this type of cognitive architectures are ACT-R and Atlantis. I will repeat my point that I have made previously. If there are already practical application of this type working, they would be very good candidates to check what happens with consciousness. I could imagine two different situations. 1) Engineers have developed such an architecture without thinking about consciousness. Now imagine that an empirical study however demonstrates that consciousness is already there. This, in my view, would prove epiphenomenalism of consciousness. 2) Engineers have developed such an architecture with taking consciousness into account. Now imagine that an empirical study confirms that consciousness is there. This, in my view, would be the solution of Hard Problem. I am curious what an answer I will find in the report in the end. -- 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: more firewalls
Enough On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 10:54 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:37:33 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: The why is that your conception of space is unscientific. You sound like a New Ager. Why do you think that my conception of space is unscientific? Saying I sound like a New Ager makes you sound unscientific. On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:46:17 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: I disagree with everything you suggest. You are welcome to disagree, but without knowing why, I can only assume that you don't really have an argument against my view. The bottom line is that without some theory which gets us from matter to *us right here* it really is more of in interesting curiosity. It may turn out to be incredibly useful/important/profitable from an engineering and technology standpoint, but it really doesn't answer the timeless questions of who we are and what awareness is. My model does that. Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:52:30 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes everything. String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still expanding, monads are apparently still being made. The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, they (the monads) exist. You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be correct, even if my modelling is incorrect. All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that probably can never be proven. Richard All that I suggest is that string theory and especially string monads only really address the hard problem if they are understood as figurative strings rather than literal structures. The dimensions would have to be qualitative experiential dimensions (like emotion, meaning, etc.) rather than literally 'different kinds of space'. In my view the whole notion of space as a plenum is a non-starter. You can look at it that way and perhaps it will work eventually, but it is the lng way around - like trying to guess what song is playing by analyzing a database of the expressions on the faces of people listening to that song. I say that space is a dimensionless void between phenomena which do have qualities that can be expressed as partly quantifiable with dimension. We are in the big bang, as we always have been, only it is banging within, diffracting itself in many different ways, both figuratively and literally at the same time. 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/-/JrTIYscXvbwJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Q8vH2J5UkF0J. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/pnqsF8NLu_8J. 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
Re: Survey of Consciousness Models
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote: On 10.10.2012 21:45 Craig Weinberg said the following: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:27:52 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: ... Then there is Reductive Physicalisms: Mental states are identical to physical states. It is not functionalism though, as everything goes through physical states directly. The difference with eliminativism is subtle. Too subtle for me maybe. What does one say that the other doesn't? Reductive Physicalisms starts with a metaphysical assumptions that mental states are identical to physical states. Hence it is a starting point that consciousness is identical with some physical states. Eliminativism on the other side plays induction. They say that the history of science shows us that physics explains us more and more from the area of consciousness. The conclude by induction that at some day physics will explains everything of consciousness. Evgenii Evgenii, True if string theory is included in physics, Richard You will find nice podcasts about it at A Romp Through the Philosophy of Mind http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/romp-through-philosophy-mind Thanks! Will check em out when I can! Craig Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/08/philosophy-of-mind.html -- 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: Confusions of types
Roger, And you do not know the difference between a string particle and a CYM monad particle. Let's stop with the insults. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:27 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist You keep getting physical strings mixed up with theoretical strings. And then you mix this up with monads. Theoretical strings are not physical and monads are not physical. Period. You'd do better to stick to straight materialism since you seem to have no understranding of idealism. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 15:52:29 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes everything. String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still expanding, monads are apparently still being made. The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, they (the monads) exist. You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be correct, even if my modelling is incorrect. All I claim is that my model is one possibility among many that probably can never be proven. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 2:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:32:40 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard I agree that the names aren't important, but why are there two different unrelated kinds of experiences? Do the monads make the neurons, and if so, why? Or do the neurons make monads, and again, why? If you have either one, why have the other? Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the
Re: Impossible connections
Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- 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/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. 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
Re: The non-existence of spacetime
Roger: So neither space and time nor spacetime physically exist. Richard: That is unscientific. Physics could be entirely wrong. But I will bet on physics being correct and you and Craig being incorrect. But you are entitled to your opinion however absolute you make it sound like. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard, Somewhow I seem to have lost my reply to your criticism of my (and Leibniz's) philosophical concept of space. I believe with Einstein that space consists only of relative distances, not absolute ones, and also with him that space and time only exist as spacetime, whose increment is dxdydzdt. Although spacetime has the dimensions of distance, there's nothing in it. There's no ether, nothing. Nothing. So it is quite logical not to refer to or consider time, space, or spacetime itself as a thing, a physical entity, it is merely the location of an entity. Similarly, Kant referred to space and time as intuitions, not objects. Monads exist in two forms, the physical substances they refer to and the corresponding mental idea, which Leibniz unfortunately also usually calls a substance. But there is nothing there with merely spacetime but no object in them. It's just a formality. So neither space and time nor spacetime physically exist, and can't appear as monads. That being so, the universe consists only of monads in Leibniz's philosophy, an infinite overlay of dots of true reality. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 23:20:19 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 9:37:33 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: The why is that your conception of space is unscientific. You sound like a New Ager. Also, not to pick a fight or to diminish the work that you are doing (which I respect), but your conception of space is: . 24 space-like dimensions of which all but 6 Space Dimensions have compactified into two effectively zero-volume matrices of wires of thickness near the Planck scale and Calabi-Yau fourfolds of 1000 Planck scales at their junctions. What do you think that people of Earth would say about that theory, say, any time before 1970? Compare that with my conception of space, which is that it is a text which is encoded and decoded through the coordinated experiences of matter itself, and that rather than telepathic memory in familiarized particles, quantum entanglement is evidence that space is in fact a 0 dimensional semiotic facade. Which sounds more New Agey to you? What is a space-like dimension? A semi-measurable, semi-nothing? What happens if you try thinking of it my way, just for an hour or so, and see what happens? I have already thought of it your way, and it just leads right back to a classical world connected mathematically to a quantum never never land, but not to the color red or the feeling of an itch. What universe are we talking about if we are not the ones living there? On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:34 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 7:46:17 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: I disagree with everything you suggest. You are welcome to disagree, but without knowing why, I can only assume that you don't really have an argument against my view. The bottom line is that without some theory which gets us from matter to *us right here* it really is more of in interesting curiosity. It may turn out to be incredibly useful/important/profitable from an engineering and technology standpoint, but it really doesn't answer the timeless questions of who we are and what awareness is. My model does that. Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:52:30 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, Neurons are made in accordance with physical laws. You are confusing string theory with comp which apparently makes everything. String theory monads are made in the big bang by having the excess dimensions of the space of string theory curl up into 1000 planck diameter particles that precipitate out of 3-D space. In fact they're curling up is what allows 3-D space to inflate. As space is still expanding, monads are apparently still being made. The monads exist in what would be commonly called a supernatural realm. They solve the hard problems of consciousness. Neurons do not. That is why they are needed. But the fact is that according to string theory, they (the monads) exist. You can quibble with string theory if you like. In my models that extend string theory to consciousness, string theory is assumed to be correct, even if my modelling
Some light at the end of Solipsism's tunnel.
Hi Bruno Marchal There is perhaps some light at the end of Solipsism's tunnel. As a preface, Solipsism can be stated thusly: I cannot directly share my experiences (such as that I exist), but I can share my descriptions of my experiences (thus I stub my toe (stubbing it). 1) You can share descriptions of experiences, which opens the door a little, although your description may be distorted or even fiction, each of which might sometimes be publicly checked. 2) You can share thoughts, if they are clear and rational. But not affections. 3) If two people have the same experience (ie they both see a bluebird or the number 4848475) they can publicly check their personal experiences. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 12:08:56 Subject: Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if rather thanis On 09 Oct 2012, at 18:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It may be a zombie or not. I can? know. The same applies to other persons. It may be that the world is made of zombie-actors that try to cheat me, but I have an harcoded belief in the conventional thing. Maybe it is, because otherwise, I will act in strange and self destructive ways. I would act as a paranoic, after that, as a psycopath (since they are not humans). That will not be good for my success in society. Then, I doubt that I will have any surviving descendant that will develop a zombie-solipsist epistemology. However there are people that believe these strange things. Some autists do not recognize humans as beings like him. Some psychopaths too, in a different way. There is no authistic or psichopathic epistemology because the are not functional enough to make societies with universities and philosophers. That is the whole point of evolutionary epistemology. If comp leads to solipsism, I will apply for being a plumber. I don't bet or believe in solipsism. But you were saying that a *conscious* robot can lack a soul. See the quote just below. That is what I don't understand. Bruno 2012/10/9 Bruno Marchal : On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote: But still after this reasoning, I doubt that the self conscious philosopher robot have the kind of thing, call it a soul, that I have. ? You mean it is a zombie? I can't conceive consciousness without a soul. Even if only the universal one. So I am not sure what you mean by soul. Bruno 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- 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. -- Alberto. -- 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. -- 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: Impossible connections
I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.netjavascript: wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- 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/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: Impossible connections
Spacetime could not be warped if it were a void. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- 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/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
Re: The non-existence of spacetime
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:03:15 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger: So neither space and time nor spacetime physically exist. Richard: That is unscientific. Physics could be entirely wrong. But I will bet on physics being correct and you and Craig being incorrect. But you are entitled to your opinion however absolute you make it sound like. Craig: If we are right, then it is the Physics of Leibniz and Einstein (and probably others...Bohm?) are correct. Why does your interpretation speak for Physics but these others do not? Try this. Imagine universe with nothing but a ping pong ball in a vacuum. There really is no 'space' there. Without some other object to provide a frame of reference, there is literally no way to conceptualize a difference between one 'place' to be and another. No direction to face. Space is all information entropy. The lack of signal for us to make sense out of. It is nothing but the inferred gap between one participant and another in the particular visual-tactile-acoustic sense modalities of the participants subjectivity. -- 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/-/5hdLUQVMIcAJ. 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: Universe on a Chip
maybe this will help? Constraints on the Universe as a Numerical Simulation arXiv:1210.1847v1 [hep-ph] 4Oct 2012 Ronald On Oct 10, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:14:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote: If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the “CPU speed?” As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the simulation appear as a constant value. Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle. Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also inside the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value. A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more herehttp://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-... http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-...) I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in a vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which occurs local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With this view, the correlation between distance and latency is an organizational one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather than the presumed literal existence of racing light bodies (photons). This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn’t be especially consistent with this model…why would the ghost of a supernova slow down the cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc? The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no action at all. The universe doesn’t need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear to. It can only seem to disappear through… … … … latency. The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side, richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to complete their cycles first? ? If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures will not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that such a time does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR. I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying about the universe arising before even the first tick of the clock is finished, but we can talk about this instead if you like. What you are saying, like what my friend up there was saying about the CPU clock being invisible to the Sims, I have no problem with. That's why I was saying it's like a computer game. You can stop the game, debug the program, start it back up where you left off, and if there was a Sim person actually experiencing that, they would not experience any interruption. Fine. The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing the computing, yes? What does it run on? On the true number relations. Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic, involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic. Right, so the number relations don't require any meta-computation. Why then do their progeny require number-relations? If it doesn't need to run
All life is conscious because all life has to make decisions.
Hi guys, All life, especially if there is any decision to be made with multiple choices, must have consciousness to whatever extent to make the best choice. Even if it is instinctual it must know which instinct to carry out. In any encounter, one must choose flight or fight (or eat or mate with). For fight or flight among higher animals, the animal in an encounter has to ask itself, if only visually: 1. Is it dangerous ? 2. Is it bigger than I am ? 3. Can it run faster than I can ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 12:18:31 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:07, meekerdb wrote: On 10/9/2012 7:17 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2012, at 19:35, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 8:42 AM, John Clark wrote: 2) Intelligent behavior is NOT associated with subjective experience, in which case there is no reason for Evolution to produce consciousness and I have no explanation for why I am here, and I have reason to believe that I am the only conscious being in the universe. There's a third possibility: Intelligent behavior is sometimes associated with subjective experience and sometimes not. Evolution may have produced consciousness as a spandrel, an accident of the particular developmental path that evolution happened upon. Or it may be that consciousness is necessarily associated with only certain kinds of intelligent behavior, e.g. those related to language. Consciousness is when you bet in your consistency, or in a reality, to help yourself. Consciousness precedes language, but follows perception and sensation. It unifies the interpretation of the senses, making the illusion possible. What illusion? The illusion of self? The illusion possible in all consciousness content, except 'being conscious here and now' itself. Careful: illusion can be true, sometimes. I use illusion like we use number even for 0 and 1, despite number meant 'numerous'. Bruno 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: Re: Only you can know if you actually have intelligence
Hi Bruno Marchal I was thinking of, say, a gnat, the intelligence perhaps being yes or no in favor of survival. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 13:41:23 Subject: Re: Only you can know if you actually have intelligence On 10 Oct 2012, at 14:23, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You can be tested for intelligence, You can be tested for competence, only. Not for intelligence. Not for consciousness, either. You can test locally for non-intelligence, in front of a repeated mistakes. Intelligence is an emotional thing, related with a form of self- insatisfaction. It can have variate qualities. but the enduring solipsist problem shows that you cannot be tested for consciousness. You can test only relative competence. You can appreciate intelligence, but it depends on your own. Competence is conceptually simple, but hard in practice. Intelligence is conceptually difficult, and hard in practice. Consciousness is conceptually difficult, but easy in practice. At least nobody seems to have come up with such a test. Such a test does not even make sense. I think. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/10/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-09, 08:35:18 Subject: Re: Only you can know if you actually have intelligence On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 10:33 PM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb Only you can know if you actually have intelligence, although you can appear to have intelligence (as if). You can be tested for it. Thus comp is not different from us, or at least it has the same limitations. I think you mean consciousness rather than intelligence. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- 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. -- 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.
can you test the intelligence of an aig ?
Hi Bruno Marchal You would have to set up a carefully selected intelligence test to test the intelligence of an AIG. Would it then really have intelligence ? I don't think so. You'd have to cheat with pre-supplied answers. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 13:59:00 Subject: Re:_[foar]_Re:_The_real_reasons_we_don?_have_AGI_yet On 09 Oct 2012, at 20:39, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 12:28 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:22, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/9/2012 2:16 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 10/8/2012 3:49 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Russell, Question: Why has little if any thought been given in AGI to self-modeling and some capacity to track the model of self under the evolutionary transformations? It's probably because AI's have not needed to operate in environments where they need a self-model. They are not members of a social community. Some simpler systems, like Mars Rovers, have limited self-models (where am I, what's my battery charge,...) that they need to perform their functions, but they don't have general intelligence (yet). Brent -- Could the efficiency of the computation be subject to modeling? My thinking is that if an AI could rewire itself for some task to more efficiently solve that task... Betting on self-consistency, and variant of that idea, shorten the proofs and speed the computations, sometimes in the wrong direction. Hi Bruno, Could you elaborate a bit on the betting mechanism so that it is more clear how the shorting of proofs and speed-up of computations obtains? The (correct) machine tries to prove its consistency (Dt, ~Bf) and never succeed, so bet that she can't do that. Then she prove Dt - ~BDt, and infer interrogatively Dt and ~BDt. Then either she adds the axiom Dt, with the D corresponding to the whole new theory. In that case she becomes inconsistent. Or, she add Dt as a new axiom, without that Dt included, in that case it is not so complex to prove that she will have infinitely many proofs capable to be arbitrarily shortened. I might explain more after I sump up Church thesis and the phi_i and the W_i. That theorem admits a short proof. You can find one in Torkel's book on the use and misuse of G?el's theorem, or you can read the original proof by G?el in the book edited by Martin Davis the undecidable (now a Dover book). On almost all inputs, universal machine (creative set, by Myhill theorem, and in a sense of Post) have the alluring property to be arbitrarily speedable. This is a measure issue, no? No. Of course the trick is in on almost all inputs which means all, except a finite number of exception, and this concerns more evolution than reason. OK. Evolution is basically computation + the halting oracle. Implemented with the physical time (which is is based itself on computation + self-reference + arithmetical truth). Bruno So you are equating selection by fitness in a local environment with a halting oracle? Somehow. Newton would probably not have noticed the falling apple and F=ma, if dinosaurs didn't stop some times before. The measure depends on 'computation in the limit' (= computation + halting oracle) because the first person experience is invariant of the UD's delays. Bruno 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: Survey of Consciousness Models
Hi Craig Weinberg Cool. I just signed up at tumblr previously. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 11:16:43 Subject: Survey of Consciousness Models http://s33light.org/post/33296583824 Have a look. Objections? Suggestions? http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboeqxC0Vl1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboih6q3e11qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboik9Wcp91qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboihhg9Lp1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboikjKxfd1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboikzU4rP1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboil5yEId1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboilft6Wi1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboilptoRi1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboim1cLHr1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboima3XH41qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboimmJjml1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboimu6PLu1qe3q3v.jpg http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mboin0ueLw1qe3q3v.jpg -- 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/-/w2vea_kdxlEJ. 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.
Leibniz: How to avoid the need for a firewall
Hi Richard You can't join or operate on the physical with the nonphysical. It's like there's a firewall between them. That's why Leibniz had to go all-nonphysical to correctly describe the brain and mind interaction. Both can be expressed nonphysically but not both physically, unless you're a materialist and simply ignore the incompatibility of interactions between the nonphysical mind and the physical brain. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 11:26:43 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:51:50 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, To say that a connection is based on logic is a category error. More specifically, I conjecture that the connection in the brain between the physical brain and the (computational?) mind/monads is based on BEC entanglement. BEC stands for Bose-Einstein Condensate. It has been demonstrated experimentally that BECs made of different substances can become entangled. I claim based on string theory that the monads are a BEC since they came from space. They are compactified space, crystalline in form and essentially motionless. Presumably there is also a physical BEC in the brain. So if my conjecture is correct, that disparate BECs, even the monad BEC is substantive, are capable of entanglement, which of course is all logical, then the connection is based on entanglement. To say that a connection is based on logic is a category error. Richard What advantage does a BEC explanation really have over substance dualism though? How dies it solve the hard problem? Why do BECs experience things and nothing else does? 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/-/kEWP_Mi0G4IJ. 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.
Monads, dreams and NDEs
Hi Craig Weinberg The NDE is a piece of cake if you realize that in Leibniz's metaphysics, the mind, like everything else, is nonphysical. And everyone's monad survives death, at least in some form. There are some limitations depending on your ability to mentally perceive and there are always distortions. It's sometimes called the dream state or the collective unconscious. I believe that myth and story are integral parts of it. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 11:37:01 Subject: Re: Yes, Doctor! NDEs make sense to me in my model. With personal consciousness as a subset of super-personal consciousness, it stands to reason that the personal event of one's own death would or could be a super-signifiying presentation in the native language of one's person (or super-person). 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/-/i8oyl4-GBgIJ. 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: The non-existence of spacetime
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:26:03 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I think Roger has an incorrect interpretation the physics of Leibniz and Einstein. I'm not sure. Spacetime can be warped, just as the cost of living can 'rise'. If Einstein understands that spacetime is the relation between objects and nothing more, then it would make sense that he also understands that by curvature or warping he means only the warping of the paths which objects take. I am going to try to read his original manuscript: http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf so far I find no mention of 'warp' or 'curvature'. I also think this discussion has reached beyond diminishing returns. See, that's the thing, I could talk about this stuff forever. I used to have the conventional view of spacetime, but the more people I talk to, and the more knoweldgeable they are, the more I can see clearly that their basis for disagreeing with me is purely out of dread, and not out of any particular counterfactual scientific observation or understanding that they have. I am considering offering $1000 to the first person who can explain to me in a way that I can agree with why my conjecture is wrong. Craig I will stick with the conventional definition of space and time. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:03:15 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger: So neither space and time nor spacetime physically exist. Richard: That is unscientific. Physics could be entirely wrong. But I will bet on physics being correct and you and Craig being incorrect. But you are entitled to your opinion however absolute you make it sound like. Craig: If we are right, then it is the Physics of Leibniz and Einstein (and probably others...Bohm?) are correct. Why does your interpretation speak for Physics but these others do not? Try this. Imagine universe with nothing but a ping pong ball in a vacuum. There really is no 'space' there. Without some other object to provide a frame of reference, there is literally no way to conceptualize a difference between one 'place' to be and another. No direction to face. Space is all information entropy. The lack of signal for us to make sense out of. It is nothing but the inferred gap between one participant and another in the particular visual-tactile-acoustic sense modalities of the participants subjectivity. -- 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/-/5hdLUQVMIcAJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.comjavascript:. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com javascript:. 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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Rg7yPltr2o8J. 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.
John Doe's monad
Hi Craig Weinberg A whole man has a monad called, let's say, John Doe. That's the unchanging identity of his soul= monad. Technically a man's soul is called a spirit by L, but I just use soul to avoid confusion. Within John's monad=soul is a homunculus that has its own homunculus mind that represents his actual physical brain. At the present time I don't understand how to break that down into neurons etc. 11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:47:15 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:32:40 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard I agree that the names aren't important, but why are there two different unrelated kinds of experiences? Do the monads make the neurons, and if so, why? Or do the neurons make monads, and again, why? If you have either one, why have the other? Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble perform each and every function that you say it does without conjuring an experiencer? Craig Richard -- 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/-/SK1WBWfunroJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/iPDr2MZS2MUJ. To post to this group, send email to
Re: John Doe's monad
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 9:14:25 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg A whole man has a monad called, let's say, John Doe. In this case I would call 'having a monad', 'being a person' who identifies with the name John Doe (and I would say that the name define or influences the person to some extent as well). There is no separate thing from the experience of being this person. Your entire life experience *is* the monad, which is itself a version of the cosmological monad in miniature (miniature only relative to all of the other grander monad divisions). That's the unchanging identity of his soul= monad. The only aspect that is unchanging is the private narrative continuity of presence, which doesn't have anything to change into since it is the event or occasion of your lifetime as a whole. It is made of time, not a pseudosubstance. Technically a man's soul is called a spirit by L, but I just use soul to avoid confusion. Spirit and soul fail to me because they imply a kind of gaseous form in space or a halo or something. While some sensitives may be able to see non-ordinary qualities when looking at someone, auras, etc, this doesn't mean to me that these images are anything but more subtle appearances of our body. They still aren't 'us' - nothing is us, except us. Within John's monad=soul is a homunculus that has its own homunculus mind that represents his actual physical brain. At the present time I don't understand how to break that down into neurons etc. Nah, The brain is the public view of part of the person, that's all. The part which is the bottleneck for the experiences of the sub-personal experiences of the body and the super-personal experiences of being a member of society. It's the impersonal public view of a person's dashboard for their own body. There's no homunculus, no conversion, no breaking down into anything. Neuron activities are the shadows of sub-personal experiences. A brain's activity as a whole over a lifetime is the shadow of a person's life. Not exactly a shadow because you can manipulate the brain with consequences to the person, but nevertheless, the person is the 'head end' of the total package and the body is the 'tail end'. Craig 11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:47:15 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 2:32:40 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard I agree that the names aren't important, but why are there two different unrelated kinds of experiences? Do the monads make the neurons, and if so, why? Or do the neurons make monads, and again, why? If you have either one, why have the other? Craig On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a
On monads and vitalism
Hi Craig Weinberg L speaking here: Every corporeal body without parts in the universe is also a monad. Bodies of more than one part have a monad for each part. Every monad is alive to various degrees, hence various forms of vitalism, and to various degrees have intellect (intelligence), feeling (sensory stuff) and body (a meaty or material part) so the entire universe is alive in various degrees. Rocks only have body monads and are considered to be somewhat as in a coma. These objects in monad form are all nonlocal, since monads are outside of spacetime, so they share intellects, feeling, and bodily feelings to a limited extent, always distorted and always limited in their field of view. They can also see a little into the future, acccording to their capabilities. While that may sound magical, the actual corporeal bodies are your everyday corporeal bodies, show no more signs of life than nature shows you. No magic involved. Bounce a ball, eat a cake, etc. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 15:45:10 Subject: Re: Survey of Consciousness Models On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:27:52 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.10.2012 17:16 Craig Weinberg said the following: http://s33light.org/post/33296583824 Have a look. Objections? Suggestions? I am not sure if vitalism is a model of consciousness. Yeah, this is more of an informal consideration of the breakpoints between awareness and matter. I bring in vitalism as a name for the breakpoint which is assigned to biology as far as being the difference between what can evolve awareness and what never can. Eliminativism is not Epiphenomenalism. The small difference is that epiphenomenalism assumes mental phenomena and eliminativism not. I wasn't really talking about epiphenomenalism, I was saying that eliminativism treats consciousness as an epiphenomenon. Or are you saying that eliminativism eliminates even the concept of consciousness as an experience - which yeah, maybe it does, even though it really doesn't even make sense unless the inside of our brain looked like a Cartesian theater. Epiphenomenalism acknowledge that mental phenomena do exist but they just do not have causal power on human behavior. Yeah, I see epiphenomenalism as a principle which could be attached to a lot of the ones that I listed. You could have epiphenomenal idealism if you believe that it is 'all God's Will', or whatever. It isn't really in the same category as what I was after here in looking at where the breakpoints are. Like substance dualism, it is just saying what consciousness is not but offers no explanation about what it is. Then there is Reductive Physicalisms: Mental states are identical to physical states. It is not functionalism though, as everything goes through physical states directly. The difference with eliminativism is subtle. Too subtle for me maybe. What does one say that the other doesn't? There is Property Dualism and there is Externalism. Externalism is a good one that I should add maybe. It still doesn't point to who gets to be conscious and who doesn't though. Property dualism, like Substance dualism seems like it could be attached to several of the others. It doesn't really specify at what level the property of consciousness kicks in. You will find nice podcasts about it at A Romp Through the Philosophy of Mind http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/romp-through-philosophy-mind Thanks! Will check em out when I can! Craig Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/08/philosophy-of-mind.html -- 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/-/WWH98ZJcPTIJ. 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.
I think Monads may be the strategy to allow internal changes within Platonia
This might be of possible importance with regard to comp. First of all, there are a fixed number of monads in this world, since they cannot be created or destroyed. While, as I understand it, the identities or Souls of monads do not change, they do change internally. This is because their contents represent the rapidly changing (in time and space as well as internally) corporeal bodies in the changing physical world. This seems to be Leibniz's solution to the problem raised by the question, How can monads, being ideas, belong to unchanging Platonia, if the monads at the same time represent rapidly changing coporeal bodies in this contingent, ever-changing world ? The answer seems to be that only the identities or souls of the monads, not their contents, belong to Platonia. With regard to comp, presumably there are a fixed number of sets or files, each with a fixed identity, each of which contains rapidly changing data. The the data in each file instantly reflects the data in all of the other files, each data set from a unique perspective. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen -- 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: Impossible connections
Hi Richard Ruquist Only the path is warped. If there's anything in it, it will be accordingly displaced. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 08:17:23 Subject: Re: Impossible connections Spacetime could not be warped if it were a void. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:11 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism and/or parallelism, since substance dualism is supposed to be two unconnected substances - a brain that doesn't think and a mind that doesn't...bleed? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_%28philosophy_of_mind%29) Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) I think that you are still dealing with a mechanical model which only tries to account for the complexity of consciousness, not one which actually suggests that such a model could have a reason to experience itself. The hard problem is 'why is there any such thing as experience at all'? So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. This is more of a quantum method of closing the gap between physics and neurophysiology, but it doesn't really suggest why that would result in what we experience. Like Orch-OR, I'm not opposed to the idea of human consciousness being instantiated by a particular neuroscientific-quantum framework, but it still doesn't touch the hard problem. Why does this capacity to experience exist at all? Can't a BEC or microtubule ensemble
Re: The non-existence of spacetime
Craig Roger, Here is a possible middle ground. Just like quantum waves may be virtual and not physical, dimensions may be virtual, including the multiple dimensions of string theory. So the particles of compactified dimensions would be virtual and spacetime would be virtual as well. Spacetime still is part of reality just as virtual particles created at the Planck scale must exist. But spacetime is more like wave functions than physical particles. In fact in Bohm theory both quantum probability waves the elementary particles and in GR warped spacetime guide ponderable bodies. I think of quantum waves or states as belonging in the mind of god, so to speak, along with virtual Planck-scale particles, CYM monads, and now presumably, spacetime. I am willing to admit that spacetime does not have physical existence, nor do any multiple dimensions. But I extend this thinking to multiple worlds. IMO MWI exists in the mind of god and only 1p is physical, as following Leibniz, god chooses the best possible world from all the quantum possibilities. However, I believe that god is the collective nature of the CYM monads, which following Godel and perhaps comp, manifests consciousness and I believe makes the choice of what quantum state becomes physical in every interaction.of physical particles. According to string theory, the CYMs contain the laws and constants of physics, ie., they are omnipotent. I conjecture that they are as well omniscient based on Green's 2-d solution that each CYM maps the entire universe, just like the monads of Leibniz and Indra's Pearls. The CYMs are of course omnipresent since they fill the universe. Enough preaching, Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:26:03 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I think Roger has an incorrect interpretation the physics of Leibniz and Einstein. I'm not sure. Spacetime can be warped, just as the cost of living can 'rise'. If Einstein understands that spacetime is the relation between objects and nothing more, then it would make sense that he also understands that by curvature or warping he means only the warping of the paths which objects take. I am going to try to read his original manuscript: http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf so far I find no mention of 'warp' or 'curvature'. I also think this discussion has reached beyond diminishing returns. See, that's the thing, I could talk about this stuff forever. I used to have the conventional view of spacetime, but the more people I talk to, and the more knoweldgeable they are, the more I can see clearly that their basis for disagreeing with me is purely out of dread, and not out of any particular counterfactual scientific observation or understanding that they have. I am considering offering $1000 to the first person who can explain to me in a way that I can agree with why my conjecture is wrong. Craig I will stick with the conventional definition of space and time. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 8:18 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:03:15 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger: So neither space and time nor spacetime physically exist. Richard: That is unscientific. Physics could be entirely wrong. But I will bet on physics being correct and you and Craig being incorrect. But you are entitled to your opinion however absolute you make it sound like. Craig: If we are right, then it is the Physics of Leibniz and Einstein (and probably others...Bohm?) are correct. Why does your interpretation speak for Physics but these others do not? Try this. Imagine universe with nothing but a ping pong ball in a vacuum. There really is no 'space' there. Without some other object to provide a frame of reference, there is literally no way to conceptualize a difference between one 'place' to be and another. No direction to face. Space is all information entropy. The lack of signal for us to make sense out of. It is nothing but the inferred gap between one participant and another in the particular visual-tactile-acoustic sense modalities of the participants subjectivity. -- 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/-/5hdLUQVMIcAJ. To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-li...@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 view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/Rg7yPltr2o8J. To post to this group, send email to
Re: Re: Conscious robots
Hi Evgenii Rudnyi The following components are inextricably mixed: life, consciousness, free will, intelligence you can't have one without the others, and (or because) they're all nonphysical, all subjective. So only the computer can know for sure if it has any of these. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 07:58:57 Subject: Re: Conscious robots On 11.10.2012 11:36 Evgenii Rudnyi said the following: On 26.09.2012 20:35 meekerdb said the following: An interesting paper which comports with my idea that the problem of consciousness will be solved by engineering. Or John Clark's point that consciousness is easy, intelligence is hard. Consciousness in Cognitive Architectures A Principled Analysis of RCS, Soar and ACT-R I have started reading the paper. Thanks a lot for the link. I have finished reading the paper. I should say that I am not impressed. First, interestingly enough p. 30 The observer selects a system according to a set of main features which we shall call traits. Presumably this means that without an observer a system does not exist. In a way it is logical as without a human being what is available is just an ensemble of interacting strings. Now let me make some quotes to show you what the authors mean by consciousness in the order they appear in the paper. p. 45 This makes that, in reality, the state of the environment, from the point of view of the system, will not only consist of the values of the coupling quantities, but also of its conceptual representations of it. We shall call this the subjective state of the environment. p. 52 These principles, biologically inspired by the old metaphor ?r not so metaphor but an actual functional definition? of the brain-mind pair as the controller-control laws of the body ?he plant?, provides a base characterisation of cognitive or intelligent control. p. 60 Principle 5: Model-driven perception ? Perception is the continuous update of the integrated models used by the agent in a model-based cognitive control architecture by means of real-time sensorial information. p. 61 Principle 6: System awareness? system is aware if it is continuously perceiving and generating meaning from the countinuously updated models. p. 62 Awareness implies the partitioning of predicted futures and postdicted pasts by a value function. This partitioning we call meaning of the update to the model. p. 65 Principle 7: System attention ? Attentional mechanisms allocate both physical and cognitive resources for system processes so as to maximise performance. p. 116 From this perspective, the analysis proceeds in a similar way: if modelbased behaviour gives adaptive value to a system interacting with an object, it will give also value when the object modelled is the system itself. This gives rise to metacognition in the form of metacontrol loops that will improve operation of the system overall. p. 117 Principle 8: System self-awareness/consciousness ? A system is conscious if it is continuously generating meanings from continously updated self-models in a model-based cognitive control architecture. p. 122 'Now suppose that for adding consciousness to the operation of the system we add new processes that monitor, evaluate and reflect the operation of the ?nconscious? normal processes (Fig. fig:cons-processes). We shall call these processes the ?onscious? ones.' If I understood it correctly, the authors when they develop software just mark some bits as a subjective state and some processes as conscious. Voil?! We have a conscious robot. Let us see what happens. Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/10/consciousness-in-cognitive-architectures.html -- 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: On monads and vitalism
Roger, Could you supply a link to where L said all that. Google is unable to find any such place. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg L speaking here: Every corporeal body without parts in the universe is also a monad. Bodies of more than one part have a monad for each part. Every monad is alive to various degrees, hence various forms of vitalism, and to various degrees have intellect (intelligence), feeling (sensory stuff) and body (a meaty or material part) so the entire universe is alive in various degrees. Rocks only have body monads and are considered to be somewhat as in a coma. These objects in monad form are all nonlocal, since monads are outside of spacetime, so they share intellects, feeling, and bodily feelings to a limited extent, always distorted and always limited in their field of view. They can also see a little into the future, acccording to their capabilities. While that may sound magical, the actual corporeal bodies are your everyday corporeal bodies, show no more signs of life than nature shows you. No magic involved. Bounce a ball, eat a cake, etc. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 15:45:10 Subject: Re: Survey of Consciousness Models On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:27:52 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.10.2012 17:16 Craig Weinberg said the following: http://s33light.org/post/33296583824 Have a look. Objections? Suggestions? I am not sure if vitalism is a model of consciousness. Yeah, this is more of an informal consideration of the breakpoints between awareness and matter. I bring in vitalism as a name for the breakpoint which is assigned to biology as far as being the difference between what can evolve awareness and what never can. Eliminativism is not Epiphenomenalism. The small difference is that epiphenomenalism assumes mental phenomena and eliminativism not. I wasn't really talking about epiphenomenalism, I was saying that eliminativism treats consciousness as an epiphenomenon. Or are you saying that eliminativism eliminates even the concept of consciousness as an experience - which yeah, maybe it does, even though it really doesn't even make sense unless the inside of our brain looked like a Cartesian theater. Epiphenomenalism acknowledge that mental phenomena do exist but they just do not have causal power on human behavior. Yeah, I see epiphenomenalism as a principle which could be attached to a lot of the ones that I listed. You could have epiphenomenal idealism if you believe that it is 'all God's Will', or whatever. It isn't really in the same category as what I was after here in looking at where the breakpoints are. Like substance dualism, it is just saying what consciousness is not but offers no explanation about what it is. Then there is Reductive Physicalisms: Mental states are identical to physical states. It is not functionalism though, as everything goes through physical states directly. The difference with eliminativism is subtle. Too subtle for me maybe. What does one say that the other doesn't? There is Property Dualism and there is Externalism. Externalism is a good one that I should add maybe. It still doesn't point to who gets to be conscious and who doesn't though. Property dualism, like Substance dualism seems like it could be attached to several of the others. It doesn't really specify at what level the property of consciousness kicks in. You will find nice podcasts about it at A Romp Through the Philosophy of Mind http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/romp-through-philosophy-mind Thanks! Will check em out when I can! Craig Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/08/philosophy-of-mind.html -- 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/-/WWH98ZJcPTIJ. 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
Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:31, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I think that consciousness, intelligence and some measure of free will are necessary and inseparable parts of life itself. consciousness / \ / \ / \ / life \ /\ / \ free will--**intelligence I agree with this. I'm curious what there is in free will that you agree with, I neither agree nor disagree with it. 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: Impossible connections
Hi Richard, The most entertaining way to understand the views of modern physics on space (same as that of Leibniz) would be to watch NOVA | The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space (Brian Greene, a founder of sgtring theory) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5tBIqJU4Uplaynext=1list=PLYslgvtKtawg5gknf6QmpFRqdqkwYAs7Hfeature=results_main or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Concepts introduced by the theories of relativity include: Measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of observers. In particular, space and time can dilate. Spacetime: space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other. The speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers. or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space In the seventeenth century, the philosophy of space and time emerged as a central issue in epistemology and metaphysics. At its heart, Gottfried Leibniz, the German philosopher-mathematician, and Isaac Newton, the English physicist-mathematician, set out two opposing theories of what space is. Rather than being an entity that independently exists over and above other matter, Leibniz held that space is no more than the collection of spatial relations between objects in the world space is that which results from places taken together.[5] Unoccupied regions are those that could have objects in them, and thus spatial relations with other places. For Leibniz, then, space was an idealised abstraction from the relations between individual entities or their possible locations and therefore could not be continuous but must be discrete.[6] Space could be thought of in a similar way to the relations between family members. Although people in the family are related to one another, the relations do not exist independently of the people.[7] Leibniz argued that space could not exist independently of objects in the world because that implies a difference between two universes exactly alike except for the location of the material world in each universe. But since there would be no observational way of telling these universes apart then, according to the identity of indiscernibles, there would be no real difference between them. According to the principle of sufficient reason, any theory of space that implied that there could be these two possible universes, must therefore be wrong.[8] Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 08:11:17 Subject: Re: Impossible connections I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. I understand what you are saying. Not to be a weenie, but just fyi I think that what you are describing would be technically categorized as interactionism
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
Hi John Clark Free Will-- You need enough freedom to make a choice of your own. Or apparently of your own choice. Strictly speaking, I prefer the term self-determination meaning by anything inside your skin. That's the self. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: John Clark Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 10:20:11 Subject: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment On Wed, Oct 10, 2012? Bruno Marchal wrote: On 10 Oct 2012, at 13:31, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I think that consciousness, intelligence and some measure of free will are necessary and inseparable parts of life itself. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?onsciousness ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/ ? ? ? ? \ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ? ? \ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? / ? ? ?ife ? ? ? \ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?/ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? / ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?ree will--intelligence I agree with this. ?'m curious what there is in free will that you agree with, I neither agree nor disagree with it. ? 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.
Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if rather than is
On 10 Oct 2012, at 20:13, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2012/10/10 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 09 Oct 2012, at 18:58, Alberto G. Corona wrote: It may be a zombie or not. I can´t know. The same applies to other persons. It may be that the world is made of zombie-actors that try to cheat me, but I have an harcoded belief in the conventional thing. Maybe it is, because otherwise, I will act in strange and self destructive ways. I would act as a paranoic, after that, as a psycopath (since they are not humans). That will not be good for my success in society. Then, I doubt that I will have any surviving descendant that will develop a zombie-solipsist epistemology. However there are people that believe these strange things. Some autists do not recognize humans as beings like him. Some psychopaths too, in a different way. There is no authistic or psichopathic epistemology because the are not functional enough to make societies with universities and philosophers. That is the whole point of evolutionary epistemology. If comp leads to solipsism, I will apply for being a plumber. I don't bet or believe in solipsism. But you were saying that a *conscious* robot can lack a soul. See the quote just below. That is what I don't understand. Bruno I think that It is not comp what leads to solipsism but any existential stance that only accept what is certain and discard what is only belief based on conjectures. It can go no further than cogito ergo sum OK. But that has nothing to do with comp. That would conflate the 8 person points in only one of them (the feeler, probably). Only the feeler is that solipsist, at the level were he feels, but the machine's self manage all different points of view, and the living solipsist (each of us) is not mandate to defend the solipsist doctrine (he is the only one existing)/ he is the only one he can feel, that's all. That does not imply the non existence of others and other things. I still don't see what you mean by consciousness without a soul. Bruno 2012/10/9 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be: On 09 Oct 2012, at 13:29, Alberto G. Corona wrote: But still after this reasoning, I doubt that the self conscious philosopher robot have the kind of thing, call it a soul, that I have. ? You mean it is a zombie? I can't conceive consciousness without a soul. Even if only the universal one. So I am not sure what you mean by soul. Bruno 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. -- Alberto. -- 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- 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. -- Alberto. -- 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: Re: On monads and vitalism
Hi Richard Ruquist He didn't in so many words, you have to study his philosophy. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 10:16:43 Subject: Re: On monads and vitalism Roger, Could you supply a link to where L said all that. Google is unable to find any such place. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:37 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg L speaking here: Every corporeal body without parts in the universe is also a monad. Bodies of more than one part have a monad for each part. Every monad is alive to various degrees, hence various forms of vitalism, and to various degrees have intellect (intelligence), feeling (sensory stuff) and body (a meaty or material part) so the entire universe is alive in various degrees. Rocks only have body monads and are considered to be somewhat as in a coma. These objects in monad form are all nonlocal, since monads are outside of spacetime, so they share intellects, feeling, and bodily feelings to a limited extent, always distorted and always limited in their field of view. They can also see a little into the future, acccording to their capabilities. While that may sound magical, the actual corporeal bodies are your everyday corporeal bodies, show no more signs of life than nature shows you. No magic involved. Bounce a ball, eat a cake, etc. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 15:45:10 Subject: Re: Survey of Consciousness Models On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 3:27:52 PM UTC-4, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 10.10.2012 17:16 Craig Weinberg said the following: http://s33light.org/post/33296583824 Have a look. Objections? Suggestions? I am not sure if vitalism is a model of consciousness. Yeah, this is more of an informal consideration of the breakpoints between awareness and matter. I bring in vitalism as a name for the breakpoint which is assigned to biology as far as being the difference between what can evolve awareness and what never can. Eliminativism is not Epiphenomenalism. The small difference is that epiphenomenalism assumes mental phenomena and eliminativism not. I wasn't really talking about epiphenomenalism, I was saying that eliminativism treats consciousness as an epiphenomenon. Or are you saying that eliminativism eliminates even the concept of consciousness as an experience - which yeah, maybe it does, even though it really doesn't even make sense unless the inside of our brain looked like a Cartesian theater. Epiphenomenalism acknowledge that mental phenomena do exist but they just do not have causal power on human behavior. Yeah, I see epiphenomenalism as a principle which could be attached to a lot of the ones that I listed. You could have epiphenomenal idealism if you believe that it is 'all God's Will', or whatever. It isn't really in the same category as what I was after here in looking at where the breakpoints are. Like substance dualism, it is just saying what consciousness is not but offers no explanation about what it is. Then there is Reductive Physicalisms: Mental states are identical to physical states. It is not functionalism though, as everything goes through physical states directly. The difference with eliminativism is subtle. Too subtle for me maybe. What does one say that the other doesn't? There is Property Dualism and there is Externalism. Externalism is a good one that I should add maybe. It still doesn't point to who gets to be conscious and who doesn't though. Property dualism, like Substance dualism seems like it could be attached to several of the others. It doesn't really specify at what level the property of consciousness kicks in. You will find nice podcasts about it at A Romp Through the Philosophy of Mind http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/series/romp-through-philosophy-mind Thanks! Will check em out when I can! Craig Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/08/philosophy-of-mind.html -- 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/-/WWH98ZJcPTIJ. 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
Re: Conscious robots
On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Consciousness is easy if you already have consciousness. It is impossible if you don't. But you believe in panexperientialism, you believe that everything is conscious, so if you are correct then consciousness is not only possible it's easy. QED. Everything assumes that consciousness exists as a possibility in the universe It's not a assumption it's a fact that for consciousness to exist there must have been a time when the possibility of the existence of consciousness existed. In a similar way some religious types have criticized Krauss's book A Universe From Nothing because it's not really nothing, its just from very very little because Krauss had to start from a place where there was at least the potential for something, and they insist that very potential is something. Apparently those same religious types don't consider God to be something, and for once I agree with them. prior to the existence of the universe It's not clear what that means. Without the universe you can't have time because time involves change and if nothing exists then nothing changes; and without time the word prior has no meaning. 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: Universe on a Chip
On 10 Oct 2012, at 20:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:14:44 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 09 Oct 2012, at 19:03, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Tuesday, October 9, 2012 11:04:51 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 08 Oct 2012, at 22:38, Craig Weinberg wrote: If the universe were a simulation, would the constant speed of light correspond to the clock speed driving the simulation? In other words, the “CPU speed?” As we are “inside” the simulation, all attempts to measure the speed of the simulation appear as a constant value. Light “executes” (what we call “movement”) at one instruction per cycle. Any device we built to attempt to measure the speed of light is also inside the simulation, so even though the “outside” CPU clock could be changing speed, we will always see it as the same constant value. A “cycle” is how long it takes all the information in the universe to update itself relative to each other. That is all the speed of light really is. The speed of information updating in the universe… (more here http://www.quora.com/Physics/If-the-universe-were-a-simulation-would-the-constant-speed-of-light-correspond-to-the-clock-speed-driving-the-simulation-In-other-words-the-CPU-speed?) I can make the leap from CPU clock frequency to the speed of light in a vacuum if I view light as an experienced event or energy state which occurs local to matter rather than literally traveling through space. With this view, the correlation between distance and latency is an organizational one, governing sequence and priority of processing rather than the presumed literal existence of racing light bodies (photons). This would be consistent with your model of Matrix-universe on a meta-universal CPU in that light speed is simply the frequency at which the computer processes raw bits. The change of light speed when propagating through matter or gravitational fields etc wouldn’t be especially consistent with this model…why would the ghost of a supernova slow down the cosmic computer in one area of memory, etc? The model that I have been developing suggests however that the CPU model would not lead to realism or significance though, and could only generate unconscious data manipulations. In order to have symbol grounding in genuine awareness, I think that instead of a CPU cranking away rendering the entire cosmos over and over as a bulwark against nothingness, I think that the cosmos must be rooted in stasis. Silence. Solitude. This is not nothingness however, it is everythingness. A universal inertial frame which loses nothing but rather continuously expands within itself by taking no action at all. The universe doesn’t need to be racing to mechanically redraw the cosmos over and over because what it has drawn already has no place to disappear to. It can only seem to disappear through… … … … latency. The universe as we know it then arises out of nested latencies. A meta-diffraction of symmetrically juxtaposed latency-generating methodologies. Size, scale, distance, mass, and density on the public side, richness, depth, significance, and complexity on the private side. Through these complications, the cosmic CPU is cast as a theoretical shadow, when the deeper reality is that rather than zillions of cycles per second, the real mainframe is the slowest possible computer. It can never complete even one cycle. How can it, when it has all of these subroutines that need to complete their cycles first? ? If the universe is a simulation (which it can't, by comp, but let us say), then if the computer clock is changed, the internal creatures will not see any difference. Indeed it is a way to understand that such a time does not need to be actualized. Like in COMP and GR. I'm not sure how that relates to what I was saying about the universe arising before even the first tick of the clock is finished, but we can talk about this instead if you like. What you are saying, like what my friend up there was saying about the CPU clock being invisible to the Sims, I have no problem with. That's why I was saying it's like a computer game. You can stop the game, debug the program, start it back up where you left off, and if there was a Sim person actually experiencing that, they would not experience any interruption. Fine. The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing the computing, yes? What does it run on? On the true number relations. Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic, involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic. Right, so the number relations don't require any meta-computation. Why then do their progeny require number-relations? ? To see movies, or to chat on the net perhaps. Your question is a bit like why do Saturn needs rings? If it doesn't need to run on anything, then way
Re: more firewalls
On 10 Oct 2012, at 18:47, Richard Ruquist wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can become entangled and essentially be copies of each other. So the BEC connection mechanism supports substance dualism. Substance dualism then solves the hard problem using string theory monads.. For example take the binding problem where: There are an almost infinite number of possible, different objects we are capable of seeing, There cannot be a single neuron, often referred to as a grandmother cell, for each one. (http://papers.klab.caltech.edu/22/1/148.pdf) However, at a density of 10^90/cc (from string theory; e.g., ST Yau, The Shape of Inner Space), the binding problem can be solved by configurations of monads for all different values of depth, motion, color, and spatial location ever sensed. (I have a model that backs this up: http://yanniru.blogspot.com/2012/04/implications-of-conjectured-megaverse.html) So the monads and the neurons experience the same things because of the BEC entanglement connection. These experiences are stored physically in short-term memory that Crick and Kock claim is essential to physical consciousness and the experiences in my model are also stored in the monads perhaps to solve the binding problem and at least for computational support of physical consciousness. Richard BEC are Turing emulable, so you can't get substance dualism, only, by making the level that low, you can get, perhaps, that substance dualism will look very probable in our neighborhood. Bruno On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 8:51:50 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, To say that a connection is based on logic is a category error. More specifically, I conjecture that the connection in the brain between the physical brain and the (computational?) mind/monads is based on BEC entanglement. BEC stands for Bose-Einstein Condensate. It has been demonstrated experimentally that BECs made of different substances can become entangled. I claim based on string theory that the monads are a BEC since they came from space. They are compactified space, crystalline in form and essentially motionless. Presumably there is also a physical BEC in the brain. So if my conjecture is correct, that disparate BECs, even the monad BEC is substantive, are capable of entanglement, which of course is all logical, then the connection is based on entanglement. To say that a connection is based on logic is a category error. Richard What advantage does a BEC explanation really have over substance dualism though? How dies it solve the hard problem? Why do BECs experience things and nothing else does? 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/-/kEWP_Mi0G4IJ. 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-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: Re: Impossible connections
Roger, I know Brian Greene personally and have read his book, Fabric of the Cosmos. He was a postdoc at my school. He is not a founder of string theory, Max Green is. His view of space is quite conventional except for the extra dimensions of string theory. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:39 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard, The most entertaining way to understand the views of modern physics on space (same as that of Leibniz) would be to watch NOVA | The Fabric of the Cosmos: What Is Space (Brian Greene, a founder of sgtring theory) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD5tBIqJU4Uplaynext=1list=PLYslgvtKtawg5gknf6QmpFRqdqkwYAs7Hfeature=results_main or go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_relativity Concepts introduced by the theories of relativity include: Measurements of various quantities are relative to the velocities of observers. In particular, space and time can dilate. Spacetime: space and time should be considered together and in relation to each other. The speed of light is nonetheless invariant, the same for all observers. or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space In the seventeenth century, the philosophy of space and time emerged as a central issue in epistemology and metaphysics. At its heart, Gottfried Leibniz, the German philosopher-mathematician, and Isaac Newton, the English physicist-mathematician, set out two opposing theories of what space is. Rather than being an entity that independently exists over and above other matter, Leibniz held that space is no more than the collection of spatial relations between objects in the world space is that which results from places taken together.[5] Unoccupied regions are those that could have objects in them, and thus spatial relations with other places. For Leibniz, then, space was an idealised abstraction from the relations between individual entities or their possible locations and therefore could not be continuous but must be discrete.[6] Space could be thought of in a similar way to the relations between family members. Although people in the family are related to one another, the relations do not exist independently of the people.[7] Leibniz argued that space could not exist independently of objects in the world because that implies a difference between two universes exactly alike except for the location of the material world in each universe. But since there would be no observational way of telling these universes apart then, according to the identity of indiscernibles, there would be no real difference between them. According to the principle of sufficient reason, any theory of space that implied that there could be these two possible universes, must therefore be wrong.[8] Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 08:11:17 Subject: Re: Impossible connections I agree with Roger on this one (except for the insults). I did not know that Einstein recognized that spacetime was a true void - I had assumed that his conception of gravitational warping of spacetime was a literal plenum or manifold, but if it's true that he recognized spacetime as an abstraction, then that is good news for me. It places cosmos firmly in the physics of private perception and spacetime as the participatory realizer of public bodies. Craig PS Roger, you wouldn't happen to have any citations or articles where Einstein's view on this are discussed, would you? I'll Google it myself, but figured I'd ask just in case. Thanks. On Thursday, October 11, 2012 7:59:39 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Roger, You are entitled to your opinion, but that is all it is. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 5:31 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Here you go again. Monads are basically ideas. The BECs are physical. No physical connection is possible between ideas and things. Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-10, 14:32:39 Subject: Re: Re: more firewalls Craig, The experiencers are the monads and the physical neurons.. I conjure experiencers because I have experiences. But it appears that two kinds of experiencers are necessary. The BEC just connects them. I do not care what you call that. Names are not important. Richard On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 10, 2012 12:47:47 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I claim that a connection is needed in substance dualism between the substance of the mind and the substance of the brain. That is, if consciousness resides in a BEC in the brain and also in the mind, then the two can
Re: The little genius.
On 11 Oct 2012, at 02:55, Russell Standish wrote: On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 01:41:51PM -0400, Stephen P. King wrote: On 10/10/2012 1:02 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: A very sad news is that Eric Vandenbussche died. It is the guy I called here often the little genius, who solved notably the first open problem in my PhD thesis (as you can consult on my url). That was a *very* nice guy, a friend, also, an ally, a support. I miss him greatly. R.I.P. Eric. Dear Bruno, I am sad to hear that. :_( I was very intrigued by his results! Could you get permission to publish all of his work? Ideed, it would be a tragedy if Eric's insights were lost to the world. Perhaps a posthumous article might be in order explaining his insights? I would be happy to endorse on arXiv, assuming I can endorse in the appropriate category (I found I couldn't endorse Colin's paper a couple of years ago, though, so this may be an empty promise :). Thanks. We will try to do something. Best, Bruno 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: The non-existence of spacetime
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 10:09:12 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig Roger, Here is a possible middle ground. Just like quantum waves may be virtual and not physical, dimensions may be virtual, including the multiple dimensions of string theory. So the particles of compactified dimensions would be virtual and spacetime would be virtual as well. Yes, all of those things are virtual. They have no independent existence, rather we can make sense of things better if we imagine the universe as-if they existed. Spacetime still is part of reality just as virtual particles created at the Planck scale must exist. Nothing virtual exists. That's what makes it virtual. It's a conceptual placeholder. For what? For sense experience. Subjective phenomenology makes the entire cosmos - literally in many cases - go 'round. But spacetime is more like wave functions than physical particles. It's the measurement of spacetime that is like wave functions. They are sensory ranges of whatever source and targets are the participating instruments. In fact in Bohm theory both quantum probability waves the elementary particles and in GR warped spacetime guide ponderable bodies. I tend to think that elementary particles are more concretely real than quantum, but they too will pick sides in a double slit test, so the concreteness of physics I think scales down in quality in proportion to physical scale (at least relative to our own scale). Quantum is 100% dependent upon the measuring instruments. Atoms, maybe are only 70% dependent. Molecules, maybe 10% dependent. Sheer speculation obviously, but see if you can get where I am going: a sliding scale or continuum of public realism which is inversely proportional to interiority or private phenomenology. This is at the core of what I am talking about with Multisense Realism. It's all one big/small public/private internal/external involuted-ambiguous/discrete-irreversible semiotic relativistic continuum of perception-participation. I think of quantum waves or states as belonging in the mind of god, so to speak, along with virtual Planck-scale particles, CYM monads, and now presumably, spacetime. I am willing to admit that spacetime does not have physical existence, nor do any multiple dimensions. But I extend this thinking to multiple worlds. IMO MWI exists in the mind of god and only 1p is physical, as following Leibniz, god chooses the best possible world from all the quantum possibilities. I would say that all of us choose what we hope is the best possible next step in our own personal narrative. That sense is what collapses the (virtual) wavefunction and prevents MWI. What is to prevent MWI from repeating itself? Instead of one universe per dust speck wobble, why not an infinite set of the same universe? Who is keeping track and who is enforcing a law of non-redundancy? Somewhere, somehow, something has to make sense of something, all we are debating is at what level. My position is that level is already sensemaking. There is simply nothing whatsoever that does not either experience sense or can be sensed by something that does experience sense. However, I believe that god is the collective nature of the CYM monads, which following Godel and perhaps comp, manifests consciousness and I believe makes the choice of what quantum state becomes physical in every interaction.of physical particles. According to string theory, the CYMs contain the laws and constants of physics, ie., they are omnipotent. I conjecture that they are as well omniscient based on Green's 2-d solution that each CYM maps the entire universe, just like the monads of Leibniz and Indra's Pearls. The CYMs are of course omnipresent since they fill the universe. I like monads and Indra's Pearls fine, as long as we realize that they are us and our experiences of our lives. Craig Enough preaching, Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:01 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comjavascript: wrote: On Thursday, October 11, 2012 8:26:03 AM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Craig, I think Roger has an incorrect interpretation the physics of Leibniz and Einstein. I'm not sure. Spacetime can be warped, just as the cost of living can 'rise'. If Einstein understands that spacetime is the relation between objects and nothing more, then it would make sense that he also understands that by curvature or warping he means only the warping of the paths which objects take. I am going to try to read his original manuscript: http://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein/Einstein_Relativity.pdf so far I find no mention of 'warp' or 'curvature'. I also think this discussion has reached beyond diminishing returns. See, that's the thing, I could talk about this stuff forever. I used to have the conventional view of spacetime, but the more people I talk to,
Re: Impossible connections
On 10/11/2012 5:17 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Spacetime could not be warped if it were a void. Why not? Spacetime is just the set of relations, i.e. intervals, between events. If those intervals satisfy the Minkowski metric the spacetime is flat. If they don't the spacetime is warped. Brent -- 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: Impossible connections
Brent, According to Einstein it takes massive objects to warp spacetime. Therefore a warped spacetime cannot be empty. The apparently flat spacetime that exists is due to dark energy, dark matter and visible matter. Although flat, it is hardly considered to be empty. Richard On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 12:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 10/11/2012 5:17 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Spacetime could not be warped if it were a void. Why not? Spacetime is just the set of relations, i.e. intervals, between events. If those intervals satisfy the Minkowski metric the spacetime is flat. If they don't the spacetime is warped. Brent -- 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: Universe on a Chip
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:08:16 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: The problem is the meanwhile you have this meta-universe which is doing the computing, yes? What does it run on? On the true number relations. Indirectly on some false propositions too, as the meta-arithmetic, involving false propositions/sentences belongs to arithmetic. Right, so the number relations don't require any meta-computation. Why then do their progeny require number-relations? ? To see movies, or to chat on the net perhaps. If they already have the capacity to want to see movies or have experiences of any kind, then it begs the question of consciousness. They are already conscious. This is my main problem with what I understand of your view. Like Dennett, you seem to be saying It [Some process which is pre-loaded with confirmation bias] thinks, therefore it thinks that it *is* I gather from talking to you over these months (years?) that you have discovered the precise method, more or less, through which arithmetic process can and must dream this self-confirmation bias into its functionality - which, if that's the case, I do not dispute. I don't have a problem with a theoretical modeling of self-confirmation as prerequisite for certain classes of computation (UMs and LUMs - which, in my mind, the only difference is that the LUMs are the more promiscuously surrealistic of the two...having more whobytes than howbytes). My problem has always been that there is no 'there' there. We arbitrarily start with elemental propositions which are perfect for describing recursively enumerable public operations, but really have no justification for their primacy other than their own confirmation bias of themselves. Numbers add up perfectly, therefore itching and laughing and water-skiing in the blue Aegean. There's just no sense there - it's all taken for granted a priori and then claimed as the trophy of proof at the end. Yes, a lot of things can be reduced to numbers - a lot of things can be reduced to yin/yang or good/evil also. Craig Your question is a bit like why do Saturn needs rings? It's more like 'why does putting a computer in a building make that building any taller'? If it doesn't need to run on anything, then way not just have that be the universe in the first place? OK. It is the arithmetical universe, or (I prefer) arithmetic truth. We cannot really defined it. You can call it God or Universe, but it is important to distinguish from the physical reality, which is an internal emerging secondary structure, in the comp setting. I am ok with secondary structure, and I think the same thing only that it has to be that structure is secondary to sense (the capacity to experience + the capacity to partially experience) rather than arithmetic, because I can see why it would serve sense to invent numbers to help keep track of things but I can't see why keeping-track-ness would bother to create experience. Why not? It makes sense when the keeping-track-ness is done self-referentially by the keeper tracker, in some environment, at some level of description of itself. The study of the brain suggests such self-represention, and computer science can study fixed point of such self-representation, and they have, even when super-simplified, a rich, un-bound-able mathematical complexity. You can have complexity and self-representation without experience though. What does experience add to the task of keeping track? Why are you sure they can't have experience? They might disagree with you. And somehow, using the most classical logic of knowledge, they already disagree. Why not listen to them? Because there isn't any such thing as experience until it makes sense for something to have it. It only makes sense for us to have it because we cannot escape the fact that we do. That isn't true for other things though. Just as much as I know that I have experience, I know that Bugs Bunny and Pinocchio do not have experiences. I know that I can read Chinese well enough to know that it is probably Chinese, but not enough to know much about what it is intended to mean. I also understand that my body is a living organism growing from a single dividing cell out if it's own motives and sense. By the same token I understand that a computer is an assembly of inorganic parts selected specifically for accountability and fidelity of imitation. I know that machines and computers are known the world over to be inert, empty, devoid of feeling or comfort or personhood. Why not listen to these clues? Why not see the relative stagnation in 60 years of AI research as a sign that there is no gold in this electronic lead? Many people argue against comp, up to the point they believe that they don't have to study a bit of computer science. But you would study computer science, you might perhaps find more deep argument against
Re: Re: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Free Will-- You need enough freedom My difficulty with the free will noise is not the will part, you want to do some things and don't want to do others and that's clear, my difficulty is with the free part; and all you're saying is that free will is a will that is free so that does not help me. to make a choice of your own. A choice made for a reason or a choice made for no reason; it's deterministic or it's random. Strictly speaking, I prefer the term self-determination meaning by anything inside your skin. And that thing inside your skin that made you choose X rather than Y came to be there for a reason (memory, your DNA, environmental factors, etc) or it came to be inside your skin for no reason at all in which case it was random. I still have absolutely no idea what the free will noise is supposed to mean and a very much doubt that you or anybody else does either; and yet despite not having the slightest idea of what it means they will continue to passionately believe it. Weird. I neither believe nor disbelieve in free will. 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: Impossible connections
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 12:41:29 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote: Brent, According to Einstein it takes massive objects to warp spacetime. Therefore a warped spacetime cannot be empty. Sure it can. What is mass? A relation between objects. Relativity shows us nothing if not that. Earth isn't orbiting a point in space, it is revolving around the sun, and will continue to do that regardless of where the sun goes. The apparently flat spacetime that exists The idea of spacetime being flat is pure analogy. There is no flatness or warpedness to spacetime - only to the functions of objects in relation to each other. Flat and warped are metaphorical - statistical, like a 'flatline' on an EEG or income report. There is nothing there at all in reality. Space is that which subjects infer is not separates objects from being the same thing. It's like the spaces between these letters - there isn't anything there to warp, but if I stretch the letters with Photoshop in an orderly way, I have figuratively changed their spatial relation...because I have altered the pixels, not because space actually exists. is due to dark energy, dark matter and visible matter. Although flat, it is hardly considered to be empty. Adding epicycles for 40 years... I feel certain that it is only a 'matter of time' before the whole Dr. Suess tower collapses into ashes and smoke. 'Dark' just means 'our equations only work if something were right here'. The Emperor's Dark Clothes, I say. Clearly. Obviously. I would bet my life on it. Craig Richard -- 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/-/MwJ_5R0Mgt0J. 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: Impossible connections
On 10/11/2012 9:41 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Brent, According to Einstein it takes massive objects to warp spacetime. No, that's wrong. Mass-energy warps spacetime, but the Einstein equations have non-flat solutions with a zero stress-energy tensor. DeSitter showed this shortly after Eistein published. Therefore a warped spacetime cannot be empty. The apparently flat spacetime that exists The spacetime of this universe is not flat, only the space part is. is due to dark energy, dark matter and visible matter. Although flat, it is hardly considered to be empty. Nobody said it was empty. I was just correcting your misconception that spacetime had to be flat in the absence of matter. Brent -- 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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 10/11/2012 10:14 AM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Free Will-- You need enough freedom My difficulty with the free will noise is not the will part, you want to do some things and don't want to do others and that's clear, my difficulty is with the free part; and all you're saying is that free will is a will that is free so that does not help me. to make a choice of your own. A choice made for a reason or a choice made for no reason; it's deterministic or it's random. Strictly speaking, I prefer the term self-determination meaning by anything inside your skin. And that thing inside your skin that made you choose X rather than Y came to be there for a reason (memory, your DNA, environmental factors, etc) or it came to be inside your skin for no reason at all in which case it was random. I still have absolutely no idea what the free will noise is supposed to mean and a very much doubt that you or anybody else does either; It's a simple enough concept that it is used in law courts (a venue not noted for metaphysical sophistication). Free is the contrary of coerced. Brent and yet despite not having the slightest idea of what it means they will continue to passionately believe it. Weird. I neither believe nor disbelieve in free will. 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.
Re: I believe that comp's requirement is one of as if rather than is
On Tue, Oct 9, 2012 at 5:50 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Comp seems to avoid this insurmountable problem by avoiding the issue of whether the computer actually had an experience, only that it appeared to have an experience. So comp's requirement is as if rather than is. In other words exactly precisely the same procedure you have used every hour of every day of every year of your waking life to determine if your fellow human beings are behaving as if they are conscious or not. 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: Impossible connections
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 1:23:48 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote: Nobody said it was empty. I was just correcting your misconception that spacetime had to be flat in the absence of matter. I'm saying that it is beyond empty. It is only the inferred distance between which objects define each other, nothing more. Craig Brent -- 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/-/2MZmDivHXnMJ. 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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's [free will] a simple enough concept I think that's true, although I may be using a somewhat different meaning of the word simple than you are. that it is used in law courts True. a venue not noted for metaphysical sophistication Astronomically true!! Free is the contrary of coerced. But I don't know what coerced will means either. 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: Conscious robots
On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:13:06AM -0400, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Evgenii Rudnyi The following components are inextricably mixed: life, consciousness, free will, intelligence you can't have one without the others, I disagree. You can have life without any of the others. Also, I suspect you can have intelligence without life, and intelligence without consciousness. and (or because) they're all nonphysical, all subjective. Yes - they share those in common, as do a lot of other concepts such as emergence, complexity, information, entropy, creativity and so on. So only the computer can know for sure if it has any of these. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 10/11/2012 Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen - Receiving the following content - From: Evgenii Rudnyi Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-10-11, 07:58:57 Subject: Re: Conscious robots On 11.10.2012 11:36 Evgenii Rudnyi said the following: On 26.09.2012 20:35 meekerdb said the following: An interesting paper which comports with my idea that the problem of consciousness will be solved by engineering. Or John Clark's point that consciousness is easy, intelligence is hard. Consciousness in Cognitive Architectures A Principled Analysis of RCS, Soar and ACT-R I have started reading the paper. Thanks a lot for the link. I have finished reading the paper. I should say that I am not impressed. First, interestingly enough p. 30 The observer selects a system according to a set of main features which we shall call traits. Presumably this means that without an observer a system does not exist. In a way it is logical as without a human being what is available is just an ensemble of interacting strings. Now let me make some quotes to show you what the authors mean by consciousness in the order they appear in the paper. p. 45 This makes that, in reality, the state of the environment, from the point of view of the system, will not only consist of the values of the coupling quantities, but also of its conceptual representations of it. We shall call this the subjective state of the environment. p. 52 These principles, biologically inspired by the old metaphor ?r not so metaphor but an actual functional definition? of the brain-mind pair as the controller-control laws of the body ?he plant?, provides a base characterisation of cognitive or intelligent control. p. 60 Principle 5: Model-driven perception ? Perception is the continuous update of the integrated models used by the agent in a model-based cognitive control architecture by means of real-time sensorial information. p. 61 Principle 6: System awareness? system is aware if it is continuously perceiving and generating meaning from the countinuously updated models. p. 62 Awareness implies the partitioning of predicted futures and postdicted pasts by a value function. This partitioning we call meaning of the update to the model. p. 65 Principle 7: System attention ? Attentional mechanisms allocate both physical and cognitive resources for system processes so as to maximise performance. p. 116 From this perspective, the analysis proceeds in a similar way: if modelbased behaviour gives adaptive value to a system interacting with an object, it will give also value when the object modelled is the system itself. This gives rise to metacognition in the form of metacontrol loops that will improve operation of the system overall. p. 117 Principle 8: System self-awareness/consciousness ? A system is conscious if it is continuously generating meanings from continously updated self-models in a model-based cognitive control architecture. p. 122 'Now suppose that for adding consciousness to the operation of the system we add new processes that monitor, evaluate and reflect the operation of the ?nconscious? normal processes (Fig. fig:cons-processes). We shall call these processes the ?onscious? ones.' If I understood it correctly, the authors when they develop software just mark some bits as a subjective state and some processes as conscious. Voil?! We have a conscious robot. Let us see what happens. Evgenii -- http://blog.rudnyi.ru/2012/10/consciousness-in-cognitive-architectures.html -- 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,
Continuous Game of Life
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/10/smoothlifel/ 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: Zombieopolis Thought Experiment
On 10/11/2012 1:14 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 1:28 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net wrote: It's [free will] a simple enough concept I think that's true, although I may be using a somewhat different meaning of the word simple than you are. that it is used in law courts True. a venue not noted for metaphysical sophistication Astronomically true!! Free is the contrary of coerced. But I don't know what coerced will means either. So you see no reason to draw a legal distinction between a banker to takes money from his bank to support a more lavish life style and one who does it to keep a bank robber from shooting him? Brent -- 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: Continuous Game of Life
That's serious cool! I love the comment posted Stephen Wolfram is very angry! They do discrete time (Euler integration), but one could easily make it continuous by replacing it with a Runge-Kutta integration scheme. Thanks for posting this. On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 04:14:15PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote: http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/10/smoothlifel/ 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. -- 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 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: Conscious robots
On Thursday, October 11, 2012 11:05:23 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote: On Wed, Sep 26, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote: Consciousness is easy if you already have consciousness. It is impossible if you don't. But you believe in panexperientialism, you believe that everything is conscious, so if you are correct then consciousness is not only possible it's easy. QED. We are saying the same thing but you are not acknowledging that you assume consciousness. I acknowledge that we have no choice but to assume some kind of experience. Everything assumes that consciousness exists as a possibility in the universe It's not a assumption it's a fact that for consciousness to exist there must have been a time when the possibility of the existence of consciousness existed. In a similar way some religious types have criticized Krauss's book A Universe From Nothing because it's not really nothing, its just from very very little because Krauss had to start from a place where there was at least the potential for something, and they insist that very potential is something. Apparently those same religious types don't consider God to be something, and for once I agree with them. I say they are both wrong. Physics and God are both arbitrary somethings that are no more of an explanation of the universe than just starting from what it is right now and saying 'ta dah!'. If you start with sense though, you don't have that problem. It's a whole shift in mindset. You have to essentially realize that one is the first number, not zero - that all of arithmetic exists as fractions within the number one. prior to the existence of the universe It's not clear what that means. Without the universe you can't have time because time involves change and if nothing exists then nothing changes; and without time the word prior has no meaning. Think of it this way. Time is not change, but rather a limitation on the scope of attention which sweeps away the experiences into a non-present. Before time, there is no non-present. It's all present. Craig John K Clark -- 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/-/jQXKJlZ3oPMJ. 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.
