Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/28/2012 4:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/28/2012 12:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Not at all. You need only a Turing universal system, and they abound in arithmetic. This universality, as you yourself define it, ensures that all copies are identical and this by the principle of indiscernible are one and the same mind. There is no plurality generated unless there is a necessitation of a physical state association to a mind, but this would contradict comp. No I it doesn't contradict comp, because the associated physics isn't ontologically primitive, it's part of what is generated by the UD. Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase generation by the UD might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our computer monitors. But I think it is right that there must be an associated physics, that 'mind' cannot exist independent of a physical world it experiences. Please explain this to Bruno, as it is that I am complaining about in his step 8. I don't recall Bruno ever talking about free floating minds. The only thing he said is that the physical world result of the indeterminacy on the infinite set of computations that goes through our current state (the one assumed perfectly captured at the right substitution level) that diverge on the next step. Quentin Of course whether it must be a physical world exactly like ours or wildly different is the 'white rabbit' problem. Have you noticed that I am discussing a solution to the white rabbit problem using ideas from game theory? Brent -- -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase generation by the UD might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our computer monitors. Seems pretty precise to me. The UD executes all possible computations, one step at a time. If 'you' are a computation, then it must eventually generate you. 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
Hi Brent, I didn't wrote what is quoted, it's Stephen ;) Quentin 2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase generation by the UD might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our computer monitors. Seems pretty precise to me. The UD executes all possible computations, one step at a time. If 'you' are a computation, then it must eventually generate you. 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. -- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. -- 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: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other drug, like making similar tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How evolve the IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and sober people, or alcoholic? To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics in that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still not very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not make sense, especially that we are systematically dis-informed about the real outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug) laws, something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my first feeling on that paper: crap. Bruno On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Finally we have the whole story and truth: Direct link to PDF in question: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDMQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2Fei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAgusg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA Link to abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene Krupa; and the pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and musicians such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Bob Marley, Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson, Buddy RIch, Country Joe the Fish, Joe Walsh, David Carradine, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana, Hunter S. Thompson, Peter Tosh, the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead O'Connor, Black Crowes, etc. Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some and not for others. But so glad to have proof, that they all had to pay for their sins in terms of neuropsychological decline. It makes you dumb. Science has spoken. Dumb, lazy pot smokers under- performing in IQ-Tests. Nothing beats long-term evidence and a sample size of 1000. :) Good science. -- 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: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the retired folk. In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing random testing you may as well wait until retirement. Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other drug, like making similar tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How evolve the IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and sober people, or alcoholic? To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics in that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still not very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not make sense, especially that we are systematically dis-informed about the real outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug) laws, something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my first feeling on that paper: crap. Bruno On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Finally we have the whole story and truth: Direct link to PDF in question: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDMQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2Fei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAgusg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA Link to abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene Krupa; and the pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and musicians such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Bob Marley, Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson, Buddy RIch, Country Joe the Fish, Joe Walsh, David Carradine, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana, Hunter S. Thompson, Peter Tosh, the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead O'Connor, Black Crowes, etc. Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some and not for others. But so glad to have proof, that they all had to pay for their sins in terms of neuropsychological decline. It makes you dumb. Science has spoken. Dumb, lazy pot smokers under-performing in IQ-Tests. Nothing beats long-term evidence and a sample size of 1000. :) Good science. -- 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: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. ROGER: Either the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not. If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is merely following instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some algorithm. If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which is to say that synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. More below, but I will stop here for now. -- Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware. Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free will. Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited by it. BRUNO: Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. ROGER: OK, it came intuitively, freely, he did not arrive at it by logic, although it no doubt has its own logic. BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking. But on reflection, I no longer believe that. IMHO anything that a computer does still must follow its own internal logic, contrained by its hardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even if those calculations are of infinite complexity. Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must be true. So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. BRUNO: You hope. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence because intelligence consists of at least one ability: the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does the choosing, and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system. Godel, perhaps, I speculate. I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that machines are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied computer science is used to help controlling what can really become uncontrollable and too much autonomous, a bit like children education. Computers are not stupid, we work a lot for making them so. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/27/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-26, 14:56:29 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On 8/26/2012 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 12:35, Jason Resch wrote: I agree different implementations of intelligence have different capabilities and roles, but I think computers are general enough to replicate any intelligence (so long as infinities or true randomness are not
Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Stathis Papaioannou Indeed, only I can know that I actually feel pain. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 09:39:09 Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:11 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou Yes, hardware and software cannot feel anything because there is no subject to actually feel anything. There is no I , as in I feel that, there is only sensors and reactive mechanisms. A computer could make the same claim about Roger Clough, who lacks the special magic of silicon semiconductors and therefore cannot possibly feel anything. He might cry out in pain when stuck with a pin but that's just an act with no real feeling behind it. -- 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.
Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Roger, Do you think that humans do not function in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. ROGER: Either the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not. If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is merely following instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some algorithm. If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which is to say that synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. More below, but I will stop here for now. -- Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware. Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free will. Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited by it. BRUNO: Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. ROGER: OK, it came intuitively, freely, he did not arrive at it by logic, although it no doubt has its own logic. BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking. But on reflection, I no longer believe that. IMHO anything that a computer does still must follow its own internal logic, contrained by its hardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even if those calculations are of infinite complexity. Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must be true. So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. BRUNO: You hope. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence because intelligence consists of at least one ability: the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does the choosing, and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system. Godel, perhaps, I speculate. I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that machines are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied computer science is used to help controlling what can really become uncontrollable and too much autonomous, a bit like children education. Computers are not stupid, we work a lot for making them so. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net 8/27/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-26, 14:56:29 Subject: Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers On 8/26/2012 10:25 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 25 Aug 2012, at 12:35,
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say *that* awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the totality. Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences, for direct participation? 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/-/OP7M4cmbaCIJ. 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.
The noncomputable name that only the cat knows
Hi William R. Buckley Living systems must have intelligence, the ability to make autonomus choices, that is, autonomous will, which must be free at least to some extent. Thus to be indeterminant, hence non-computable. Thus we cannot define life in objective terms. Only the living cell can know it is alive, that in principle it has a name.. The Naming of Cats The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter, It isn't just one of your holiday games; You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES. First of all, there's the name that the family use daily, Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo or James, Such as Victor or Jonathan, George or Bill Bailey - All of them sensible everyday names. There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter, Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames: Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter - But all of them sensible everyday names. But I tell you, a cat needs a name that's particular, A name that's peculiar, and more dignified, Else how can he keep his tail perpendicular, Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride? Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum, Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat, Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum - Names that never belong to more than one cat. But above and beyond there's still one name left over, And that is the name that you never will guess; The name that no human research can discover - But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess. When you notice a cat in profound meditation, The reason, I tell you, is always the same: His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name: His ineffable effable Effanineffable Deep and inscrutable singular Name. - T.S. Eliot (from Old Possum's Book of Practical Cats) Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: William R. Buckley Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 12:36:22 Subject: RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Bruno: Will you please cite the theorem of Kleene. All: Living systems are not the material from which they are constructed (upon which they exist). Living systems are rather the systems of processes and higher, which rest upon the material from which they are constructed. Methinks that Roger mistakes life for the substrate. wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 9:12 AM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Hi Roger, On 28 Aug 2012, at 14:40, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. You hope. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence because intelligence consists of at least one ability: the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. Another, closely related, reason, is that there
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On 8/29/2012 2:08 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 8/28/2012 4:02 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/28/2012 12:50 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: Not at all. You need only a Turing universal system, and they abound in arithmetic. This universality, as you yourself define it, ensures that all copies are identical and this by the principle of indiscernible are one and the same mind. There is no plurality generated unless there is a necessitation of a physical state association to a mind, but this would contradict comp. No I it doesn't contradict comp, because the associated physics isn't ontologically primitive, it's part of what is generated by the UD. Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase generation by the UD might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our computer monitors. But I think it is right that there must be an associated physics, that 'mind' cannot exist independent of a physical world it experiences. Please explain this to Bruno, as it is that I am complaining about in his step 8. I don't recall Bruno ever talking about free floating minds. The only thing he said is that the physical world result of the indeterminacy on the infinite set of computations that goes through our current state (the one assumed perfectly captured at the right substitution level) that diverge on the next step. Quentin Hi Quentin, You are technically correct, but that merely sidesteps the point. The problem that I am trying to overcome is the non-uniqueness of Godel numberings. There are an infinite number of currect states (of which our current state is one) and each of these has an infinite number of computations running though them. I agree with this piece of the idea, btw. The states are identical to each other in the sense that there is nothing that distinguishes them so we need a mechanism that relates them in a non-trivial way. What I am considering is a way to define orderings on them; a way to daisy chain them by defining the fixed point of one (a spacial point) to be not a fixed point on the next one. There is a rule involved that relates the possibility of a state to be a fixed point to whether or not it was previously, thereby setting up a precedent rule. The key is to use the use of a constant by a non-standard model of arithmetic as a one-time fixed point (like a unique one time cypher for the Godel numbering), so that we can use the plurality of non-equivalent non-standard models as a boon and not a curse. We end up with strings of strongly related models and a nice way to solve the white rabbit problem. Of course whether it must be a physical world exactly like ours or wildly different is the 'white rabbit' problem. Have you noticed that I am discussing a solution to the white rabbit problem using ideas from game theory? -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Roger, Yes, and its indeterminacy and non-computability is only the beginning. Any system whose output is unreadable to another system will be indeterminate and non-computable to it, but that doesn't imply subjectivity. Subjectivity can only be an inherent possibility in all possible universes - and, I suggest is is perpetually the least likely possibility in any given universe. This means that subjectivity itself is the alpha and omega continuum, the band which underlies all possibility, from which the illusion of objectivity arises as consensus of wavefrorm perturbations in the frequency band. I know that sounds crazy, but I think that it reconciles physics, information theory, consciousness, and religion. Entropy is not an infinite, open ended quantity, but range of infinitely divisible states of disconnection within a single monad of 0.00...1% entropy (99.99...% signal). Note the ellipsis (...) means it is a floating constant. The singularity of the band, the monad, perpetually defines the extremes of signal and entropy possibilities while the objects form at the public center of space and the subjects inform at the private edge of 'time'. I call this cosmology a 'Sole Entropy Well' and the quality of accumulating qualitative significance attributed to the totality (monad) which balances the observed inflation of entropy in the universe of public space I call solitropy. The universe is a significance machine that excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust. Craig On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not 锟斤拷refer锟斤拷 to themselves. s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷l u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷,u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G锟斤拷del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the totality. Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from either physics or arithmetic? Any need
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On 8/29/2012 2:17 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase generation by the UD might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our computer monitors. Seems pretty precise to me. The UD executes all possible computations, one step at a time. If 'you' are a computation, then it must eventually generate you. Brent -- Hi Brent, Yes it will eventually generate me, but with a measure zero chance. The UD seems to be ergodic on the Integers. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi: Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially) computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters. The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired to mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware of it. Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired metacomputation. The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process of diagonalization by Gödel makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program. (see my post about the Gödel theorem). Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free will nor in any other existential question. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say /*that*/ awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the totality. Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences, for direct participation? Craig -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Stephen, Actually what you're saying makes me think of something new. Maybe the assumed singularity of the subject comes only through objectivity. Think of the dreamstate, or dementia, or infancy, where subjectivity is most directly exposed. The nature of the subject by itself is neither one nor many but orthogonal to quantity. It is a non-specific quasi-multiplicity/singularity of possible qualities and experiences. It is the experience of objects that divides the self into a hypothetical 'one' as it internalizes its own place in the world of discrete objects. Deprive it of sleep or give it a good movie to watch in a dark theater and the subject goes right back to (non-zero/non-infinity). This affirms my sense of quantity on the outside, quality on the inside. Craig On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:23:59 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the totality. Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences, for direct participation? Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups Everything List group. 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. -- Onward! Stephen
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the totality. Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences, for direct participation? Craig -- 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. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Alberto, Yes, all good points. We don't have access to our non-metacomputational layers, but that still doesn't mean that computation implies any sort of awareness. A string of dominoes falling is a computation but there need not be an experience there if all there was to the event was the geometric-gravitational sequence of object relation playing out that we experience as observers. Whether awareness is truly non-computational or just inaccessible to our computation makes no difference as far as the point I am making. Neither descriptor implies experience. They are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain consciousness. Just because we have a physiological description within our own collective human experience doesn't mean that we should be able to reverse engineer awareness itself from that description alone. Doing so may be a catastrophic distortion. Craig On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:21:49 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Hi: Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially) computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters. The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired to mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware of it. Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired metacomputation. The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process of diagonalization by Gödel makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program. (see my post about the Gödel theorem). Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free will nor in any other existential question. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking consciousness only. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others. They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more awkward position than the other, etc). 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net javascript: On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the totality. Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Craig: I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws). I did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list. I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy of the naturalistic fallacy. Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it appear in humans) exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no moral beings. 2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking consciousness only. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others. They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more awkward position than the other, etc). 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated
Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Roger, I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the consequences of this inner computation. like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona What sort of an output would the computer give me ? It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no way to hook it to my brain. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 08:21:27 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Hi: Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially) computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters. The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired to mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware of it. Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired metacomputation. The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process of diagonalization by G del makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program. (see my post about the G del theorem). Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free will nor in any other existential question. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness.
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
Hmm like the old geezer with a Porsche, who can't sit in it, because of a bad back, to compensate for the lifelong frustration of withholding that pleasure? Enjoy stuff while we can, minimizing harm potential, no matter how old imho. I find the study designed to create news hysteria. The authors stay careful not to make their claims overly seem reefer madness; but they know the media will do that amplification for them, even given only the small differences in results. I felt throughout, that this is science in lawyer mode. There's a sense that they know where they want to go. Any statistician or lawyer will not ask : What do you honestly think is true? but instead Ok, so what do we have, and where/how do we want to take this data and present? I'm still old fashioned, in that I find questionnaires and cognitive tests on long term effects of drugs to be a bit ridiculous. Not one bit of empirical evidence other than belief in people's statements and statistical error correction (which you can lawyer-bend anyway). Evidence = what some people said, no blood measurements to see if statements align with reality, no external observation of frequency, dosages involved, kinds of cannabis consumed, in what way, just what people say... Like if I walked into a physics lab and said that I had evidence, because a friend, who I can't disclose, told me that the standard model doesn't hold up. And I can't explain why either, I have no basis or set of data for comparison, but my result is scientific and valid. With such low standards, one should get into drug research. Friends tell me things too, and they are more reliable than strangers in a study. And the media amplifies this as discovery with its adhd for advertising. But its more nuanced than most attempts to bullshit people about such complex things. So, it makes a good read for BS detector. m On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote: I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the retired folk. In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing random testing you may as well wait until retirement. Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other drug, like making similar tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How evolve the IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and sober people, or alcoholic? To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics in that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still not very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not make sense, especially that we are systematically dis-informed about the real outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug) laws, something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my first feeling on that paper: crap. Bruno On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Finally we have the whole story and truth: Direct link to PDF in question: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDMQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2Fei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAgusg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA Link to abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene Krupa; and the pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and musicians such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Bob Marley, Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson, Buddy RIch, Country Joe the Fish, Joe Walsh, David Carradine, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana, Hunter S. Thompson, Peter Tosh, the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead O'Connor, Black Crowes, etc. Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some and not for others. But so glad to have proof, that they all had to pay for their sins in terms of neuropsychological decline. It makes you dumb. Science has spoken. Dumb, lazy pot smokers under-performing in IQ-Tests. Nothing beats long-term evidence and a sample size of 1000. :) Good science. -- 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/ --
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote: I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the retired folk. In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing random testing you may as well wait until retirement. I don't believe in drugs. A drug is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100 times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the kids, everywhere. There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem. Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV habituation). The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest. There is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that cannabis is still illegal is a frightening witnessing that most governement are hostage of criminals. We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline. How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on this, but the same lies continue. The two most dangerous recreative drug are alcohol and tobacco. The bandits have tried to prohibit alcohol, but prohibition multiply a lot the dangerousness of the product, so they have to stop it. So now they make illegal innocuous product like cannabis, so this can last. The illegality of cannabis is a coup de genie. It deserves the Nobel prize in Crime. And prohibition leads to new drugs which copy the one forbidden, like wood-alcohol, or brew when alcohol was prohibited. In Russia they have made a severe campaign against heroin, and the result is the apparition of krokodil, a very nasty, highly addictive substance, which make you die in terrible pain. In my country, to prevent the spreading of AIDS, they have unofficially legalize heroin: the result has been a drastic diminution of heroin consumption. Prohibition is the problem, not drugs. Black money is the problem, and worse, grey money, the investment of balck money in mundane finance, which is making the whole middle class, and the banks, into the hostage of the drugs mafia. Prohibition transforms the planet into a big Chicago. And I was used to separate the war on drugs from the war on terror, but since Obama signed the NDAA bill, I am changing my mind on this. I begin to think that the war on terror is as fake as the war on drugs. Pure fear selling business. But thanks for the retired folk, Richard. Now, I can hardly imagine that a bar will ask your identity cart for a beer, and refuses because you are 74 years old: sorry, but you are to much young, wait for growing up a little bit :) Bruno On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other drug, like making similar tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How evolve the IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and sober people, or alcoholic? To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics in that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still not very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not make sense, especially that we are systematically dis- informed about the real outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug) laws, something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my first feeling on that paper: crap. Bruno On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Finally we have the whole story and truth: Direct link to PDF in question: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDMQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2Fei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAgusg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA Link to abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene Krupa; and the pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and musicians such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Bob Marley, Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson, Buddy RIch, Country Joe the
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/29/2012 8:34 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: Hi Stephen, Actually what you're saying makes me think of something new. Maybe the assumed singularity of the subject comes only through objectivity. Think of the dreamstate, or dementia, or infancy, where subjectivity is most directly exposed. The nature of the subject by itself is neither one nor many but orthogonal to quantity. It is a non-specific quasi-multiplicity/singularity of possible qualities and experiences. Hi Craig, Exactly! In the cases of dreamstate, dementia, infancy and equivalent (multiple personality disorder?) there is no singular subject that is invariant on a sequence of states. This is the same as saying that there is no self-narrative. It is the experience of objects that divides the self into a hypothetical 'one' as it internalizes its own place in the world of discrete objects. Right! That is how naming occurs. Deprive it of sleep or give it a good movie to watch in a dark theater and the subject goes right back to (non-zero/non-infinity). Right, self-identification is lost in those cases. This affirms my sense of quantity on the outside, quality on the inside. Indeed! Craig On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:23:59 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say /*that*/ awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say /*that*/ awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
I really agree with Bruno. In fact my string cosmology is a product of smoking, making me a crackpot have a double meaning. But minus the crack which I have never been interested in. Pot is sufficient but unavailable. Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 9:57 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote: Hmm like the old geezer with a Porsche, who can't sit in it, because of a bad back, to compensate for the lifelong frustration of withholding that pleasure? Enjoy stuff while we can, minimizing harm potential, no matter how old imho. I find the study designed to create news hysteria. The authors stay careful not to make their claims overly seem reefer madness; but they know the media will do that amplification for them, even given only the small differences in results. I felt throughout, that this is science in lawyer mode. There's a sense that they know where they want to go. Any statistician or lawyer will not ask : What do you honestly think is true? but instead Ok, so what do we have, and where/how do we want to take this data and present? I'm still old fashioned, in that I find questionnaires and cognitive tests on long term effects of drugs to be a bit ridiculous. Not one bit of empirical evidence other than belief in people's statements and statistical error correction (which you can lawyer-bend anyway). Evidence = what some people said, no blood measurements to see if statements align with reality, no external observation of frequency, dosages involved, kinds of cannabis consumed, in what way, just what people say... Like if I walked into a physics lab and said that I had evidence, because a friend, who I can't disclose, told me that the standard model doesn't hold up. And I can't explain why either, I have no basis or set of data for comparison, but my result is scientific and valid. With such low standards, one should get into drug research. Friends tell me things too, and they are more reliable than strangers in a study. And the media amplifies this as discovery with its adhd for advertising. But its more nuanced than most attempts to bullshit people about such complex things. So, it makes a good read for BS detector. m On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 12:37 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.comwrote: I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the retired folk. In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing random testing you may as well wait until retirement. Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other drug, like making similar tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How evolve the IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and sober people, or alcoholic? To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics in that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still not very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not make sense, especially that we are systematically dis-informed about the real outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug) laws, something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my first feeling on that paper: crap. Bruno On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Finally we have the whole story and truth: Direct link to PDF in question: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDMQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2Fei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAgusg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA Link to abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene Krupa; and the pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and musicians such as the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Eagles, the Doobie Brothers, Bob Marley, Jefferson Airplane, Willie Nelson, Buddy RIch, Country Joe the Fish, Joe Walsh, David Carradine, David Bowie, Iggy Pop, Lola Falana, Hunter S. Thompson, Peter Tosh, the Grateful Dead, Cypress Hill, Sinead O'Connor, Black Crowes, etc. Of course, smoking marijuana only enhances creativity for some and not for others. But so glad to have proof, that they all had to pay for their sins in terms of neuropsychological decline. It makes you dumb. Science has spoken. Dumb, lazy pot smokers under-performing in IQ-Tests. Nothing beats long-term evidence and a sample size of 1000. :) Good science. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
Hear Hear! On 8/29/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote: I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the retired folk. In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing random testing you may as well wait until retirement. I don't believe in drugs. A drug is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100 times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the kids, everywhere. There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem. Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV habituation). The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest. There is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that cannabis is still illegal is a frightening witnessing that most governement are hostage of criminals. We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline. How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on this, but the same lies continue. The two most dangerous recreative drug are alcohol and tobacco. The bandits have tried to prohibit alcohol, but prohibition multiply a lot the dangerousness of the product, so they have to stop it. So now they make illegal innocuous product like cannabis, so this can last. The illegality of cannabis is a coup de genie. It deserves the Nobel prize in Crime. And prohibition leads to new drugs which copy the one forbidden, like wood-alcohol, or brew when alcohol was prohibited. In Russia they have made a severe campaign against heroin, and the result is the apparition of krokodil, a very nasty, highly addictive substance, which make you die in terrible pain. In my country, to prevent the spreading of AIDS, they have unofficially legalize heroin: the result has been a drastic diminution of heroin consumption. Prohibition is the problem, not drugs. Black money is the problem, and worse, grey money, the investment of balck money in mundane finance, which is making the whole middle class, and the banks, into the hostage of the drugs mafia. Prohibition transforms the planet into a big Chicago. And I was used to separate the war on drugs from the war on terror, but since Obama signed the NDAA bill, I am changing my mind on this. I begin to think that the war on terror is as fake as the war on drugs. Pure fear selling business. But thanks for the retired folk, Richard. Now, I can hardly imagine that a bar will ask your identity cart for a beer, and refuses because you are 74 years old: sorry, but you are to much young, wait for growing up a little bit :) Bruno On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other drug, like making similar tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How evolve the IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and sober people, or alcoholic? To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics in that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still not very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not make sense, especially that we are systematically dis-informed about the real outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug) laws, something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my first feeling on that paper: crap. Bruno On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Finally we have the whole story and truth: Direct link to PDF in question: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=4ved=0CDMQFjADurl=http%3A%2F%2Finfam.antville.org%2Ffiles%2Fpnas%2Fei=A7o8UNPENsil0AWCh4CAAgusg=AFQjCNEnTJj8p7H1m6w40c3PXKIOgjQgQA Link to abstract: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/08/22/1206820109.abstract Thank God Lewis Carroll, Victor Hugo and Alexander Dumas; such jazz greats as Louis Armstrong, Cab Calloway, Duke Ellington and Gene Krupa; and the pattern continues right up to modern-day artists and musicians such as the Beatles, the
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Craig, Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate) because it excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust ? Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: Hi Roger, Yes, and its indeterminacy and non-computability is only the beginning. Any system whose output is unreadable to another system will be indeterminate and non-computable to it, but that doesn't imply subjectivity. Subjectivity can only be an inherent possibility in all possible universes - and, I suggest is is perpetually the least likely possibility in any given universe. This means that subjectivity itself is the alpha and omega continuum, the band which underlies all possibility, from which the illusion of objectivity arises as consensus of wavefrorm perturbations in the frequency band. I know that sounds crazy, but I think that it reconciles physics, information theory, consciousness, and religion. Entropy is not an infinite, open ended quantity, but range of infinitely divisible states of disconnection within a single monad of 0.00...1% entropy (99.99...% signal). Note the ellipsis (...) means it is a floating constant. The singularity of the band, the monad, perpetually defines the extremes of signal and entropy possibilities while the objects form at the public center of space and the subjects inform at the private edge of 'time'. I call this cosmology a 'Sole Entropy Well' and the quality of accumulating qualitative significance attributed to the totality (monad) which balances the observed inflation of entropy in the universe of public space I call solitropy. The universe is a significance machine that excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust. Craig On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not 锟斤拷refer锟斤拷 to themselves. s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷l u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷,u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G锟斤拷del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. That´s why this uniqueness is not essential But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say **that** awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On 8/29/2012 5:18 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/29/2012 2:17 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase generation by the UD might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our computer monitors. Seems pretty precise to me. The UD executes all possible computations, one step at a time. If 'you' are a computation, then it must eventually generate you. Brent -- Hi Brent, Yes it will eventually generate me, but with a measure zero chance. The UD seems to be ergodic on the Integers. Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of you is very small, but non-zero. But we already knew that. 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: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/29/2012 5:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. But this is more than just memory. My dog has memory. People have memories which are narratives in which they are actors among others. 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: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Alberto G. Corona The subject is the perceiver, not the perceived. The perceived is called the object, cs = subject + object This is a dipole. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 08:44:19 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say *that* awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the question of *what* awareness is in the first place and *why* is has not been addressed at all. As I demonstrate in the three lines at the top, and Searle tried to demonstrate, awareness does not follow automatically from a negative assertion of computability. I bring up the example of cymatics on another thread. Scooping salt into a symmetrical-mandala pattern does not conjure up an acoustic vibration associated with that pattern. Qualia does not follow from quanta. Quanta, however, could and I think does follow from qualia as a method of sequestering experiences to different degrees of privacy while retaining shared sense on more primitive 'public' levels. These methods would necessarily be construed as automatic to insulate crosstalk between channels of sense - to encourage the coherence of perceptual inertial frames to develop unique significance rather than to decohere into the entropy of the totality. Does anyone have any positive assertion of consciousness derived from either physics or arithmetic? Any need for actual feelings and experiences, for direct participation? Craig -- 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
Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Alberto G. Corona Subjectivity has nothing to do with morality or evolution, it is simply the private of personal state of a perceiver (of some object), ie it is experience. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 09:08:43 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Craig: I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws). I did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list. I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy of the naturalistic fallacy. Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it appear in humans) exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no moral beings. 2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking consciousness only. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others. They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more awkward position than the other, etc). 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say *that* awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic
Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Alberto G. Corona Awareness = I see X. or I am X. or some similar statement. There's no computer in that behavior or state of being. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22 Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Roger, I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the consequences of this inner computation. like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona What sort of an output would the computer give me ? It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no way to hook it to my brain. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Hi: Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially) computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters. The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired to mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware of it. Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired metacomputation. The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process of diagonalization by G del makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program. (see my post about the G del theorem). Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free will nor in any other existential question. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:34:22 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote: Craig, Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate) because it excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust ? Richard Yes, although it may not be the actual universe which is expanding but rather the astrophysical level of our perception of the universe may be the location where this expansion is most visible to us. In any case, there is nothing actual for the universe to expand into, as space itself does not exist until the matter of the universe defines it as space. It can be said that rather than expanding, the ratio of entropy to signal is increasing. 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/-/yrtiLF3IY4gJ. 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: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that it´s functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Awareness = I see X. or I am X. or some similar statement. There's no computer in that behavior or state of being. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:34:22 *Subject:* Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Roger, I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the consequences of this inner computation. like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona What sort of an output would the computer give me ? It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no way to hook it to my brain. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 08:21:27 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Hi: Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially) computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters. The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired to mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware of it. Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired metacomputation. The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process of diagonalization by G del makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program. (see my post about the G del theorem). Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free will nor in any other existential question. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic
Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Before you can have a computer, you need some kind of i/o. I think this is what comp ignores. It is my hypotheses that 'input' is afferent phenomenology and 'output' is efferent participation in all cases, however i/o does not automatically carry the full spectrum of possible phenomenological qualities. That was the point of my saying These words do not 'refer' to themselves, because they are only words to us. The other layers of sense which are involved do not speak English - they speak tcp/ip, or machine language, or voltage flux, but there are no words there other than the ones which we infer through our fully human, English speaking range of sensitivity. Craig On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:16:09 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Awareness = I see X. or I am X. or some similar statement. There's no computer in that behavior or state of being. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:34:22 *Subject:* Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Roger, I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the consequences of this inner computation. 锟斤拷锟斤拷like in the case of any relation of brain and mind,锟斤拷I do not say that this IS 锟斤拷the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript: Hi Alberto G. Corona 锟斤拷 What sort of an output would the computer give me ? It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no way to hook it to my brain. 锟斤拷 锟斤拷 Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-29, 08:21:27 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Hi: Awareness can 锟斤拷be functionally (we do not know if experientially) 锟斤拷computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters. 锟斤拷The lack of 锟斤拷understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why 锟斤拷it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. 锟斤拷We humans can manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know 锟斤拷our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When we use锟斤拷metaphorically锟斤拷the verb to be fired 锟斤拷to mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware of it. 锟斤拷Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired metacomputation. The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process 锟斤拷of diagonalization by G锟斤拷del 锟斤拷makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program. (see my post about the G锟斤拷del theorem). Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free will nor in any other existential question. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rcl...@verizon.net javascript: Hi Craig Weinberg 锟斤拷 I agree. 锟斤拷 Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: 锟斤拷 Cs = subject + object 锟斤拷 The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate,锟斤拷it is not computable. 锟斤拷 QED 锟斤拷 锟斤拷 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net javascript: 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg javascript: *Receiver:* everything-list javascript: *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not 锟斤拷refer锟斤拷 to themselves. s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷l u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷,u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 If
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
On 8/29/2012 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline. How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on this, but the same lies continue. The media talk about anything. You're going off the rails there, Bruno. There's no way cannabis cures cancer. If anything, smoking marijuana will cause lung cancer - though maybe not so much as tobacco. 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: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
It appears that subjectivity, has everithing to do with morality. This is not only evident for any religious person, but also for mathematics and game theory. It appears that without moral individuality, social collaboration is impossible, except for clones. I exposed the reasoning here. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Subjectivity has nothing to do with morality or evolution, it is simply the private of personal state of a perceiver (of some object), ie it is experience. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:08:43 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Craig: I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws). I did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list. I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy of the naturalistic fallacy. Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it appear in humans) exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no moral beings. 2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking consciousness only. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others. They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more awkward position than the other, etc). 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what
Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Alberto G. Corona The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived. For example, consider: I see the cat.Here: I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived. When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are all subjective states and all experiences. However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated the experience into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into a publicly accessible statement. All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are objective. Any statement is then objective. Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective, so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless (codeless). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. That's why this uniqueness is not essential But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
2012/8/29 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote: I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the retired folk. In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing random testing you may as well wait until retirement. I don't believe in drugs. A drug is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100 times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the kids, everywhere. There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem. Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV habituation). No, canabis can lead to real problematic addiction, grave depression, and *is not* a drug to take lightly. You should not go the other way around as the lies you are fighting and thus lie yourself. I've smoked cannabis for 15 years I know what I'm talking about and what problem it can cause. I'm not smoking anymore and hope I never will. I'm against prohibition, I'm for prevention and good usage. But you must know that good usage is not for everyone and a lot of persons will abuse it and abuse is problematic, occulting that is a lie. The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest. There is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that cannabis is still illegal is a frightening witnessing that most governement are hostage of criminals. We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline. Well do you have reference of that ? And since cannabis as I was using it consisted of smocking it, let me have a lot of doubts about that. Regards, Quentin How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on this, but the same lies continue. The two most dangerous recreative drug are alcohol and tobacco. The bandits have tried to prohibit alcohol, but prohibition multiply a lot the dangerousness of the product, so they have to stop it. So now they make illegal innocuous product like cannabis, so this can last. The illegality of cannabis is a coup de genie. It deserves the Nobel prize in Crime. And prohibition leads to new drugs which copy the one forbidden, like wood-alcohol, or brew when alcohol was prohibited. In Russia they have made a severe campaign against heroin, and the result is the apparition of krokodil, a very nasty, highly addictive substance, which make you die in terrible pain. In my country, to prevent the spreading of AIDS, they have unofficially legalize heroin: the result has been a drastic diminution of heroin consumption. Prohibition is the problem, not drugs. Black money is the problem, and worse, grey money, the investment of balck money in mundane finance, which is making the whole middle class, and the banks, into the hostage of the drugs mafia. Prohibition transforms the planet into a big Chicago. And I was used to separate the war on drugs from the war on terror, but since Obama signed the NDAA bill, I am changing my mind on this. I begin to think that the war on terror is as fake as the war on drugs. Pure fear selling business. But thanks for the retired folk, Richard. Now, I can hardly imagine that a bar will ask your identity cart for a beer, and refuses because you are 74 years old: sorry, but you are to much young, wait for growing up a little bit :) Bruno On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests, insisted that it can be used only to separate debility and sanity, not to measure small differences. The paper is mute on the most difficult part to assess, like such a difference. I am not sure such comparision must be itself compared with other drug, like making similar tests, assuminf they makes sense, which I doubt. How evolve the IQ of people looking everyday at TV, and sober people, or alcoholic? To be sure I have not yet found the most typical error in statistics in that field, so that paper might be less wrong than usual, but still not very convincing, especially in the conclusion. The policy does not make sense, especially that we are systematically dis-informed about the real outcomes of basically all medication/drugs, and this will last as long as people will accept the nonsensical prohibition (of food and drug) laws, something known to be anticonstitutional in the US since the start. So my first feeling on that paper: crap. Bruno On 28 Aug 2012, at 15:09, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Finally we have
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:09:05 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Craig: I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws). I did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list. I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy of the naturalistic fallacy. I don't have any particular opinion about individuality. It seems like a more advanced topic. I am more interested in the very primitive basics of what consciousness actually is. Individuality, personality, human psychology...that's calculus. I am looking at multiplication and division. What I can see is that awareness seems ambivalent to the notion of individuality. Altered states of consciousness, mob mentality, mass hypnosis...it's not a well defined concept for me yet. Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it appear in humans) exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no moral beings. You don't need to be immoral or unintelligent to be a psychopath. I agree with Roger that consciousness does not depend on morality (however I think that morality is an extension of significance, which is analogous to density or gravity but in the temporal-figurative sense). 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/-/Gyoal5wCWBIJ. 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: No Chinese Room Necessary
That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information craig says that he perceive.. From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived. For example, consider: I see the cat.Here: I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived. When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are all subjective states and all experiences. However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated the experience into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into a publicly accessible statement. All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are objective. Any statement is then objective. Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective, so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless (codeless). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 10:39:37 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. That′s why this uniqueness is not essential But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only
Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
sorry: What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY POSSIBL to create a robot with the same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side. 2012/8/29 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information craig says that he perceive.. From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived. For example, consider: I see the cat.Here: I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived. When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are all subjective states and all experiences. However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated the experience into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into a publicly accessible statement. All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are objective. Any statement is then objective. Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective, so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless (codeless). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 10:39:37 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. That′s why this uniqueness is not essential But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness.
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Alberto G. Corona Seeming to be aware is not the same as actually being aware, just as seeming to be alive is not the same as actually being alive. And my view is that comp, since it must operate in (objective) code, can only create entities that might seem to be alive, not actually be alive. Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies, which seem to be alive but are not actually so. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 11:19:59 Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary I say nothing opposed to that. What I say is that it's functionality is computable: It is possible to make a robot with this functionality of awareness, but may be not with the capability of _being_ aware 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Awareness = I see X. or I am X. or some similar statement. There's no computer in that behavior or state of being. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 09:34:22 Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Roger, I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the consequences of this inner computation. like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona What sort of an output would the computer give me ? It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no way to hook it to my brain. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 08:21:27 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Hi: Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially) computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters. The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired to mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware of it. Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired metacomputation. The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process of diagonalization by G del makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program. (see my post about the G del theorem). Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free will nor in any other existential question. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information craig says that he perceive.. From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived. For example, consider: I see the cat.Here: I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived. When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are all subjective states and all experiences. However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated the experience into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into a publicly accessible statement. All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are objective. Any statement is then objective. Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective, so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless (codeless). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona mailto:agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 10:39:37 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. That′s why this uniqueness is not essential But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger,
Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Alberto G. Corona A grizzly bear, which seemingly has no moral code (other than when hungry, kill and eat), can still perceive perfectly well enough, or else he would starve. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 11:26:29 Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary It appears that subjectivity, has everithing to do with morality. This is not only evident for any religious person, but also for mathematics and game theory. It appears that without moral individuality, social collaboration is impossible, except for clones. I exposed the reasoning here. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Subjectivity has nothing to do with morality or evolution, it is simply the private of personal state of a perceiver (of some object), ie it is experience. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 09:08:43 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Craig: I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws). I did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list. I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy of the naturalistic fallacy. Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it appear in humans) exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no moral beings. 2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking consciousness only. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others. They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more awkward position than the other, etc). 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information craig says that he perceive.. From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived. For example, consider: I see the cat.Here: I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived. When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are all subjective states and all experiences. However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated the experience into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into a publicly accessible statement. All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are objective. Any statement is then objective. Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective, so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless (codeless). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 10:39:37 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. That′s why this uniqueness is not essential But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/29/2012 10:34 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: Craig, Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate) because it excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust ? Richard Maybe! One might argue that life in the cosmos is generating an increasing number of possibilities for itself and thus space must exist for the ground (vacuum) states of those. On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:13 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Roger, Yes, and its indeterminacy and non-computability is only the beginning. Any system whose output is unreadable to another system will be indeterminate and non-computable to it, but that doesn't imply subjectivity. Subjectivity can only be an inherent possibility in all possible universes - and, I suggest is is perpetually the least likely possibility in any given universe. This means that subjectivity itself is the alpha and omega continuum, the band which underlies all possibility, from which the illusion of objectivity arises as consensus of wavefrorm perturbations in the frequency band. I know that sounds crazy, but I think that it reconciles physics, information theory, consciousness, and religion. Entropy is not an infinite, open ended quantity, but range of infinitely divisible states of disconnection within a single monad of 0.00...1% entropy (99.99...% signal). Note the ellipsis (...) means it is a floating constant. The singularity of the band, the monad, perpetually defines the extremes of signal and entropy possibilities while the objects form at the public center of space and the subjects inform at the private edge of 'time'. I call this cosmology a 'Sole Entropy Well' and the quality of accumulating qualitative significance attributed to the totality (monad) which balances the observed inflation of entropy in the universe of public space I call solitropy. The universe is a significance machine that excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust. Craig On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 7:39:28 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg *Receiver:* everything-list *Time:* 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 *Subject:* No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not 锟斤拷refer锟斤拷 to themselves. s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷l u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤 拷,u锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 锟斤拷s锟斤拷锟斤拷锟斤拷 If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or we presume that computation can and does exist independently of all awareness but that a particular category of meta-computation is what we call awareness. Even with the allowances that Bruno includes (or my understanding of what Bruno includes) in the form of first person indeterminacy and/or non comp contents, Platonic number dreams, etc - all of these can only negatively assert the completeness of arithmetic truth. My understanding is that G 锟斤拷del (and others) are used to support this negative assertion, and I of course agree that indeed it is impossible for any arithmetic system to be complete, especially in the sense of defining itself completely. I suspect that Bruno assumes that I don't have a deep enough understanding of this, but I think that what understanding I do have is enough to persuade me that this entire line of investigation is a dead end as far as explaining consciousness. It only works if we assume consciousness as a possibility a priori and independently of any arithmetic logic. Nowhere do I find in any AI/AGI theory any positive assertion of awareness. It is not enough to say /*that*/ awareness fits into this or that category of programmatic interiority or logically necessary indeterminacy when the
Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Alberto G. Corona If I can perceive, I simply know that I can. The problem only enters when I tell you what I perceived. There faith matters, you can trust my word or not. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 11:40:43 Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information craig says that he perceive.. From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived. For example, consider: I see the cat.Here: I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived. When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are all subjective states and all experiences. However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated the experience into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into a publicly accessible statement. All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are objective. Any statement is then objective. Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective, so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless (codeless). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. That's why this uniqueness is not essential But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently having awareness as a meaningless epiphenomenal byproduct (yay, no free will), or
Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Alberto G. Corona What functionality ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 11:41:42 Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary sorry: What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY POSSIBL to create a robot with the same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side. 2012/8/29 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information craig says that he perceive.. From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived. For example, consider: I see the cat.Here: I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived. When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are all subjective states and all experiences. However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated the experience into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into a publicly accessible statement. All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are objective. Any statement is then objective. Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective, so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless (codeless). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. That's why this uniqueness is not essential But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Craig Weinberg Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 12:19:50 Subject: No Chinese Room Necessary This sentence does not speak English. These words do not ‘refer’ to themselves. s l u ,u s If you don't like Searle's example, perhaps the above can help illustrate that form is not inherently informative. The implication here for me is that comp is a red herring as far as ascertaining the origin of awareness. Either we view computation inherently
Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Alberto G. Corona I have no problem with that. But the act of perceiving itself is personal and amoral. I see what I see. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 11:54:29 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information craig says that he perceive.. From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived. For example, consider: I see the cat.Here: I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived. When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are all subjective states and all experiences. However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated the experience into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into a publicly accessible statement. All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are objective. Any statement is then objective. Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective, so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless (codeless). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. That's why this uniqueness is not essential But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
Research on this is ambiguous and ideologically freighted, but you put your finger on the right spot with: though maybe not as much. Because given all the toxic compounds from burning carbon based plant matter, the question is why the smoking cannabis leads to lung cancer evidence is much more of a mixed bag and less clear, than it ought to be, compared with tobacco smoking. This gap in the figures between regular tobacco users and pure cannabis smokers, allows for the plausible conjecture that there is an anti-cancerous effect (of Cannabis in your bloodstream, irrespective of method of admin; of course smoking augments risk).. Survey the studies, these harms are minute compared to risky legal behavior, such as tobacco, alcohol etc. Prof. David Nutt's work on harm assessment is particularly interesting for anyone wanting a large scale and broad assessment of harms of different drugs in comparison. I think even NIDA found an anti-cancerous effect in their 2006 report, while other studies note the opposite. This is less clear than people think. m On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:26 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/29/2012 7:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline. How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on this, but the same lies continue. The media talk about anything. You're going off the rails there, Bruno. There's no way cannabis cures cancer. If anything, smoking marijuana will cause lung cancer - though maybe not so much as tobacco. 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: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
You said that you perceive. Now you mean that you reflect on yourself. And I must believe so. It is theoretically possible to do a robot that do so as well in very sophisticated ways. I agree with you that robots are zombies, but some day, like in the novels of Stanislav Lem, they may adquire political rights and perhaps they could demand you for saying so. ;) Note that all the time, like in any normal conversation we are obviating deep statements of faith: Are you a person? a robot? an Lutheran robot? . An atheist robot that is trying to persuade us that intelligent robots don´t exist?. A The conclusions are very very different depending of which of these possible alternatives we choose. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona A grizzly bear, which seemingly has no moral code (other than when hungry, kill and eat), can still perceive perfectly well enough, or else he would starve. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 11:26:29 *Subject:* Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary It appears that subjectivity, has everithing to do with morality. This is not only evident for any religious person, but also for mathematics and game theory. It appears that without moral individuality, social collaboration is impossible, except for clones. I exposed the reasoning here. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Subjectivity has nothing to do with morality or evolution, it is simply the private of personal state of a perceiver (of some object), ie it is experience. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:08:43 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Craig: I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws). I did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list. I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy of the naturalistic fallacy. Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it appear in humans) exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no moral beings. 2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking consciousness only. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others. They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more awkward position than the other, etc). 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Craig Weinberg
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/29/2012 10:39 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net mailto:stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me. Hi Alberto, to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me! This is the essence of the dynamic reflexivity that my bisimulation algebra is meant to capture and it is what Pratt is trying to capture with his residuation process. The trick is to figure out how it is that names are generated such that Alberto is somehow different from Stephen and Bruno and Craig and ... This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. That´s why this uniqueness is not essential In the ultimate sense all name differences vanish. Yes, but that is the ideal and not the real case. Our explanation have to be able to back away slowly from the perfect case without falling apart. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further It is the cloning machine that is problematic. Unless one has avaialble space to put the copies - real physical space in terms of vacuum ground states or virtual memory for the computations - cloning is impossible. This makes 1p indeterminacy contingent on the possibility of instantiation and we can capture the idea of possibility of instantiation in theoretical terms, I claim, by considering how naming occurs. Please review the thread God has no name that Bruno and I engaged in. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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.
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's an infinity of computations that generate my state. I suppose it comes down to the ordinality of the infinities involved. Terren Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of you is very small, but non-zero. But we already knew that. 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: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi Alberto G. Corona What I say about what I see is a separate problem. How I interpret what I see is peculiar to me, is indeterminate to you. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 12:02:39 Subject: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary You said that you perceive. Now you mean that you reflect on yourself. And I must believe so. It is theoretically possible to do a robot that do so as well in very sophisticated ways. I agree with you that robots are zombies, but some day, like in the novels of Stanislav Lem, they may adquire political rights and perhaps they could demand you for saying so. ;) Note that all the time, like in any normal conversation we are obviating deep statements of faith: Are you a person? a robot? an Lutheran robot? . An atheist robot that is trying to persuade us that intelligent robots don't exist?. A The conclusions are very very different depending of which of these possible alternatives we choose. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona A grizzly bear, which seemingly has no moral code (other than when hungry, kill and eat), can still perceive perfectly well enough, or else he would starve. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 11:26:29 Subject: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary It appears that subjectivity, has everithing to do with morality. This is not only evident for any religious person, but also for mathematics and game theory. It appears that without moral individuality, social collaboration is impossible, except for clones. I exposed the reasoning here. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona Subjectivity has nothing to do with morality or evolution, it is simply the private of personal state of a perceiver (of some object), ie it is experience. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 09:08:43 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Craig: I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws). I did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list. I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy of the naturalistic fallacy. Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it appear in humans) exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no moral beings. 2012/8/29 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 8:44:40 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. What you are talking about is all a-posterior to objectivity. In a dream whole ensembles of 'memories' appear and disappear. It is possible to be intelligent and social and not be moral (sociopaths have memory). I think you are making some normative assumptions. When we generalize about consciousness we should not limit it to healthy-adult-human waking consciousness only. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. In the story I read on brain conjoined twins, the sisters consider themselves both the same person in some contexts and different in others. They live the same life in one sense, different lives in another (life on the right side is not life on the left side...one girl's head is in a more awkward position than the other, etc). 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King step...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On 8/29/2012 10:52 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/29/2012 5:18 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 8/29/2012 2:17 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 8/28/2012 11:08 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: Hi Brent, Until there is a precise explanation of what this phrase generation by the UD might mean, we have just a repeated meaningless combinations of letters appearing on our computer monitors. Seems pretty precise to me. The UD executes all possible computations, one step at a time. If 'you' are a computation, then it must eventually generate you. Brent -- Hi Brent, Yes it will eventually generate me, but with a measure zero chance. The UD seems to be ergodic on the Integers. Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of you is very small, but non-zero. But we already knew that. Brent I agree but the details of this are being crudely glossed over and they are of utmost importance here! We need a precise definition of the at any stage short of the infinite completion term. I suspect that we can capture this using the uncountable infinity of non-standard models of arithmetic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_model_of_arithmetic and relations between the models to give us a nice formal model. The existence of non-standard models of arithmetic can be demonstrated by an application of the compactness theorem. To do this, a set of axioms P* is defined in a language including the language of Peano arithmetic together with a new constant symbol x. The axioms consist of the axioms of Peano arithmetic P together with another infinite set of axioms: for each numeral n, the axiom x n is included. Any finite subset of these axioms is satisfied by a model which is the standard model of arithmetic plus the constant x interpreted as some number larger than any numeral mentioned in the finite subset of P*. Thus by the compactness theorem there is a model satisfying all the axioms P*. Since any model of P* is a model of P (since a model of a set of axioms is obviously also a model of any subset of that set of axioms), we have that our extended model is also a model of the Peano axioms. /The element of this model corresponding to x cannot be a standard number, because as indicated it is larger than any standard number/. The x would play the role of the inverse of the epsilon of proximity to infinite completion. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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.
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
People and science do not distinguish enough between smoking pure cannabis or hemp and smoking both cannabis and tobacco. The latter carries many more health concerns than the former. Also the causality: does cannabis lead to depression or is a life framed for depression at some point, and Cannabis is abused to hide, like alcohol or heroin etc.? Lester Grinspoon from Harvard sees smoking pure Cannabis as an enhancer or amplifier of existing circumstances and traits of user. If a life is lacking direction, where will cannabis lead? And if a life has direction, why would Cannabis undermine this? I don't think you can equate personal experience with effect of Cannabis. The logic is crap because of causality problem. Richard Branson recently asked for weed in the White House: they didn't have any... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74111.html This does not look like a depressed man, respecting your 15 years experience. Regards, Mark On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/29 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote: I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the retired folk. In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing random testing you may as well wait until retirement. I don't believe in drugs. A drug is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100 times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the kids, everywhere. There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem. Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV habituation). No, canabis can lead to real problematic addiction, grave depression, and *is not* a drug to take lightly. You should not go the other way around as the lies you are fighting and thus lie yourself. I've smoked cannabis for 15 years I know what I'm talking about and what problem it can cause. I'm not smoking anymore and hope I never will. I'm against prohibition, I'm for prevention and good usage. But you must know that good usage is not for everyone and a lot of persons will abuse it and abuse is problematic, occulting that is a lie. The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest. There is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that cannabis is still illegal is a frightening witnessing that most governement are hostage of criminals. We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline. Well do you have reference of that ? And since cannabis as I was using it consisted of smocking it, let me have a lot of doubts about that. Regards, Quentin How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on this, but the same lies continue. The two most dangerous recreative drug are alcohol and tobacco. The bandits have tried to prohibit alcohol, but prohibition multiply a lot the dangerousness of the product, so they have to stop it. So now they make illegal innocuous product like cannabis, so this can last. The illegality of cannabis is a coup de genie. It deserves the Nobel prize in Crime. And prohibition leads to new drugs which copy the one forbidden, like wood-alcohol, or brew when alcohol was prohibited. In Russia they have made a severe campaign against heroin, and the result is the apparition of krokodil, a very nasty, highly addictive substance, which make you die in terrible pain. In my country, to prevent the spreading of AIDS, they have unofficially legalize heroin: the result has been a drastic diminution of heroin consumption. Prohibition is the problem, not drugs. Black money is the problem, and worse, grey money, the investment of balck money in mundane finance, which is making the whole middle class, and the banks, into the hostage of the drugs mafia. Prohibition transforms the planet into a big Chicago. And I was used to separate the war on drugs from the war on terror, but since Obama signed the NDAA bill, I am changing my mind on this. I begin to think that the war on terror is as fake as the war on drugs. Pure fear selling business. But thanks for the retired folk, Richard. Now, I can hardly imagine that a bar will ask your identity cart for a beer, and refuses because you are 74 years old: sorry, but you are to much young, wait for growing up a little bit :) Bruno On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 2:45 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote: Even Binet, who invented the IQ-tests,
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/29/2012 11:12 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:14:38 AM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Right! That is how naming occurs. Nice! I was thinking of this: If we recorded every commercial transaction by name, we could produce a fingerprint signature for any given commodity sold by plotting out a function of price vs location. If we wanted to quantify a Hershey with Almonds bar, we could come up with a unique set of datapoints for every store in every city that corresponds to those sales and reverse engineer a wavefunction that we could associate uniquely with the HwA bar. Still we have said nothing about the chocolate or the consumers, buyers, or sellers. We can't ever get to the quality of what is being sole even though we have a convincing way of articulating the quantitative nature and topological distribution of the sales transactions. I think this it the critical fault of all possible systems which seek to approach consciousness as a secondary effect. Whether materialist or idealist, all quant-based approaches are doomed to mistake the interstitial relation for that which is relating. Craig Hi Craig, Nice idea but it would wreck the fungibility requirement that modern economies require. The fact that the physical object Mars Bar is equivalent to any other Mars Bar is how quality is maintained for a brand. The same goes for the value of a Dollar bill. It the value where history dependent then it would make all physical object unique and thus not fungible. The cost of tracking the differences of commodities would be HUGE and swamp everything else. We see a toy model of the case where fungibility vanishes (ideally as copies are forgeries!) in the art market. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Dear Roger, Wrong. Computation is involved in the act of seeing. Identification is a computational act. Any transformation of information (difference that makes a difference) is, by definition, a computation. On 8/29/2012 11:15 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Alberto G. Corona Awareness = I see X. or I am X. or some similar statement. There's no computer in that behavior or state of being. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona mailto:agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 09:34:22 *Subject:* Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Roger, I said that the awareness functionalty can be computable, that is that a inner computation can affect an external computation which is aware of the consequences of this inner computation. like in the case of any relation of brain and mind, I do not say that this IS the experience of awareness, but given the duality between mind and matter/brain, it is very plausible that the brain work that way when, in the paralell word of the mind, the mind experiences awareness 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona What sort of an output would the computer give me ? It can't be experiential, 0or if it is, I know of no way to hook it to my brain. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Alberto G. Corona mailto:agocor...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 08:21:27 *Subject:* Re: No Chinese Room Necessary Hi: Awareness can be functionally (we do not know if experientially) computable. A program can run another program (a metaprogram) and do things depending on its results of the metaprogram (or his real time status). This is rutine in computer science and these programs are called interpreters. The lack of understanding, of this capability of metacomputation that any turing complete machine has, is IMHO the reason why it is said that the brain-mind can do things that a computer can never do. We humans can manage concepts in two ways : a direct way and a reflective way. The second is the result of an analysis of the first trough a metacomputation. For example we can not be aware of our use of category theory or our intuitions because they are hardwired programs, not interpreted programs. We can not know our deep thinking structures because they are not exposed as metacomputations. When we use metaphorically the verb to be fired to mean being redundant, we are using category theory but we can not be aware of it. Only after research that assimilate mathematical facts with the observable psichology of humans, we can create an awareness of it by means of an adquired metacomputation. The same happens with the intuitions. We appreciate the beauty of a woman for adaptive reasons, but not the computation that produces this intuition. In the other side, we can appreciate the fact that the process of diagonalization by G del makes the Hilbert program impossible, That same conclusion can be reached by a program that metacomputes a constructive mathematical program. (see my post about the G del theorem). Again, I do not see COMP a problem for the Existential problem of free will nor in any other existential question. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/29/2012 11:17 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:34:22 AM UTC-4, Richard wrote: Craig, Is the universe expanding (at an accelerating rate) because it excretes public entropy (space) as exhaust ? Richard Yes, although it may not be the actual universe which is expanding but rather the astrophysical level of our perception of the universe may be the location where this expansion is most visible to us. In any case, there is nothing actual for the universe to expand into, as space itself does not exist until the matter of the universe defines it as space. It can be said that rather than expanding, the ratio of entropy to signal is increasing. Craig Hi Craig, What is the difference between the two? Ultimately, what we are talking about is just that set of fact that is incontrovertible among us. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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.
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
As I said *it can* lead to that, when abusing, what cause the abuse is outside the problem, but occulting the abuse is not good (as all abuse of any drug legal or not). And surely it is easier to not abuse when you are rich and have less living problem than if you're not. And anyway, abuse of cannabis leads to apathy. What cause the abuse is certainly preexisting of the cannabis usage, but if you're subject to easy addiction, you'll fall into it. I'm not saying smocking cannabis is wrong, nor I'm saying it's good, I'm saying consommation must be controlled individually. I'm against prohibition, but I'm also against saying you can use it with no danger. Quentin 2012/8/29 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com People and science do not distinguish enough between smoking pure cannabis or hemp and smoking both cannabis and tobacco. The latter carries many more health concerns than the former. Also the causality: does cannabis lead to depression or is a life framed for depression at some point, and Cannabis is abused to hide, like alcohol or heroin etc.? Lester Grinspoon from Harvard sees smoking pure Cannabis as an enhancer or amplifier of existing circumstances and traits of user. If a life is lacking direction, where will cannabis lead? And if a life has direction, why would Cannabis undermine this? I don't think you can equate personal experience with effect of Cannabis. The logic is crap because of causality problem. Richard Branson recently asked for weed in the White House: they didn't have any... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74111.html This does not look like a depressed man, respecting your 15 years experience. Regards, Mark On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/8/29 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote: I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the retired folk. In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing random testing you may as well wait until retirement. I don't believe in drugs. A drug is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100 times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the kids, everywhere. There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem. Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV habituation). No, canabis can lead to real problematic addiction, grave depression, and *is not* a drug to take lightly. You should not go the other way around as the lies you are fighting and thus lie yourself. I've smoked cannabis for 15 years I know what I'm talking about and what problem it can cause. I'm not smoking anymore and hope I never will. I'm against prohibition, I'm for prevention and good usage. But you must know that good usage is not for everyone and a lot of persons will abuse it and abuse is problematic, occulting that is a lie. The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest. There is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that cannabis is still illegal is a frightening witnessing that most governement are hostage of criminals. We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline. Well do you have reference of that ? And since cannabis as I was using it consisted of smocking it, let me have a lot of doubts about that. Regards, Quentin How many people died of cancer since? I can give you tuns of references and links on this, but the same lies continue. The two most dangerous recreative drug are alcohol and tobacco. The bandits have tried to prohibit alcohol, but prohibition multiply a lot the dangerousness of the product, so they have to stop it. So now they make illegal innocuous product like cannabis, so this can last. The illegality of cannabis is a coup de genie. It deserves the Nobel prize in Crime. And prohibition leads to new drugs which copy the one forbidden, like wood-alcohol, or brew when alcohol was prohibited. In Russia they have made a severe campaign against heroin, and the result is the apparition of krokodil, a very nasty, highly addictive substance, which make you die in terrible pain. In my country, to prevent the spreading of AIDS, they have unofficially legalize heroin: the result has been a drastic diminution of heroin consumption. Prohibition is the problem, not drugs. Black money is the problem, and worse, grey money, the investment of balck money in mundane finance,
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/29/2012 11:38 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 9:09:05 AM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote: Craig: I just wanted to summarize the evolutionary reasons why idividuality exist, (no matter if individuality is a cause or an effect of phisical laws). I did an extended account of this somewhere else in this list. I do not accept normative as distinct from objective. this is the fallacy of the naturalistic fallacy. I don't have any particular opinion about individuality. It seems like a more advanced topic. I am more interested in the very primitive basics of what consciousness actually is. Individuality, personality, human psychology...that's calculus. I am looking at multiplication and division. What I can see is that awareness seems ambivalent to the notion of individuality. Altered states of consciousness, mob mentality, mass hypnosis...it's not a well defined concept for me yet. Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it appear in humans) exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no moral beings. You don't need to be immoral or unintelligent to be a psychopath. I agree with Roger that consciousness does not depend on morality (however I think that morality is an extension of significance, which is analogous to density or gravity but in the temporal-figurative sense). Craig Hi Craig, I think that the defining feature of a psychopath is an inability to accurately model the internal reactions of and by others within one's own thoughts. It is a form of autism. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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.
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Stathis Papaioannou \ Good point. The argument fails. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-28, 09:35:36 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 11:06 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Stathis Papaioannou You are talking about a robot, not a human. At the very least, there is the problem of first person indeterminancy. Nobody (especially the programmer) can really know for example if I am an atheist or theist. For example, I might pretend to be an atheist then change my mind. You assume the thing that you set out to prove: that a computer cannot be intelligent or conscious. -- 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.
Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
Hi Terry, I think so too. I wonder if this could be captured by assuming the opposite of Cantor continuum hypothesis? Or by thinking of computations as integers embedded in hyperreal numbers. On 8/29/2012 12:04 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's an infinity of computations that generate my state. I suppose it comes down to the ordinality of the infinities involved. Terren Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of you is very small, but non-zero. But we already knew that. 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. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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.
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:20:18 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, Nice idea but it would wreck the fungibility requirement that modern economies require. The fact that the physical object Mars Bar is equivalent to any other Mars Bar is how quality is maintained for a brand. The same goes for the value of a Dollar bill. It the value where history dependent then it would make all physical object unique and thus not fungible. The cost of tracking the differences of commodities would be HUGE and swamp everything else. We see a toy model of the case where fungibility vanishes (ideally as copies are forgeries!) in the art market. Hi Stephen, Sure, yeah I'm not suggesting an alternative economic system, just making an analogy to comp. We could come up with a string of quantitative variables: $1.29 150,000 times on 8/19/12 in Trenton, NJ + $1.22 67,000 times in Huntsville AL, etc = statistics for Mars Bars and nothing else - uniqueness is conserved but the inferred equivalence is bunk. The statistics are nothing but a silhouette of stochastic aggregations, having nothing to do with the underlying Mars Bar. Same goes for the brain. A perfect map of what a brain does gives you nothing to do with the possibility of copying consciousness. Craig -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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/-/JGlABmt6_v0J. 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: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:23:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, What is the difference between the two? Ultimately, what we are talking about is just that set of fact that is incontrovertible among us. I think the difference is that if we assume expansion then we have to assume an infinite unexplained plenum of space, whereas if we assume expansion of ratios between sensible nodes, then there need not be any plenum and space becomes nothing but information entropy - a gap between perceptual frames. If you are a native of one frame, you see space, if you are the native of another frame, there is 'entanglement' (i.e. pre-space reflection of node unity). 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/-/OiAOqOftrdgJ. 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: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:27:05 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote Psychopathy (not in the abstract sense, but in the real sense with wich it appear in humans) exist just because exist morality. It is an exploitation of morality for selfish purposes. Therefore it can be considered a morality effect. it would be non adaptive, and therefore unexistent, if there were no moral beings. You don't need to be immoral or unintelligent to be a psychopath. I agree with Roger that consciousness does not depend on morality (however I think that morality is an extension of significance, which is analogous to density or gravity but in the temporal-figurative sense). Craig Hi Craig, I think that the defining feature of a psychopath is an inability to accurately model the internal reactions of and by others within one's own thoughts. It is a form of autism. Ah, you guys are right, I was thinking of psychotic not psychopathic. I normally think of the term sociopath for psychopath. I wouldn't be so sure it is autism exactly. I think that sociopaths have an abnormally strong ability to accurately model the internal reactions of others, they just use it to exploit and torture them intentionally. It's more like they make other people autistic to their motives. I would guess that their schadenfreude conversion factor is such that they enjoy causing pain as their primary from of pleasure. 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/-/1uZFIuUJ9ioJ. 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: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
Agreed. But abuse of anything... is simply abuse. Talking about consciousness altering alternatives on a plant or chemical basis, I maintain that evidence, such as the harm assessment reports of Prof. David Nutt, NIDA studies, papers/sources cited in The Emperor wears no clothes, suggest that Cannabis dangers and harms are, keeping perspective on the whole set of mind altering substances, minuscule and that the overall BENEFITS of the plant towards society are much greater than we realize. Clicking on the link for emperor wears no clothes PDF, can win you a 100 thousand dollars, if you can prove them wrong: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=2ved=0CCkQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fbd%2FJack_Herer_-_The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes.pdfei=ukY-UOSbBMyT0QXpzIGAAQusg=AFQjCNFAY1qMBV1jD6LDWyeA5QM_ERjcygsig2=saSV5VJJCh2MgiRD6bUm1Q (If you don't trust the link or it doesn't work, just google emperor wears no clothes jack herrer PDF) Aside from the usual pothead cliché stuff, I find this book to be good honest work and that these questions/conclusions should be further queried. m On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: As I said *it can* lead to that, when abusing, what cause the abuse is outside the problem, but occulting the abuse is not good (as all abuse of any drug legal or not). And surely it is easier to not abuse when you are rich and have less living problem than if you're not. And anyway, abuse of cannabis leads to apathy. What cause the abuse is certainly preexisting of the cannabis usage, but if you're subject to easy addiction, you'll fall into it. I'm not saying smocking cannabis is wrong, nor I'm saying it's good, I'm saying consommation must be controlled individually. I'm against prohibition, but I'm also against saying you can use it with no danger. Quentin 2012/8/29 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com People and science do not distinguish enough between smoking pure cannabis or hemp and smoking both cannabis and tobacco. The latter carries many more health concerns than the former. Also the causality: does cannabis lead to depression or is a life framed for depression at some point, and Cannabis is abused to hide, like alcohol or heroin etc.? Lester Grinspoon from Harvard sees smoking pure Cannabis as an enhancer or amplifier of existing circumstances and traits of user. If a life is lacking direction, where will cannabis lead? And if a life has direction, why would Cannabis undermine this? I don't think you can equate personal experience with effect of Cannabis. The logic is crap because of causality problem. Richard Branson recently asked for weed in the White House: they didn't have any... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74111.html This does not look like a depressed man, respecting your 15 years experience. Regards, Mark On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/8/29 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote: I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the retired folk. In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing random testing you may as well wait until retirement. I don't believe in drugs. A drug is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100 times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the kids, everywhere. There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem. Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV habituation). No, canabis can lead to real problematic addiction, grave depression, and *is not* a drug to take lightly. You should not go the other way around as the lies you are fighting and thus lie yourself. I've smoked cannabis for 15 years I know what I'm talking about and what problem it can cause. I'm not smoking anymore and hope I never will. I'm against prohibition, I'm for prevention and good usage. But you must know that good usage is not for everyone and a lot of persons will abuse it and abuse is problematic, occulting that is a lie. The case of cannabis is different for cannabis is just hemp, the plant that we have cultivated the most on this planet, and it has been made illegal just because it was a natural competitor to oil and forest. There is a big amount of literature on this, and the fact that cannabis is still illegal is a frightening witnessing that most governement are hostage of criminals. We know since 1974 that cannabis cures cancer, (american discovery hidden by Bush senior) but it is only since this has been rediscovered in Spain, that some media talk about it, but it does not yet make the headline. Well do you have
Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
Hi meekerdb By words I include computer code. My position is that nothing implemented or carried out in computer code can be conscious, since consciousness is subjective, meaning personal, unexpressed in code or words. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 11:47:46 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. Brent On 8/29/2012 8:40 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: That you perceive is accesible to us by your words. You say that you perceive. With these worlds you transmit to us this information craig says that he perceive.. From my side, The belief tat you REALLY perceive is a matter of faith What i said is that it is THEORETICALLY create a robot with the same functionality, and subject to the same statement of faith from my side. 2012/8/29 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net Hi Alberto G. Corona The subject is the perceiver, not that which is perceived. For example, consider: I see the cat.Here: I is the perceiving subject, cat is the object perceived. When the subject experiences seeing the cat, the experience is personal, as are all subjective states and all experiences. However, when he afterwards vocalizes I see the cat, he has translated the experience into words, which means he has translated a subjective personal experience into a publicly accessible statement. All personal experiences are subjective, all experiences shared in words are objective. Any statement is then objective. Computers can only deal in words (computer code), which are objective, so computers cannot experience anything, since experience is wordless (codeless). Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Alberto G. Corona Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 10:39:37 Subject: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 8:44 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: the subject is preceived as singular because it has memory. It has memory because it is intelligent and social. thereforre it is moral. therefore it needs memory to give and take account of its debts and merits with others. Hi Albert, Memory is necessary but not sufficient. It the the content of memory and how it is sequentially ordered that matters. I am what I remember myself to be. in my own terms, this is a metacomputation (interpreted computation) operating over my own memory. The possibility of this metacomputation comes from evolutionary reasons: to reflect about the moral Albert that others see on me. This singularity is by definition because no other lived the same life of ourselves. No, because we could never know that for sure. It is singular in the sense of only I can know what it is like to be me is exactly true for each and every one of us. The result is that I cannot know what it is like to be you. That's why this uniqueness is not essential But up to a point it is not essential. We can be made accustomed to other ourselves. Most twins consider each other another self. We could come to consider normal to say hello to our recently created clones. Although this probably will never happen. Please elaborate! Try to speculate a situation where it might occur. There is something important to this! This is a logical possibility due to the nonessentiality of uniqueness of individuality. (Or in Bruno terms: the first person indeterminacy). But probably the cloning machine would never exist. Sorry I can not ellaborate further 2012/8/29 Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.net On 8/29/2012 7:38 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg I agree. Consciousness is not a monople, it is a dipole: Cs = subject + object The subject is always first person indeterminate. Being indeterminate, it is not computable. QED Hi Roger, It is not a dipole in the normal sense, as the object is not restricted to being singular. The subject is always singular (necessity) while the object is possibly singular. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function.
Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Hi Richard Ruquist Pre-ordained is a religious position And we aren't controlled by software. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Roger, Do you think that humans do not function in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. ? ROGER:?ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not. ? If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is merely following instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some algorithm. ? If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which is to say that synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. More below, but I will stop here for now. -- Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware. Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free will. Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited by it. BRUNO:? Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. ? ROGER:? OK, it came intuitively, freely,?e did not arrive at it ?y logic, although it no doubt has its own logic. BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. ? This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking. But on reflection, I no longer believe that.?IMHO anything that??omputer does still must follow its own internal logic, contrained by its?ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even if those calculations are of infinite complexity. Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must be true.? So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. BRUNO: You hope. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence because intelligence consists of at least one ability: the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does the choosing, and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system. Godel, perhaps, I speculate. I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that machines are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied computer science is used to help controlling what can really become uncontrollable and too much autonomous, a bit like children education. Computers are not stupid, we work a lot for making them so. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
2012/8/29 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com Agreed. But abuse of anything... is simply abuse. Wel yes... but abuse is easy with cannabis, if you smoke *everyday* it is abuse. And when you smoke everyday, you often smoke more than one... and that condition *is not* rare among cannabis users. I think it's no more recreational when you start using it alone. You still can use it that way, but you have to stop pretending it is not problematic (the well known, I can stop when I want... I'm not an addict). And of all the cannabis users I know, well recreational only are the rare types, not the common ones... I'm really not against a non abusive type of usage, but to say it's the common usage is to have a beam in the eye... Quentin Talking about consciousness altering alternatives on a plant or chemical basis, I maintain that evidence, such as the harm assessment reports of Prof. David Nutt, NIDA studies, papers/sources cited in The Emperor wears no clothes, suggest that Cannabis dangers and harms are, keeping perspective on the whole set of mind altering substances, minuscule and that the overall BENEFITS of the plant towards society are much greater than we realize. Clicking on the link for emperor wears no clothes PDF, can win you a 100 thousand dollars, if you can prove them wrong: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=2ved=0CCkQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fbd%2FJack_Herer_-_The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes.pdfei=ukY-UOSbBMyT0QXpzIGAAQusg=AFQjCNFAY1qMBV1jD6LDWyeA5QM_ERjcygsig2=saSV5VJJCh2MgiRD6bUm1Q (If you don't trust the link or it doesn't work, just google emperor wears no clothes jack herrer PDF) Aside from the usual pothead cliché stuff, I find this book to be good honest work and that these questions/conclusions should be further queried. m On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: As I said *it can* lead to that, when abusing, what cause the abuse is outside the problem, but occulting the abuse is not good (as all abuse of any drug legal or not). And surely it is easier to not abuse when you are rich and have less living problem than if you're not. And anyway, abuse of cannabis leads to apathy. What cause the abuse is certainly preexisting of the cannabis usage, but if you're subject to easy addiction, you'll fall into it. I'm not saying smocking cannabis is wrong, nor I'm saying it's good, I'm saying consommation must be controlled individually. I'm against prohibition, but I'm also against saying you can use it with no danger. Quentin 2012/8/29 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com People and science do not distinguish enough between smoking pure cannabis or hemp and smoking both cannabis and tobacco. The latter carries many more health concerns than the former. Also the causality: does cannabis lead to depression or is a life framed for depression at some point, and Cannabis is abused to hide, like alcohol or heroin etc.? Lester Grinspoon from Harvard sees smoking pure Cannabis as an enhancer or amplifier of existing circumstances and traits of user. If a life is lacking direction, where will cannabis lead? And if a life has direction, why would Cannabis undermine this? I don't think you can equate personal experience with effect of Cannabis. The logic is crap because of causality problem. Richard Branson recently asked for weed in the White House: they didn't have any... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74111.html This does not look like a depressed man, respecting your 15 years experience. Regards, Mark On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 5:37 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.comwrote: 2012/8/29 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be On 29 Aug 2012, at 12:37, Richard Ruquist wrote: I am of the opinion that recreational drugs should be the preserve of the retired folk. In fact in the USA with so many companies and the govt/military doing random testing you may as well wait until retirement. I don't believe in drugs. A drug is just a product made illegal so that we can sell it 100 times its price, without quality controls, and by targetting mainly the kids, everywhere. There are no drug problem, only a prohibition problem. Drug addiction is nowadays easy to cure, with plant like salvia, or iboga, or even cannabis, which typically are not drugs, even if cannabis can lead some people to some habituation (but still not as grave as TV habituation). No, canabis can lead to real problematic addiction, grave depression, and *is not* a drug to take lightly. You should not go the other way around as the lies you are fighting and thus lie yourself. I've smoked cannabis for 15 years I know what I'm talking about and what problem it can cause. I'm not smoking anymore and hope I never will. I'm against prohibition, I'm for prevention and good usage. But you must know that good usage is not
RE: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
Roger: It is my contention, quite to the dislike of biologists generally methinks, that DNA is a physical representation of program. Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). wrb From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough Sent: Wednesday, August 29, 2012 10:07 AM To: everything-list Subject: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Hi Richard Ruquist Pre-ordained is a religious position And we aren't controlled by software. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Richard Ruquist mailto:yann...@gmail.com Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com Time: 2012-08-29, 07:37:02 Subject: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Roger, Do you think that humans do not function in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. � ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not. � If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is merely following instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some algorithm. � If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which is to say that synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. More below, but I will stop here for now. -- Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware. Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free will. Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited by it. BRUNO:� Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. � ROGER:� OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic, although it no doubt has its own logic. BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. � This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking. But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer does still must follow its own internal logic, contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even if those calculations are of infinite complexity. Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must be true.� So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. BRUNO: You hope. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net mailto:+rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence because intelligence consists of at least one ability: the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, they can only
Re: Re: Re: Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 11:45:16 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote: Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies, which seem to be alive but are not actually so. Exactly. I don't call them zombies though, because zombie implies a negative affirmation of life. They are puppets. They have no pretensions to being alive, that is our conceit - a Pinocchio fallacy. When we act on the assumptions of that fallacy, we have been warned about the two possibilities: Frankenstein or HAL (Golem or demon). Frankenstein is the embodiment of physicalism or material functionalism, the functional inversion of body as re-animated corpse. HAL is the embodiment of computationalism or digital functionalism, the functional inversion of mind as disembodied self. Both are the result of our confusion in trying to internalize externalized appearances. We wind up with the false images - an outsiders view of interiority. It's a category error. Cart before the horse. I agree with Brent as far as an empirical approach to consciousness (robots building models from environmental test results) is superior to a rational approach (front loading logical models to be adapted to fit real environments) but both ultimately fail to locate awareness of any kind. There is awareness in a robot or computer, but it is the awareness of inanimate matter (which is what makes us able to script and control it in the first place). We exist on that level too - we are matter also, but the particular matter that we are has a different history which gives it the capacity to send and receive on a much broader spectrum of sense than just the inorganic spectrum. 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/-/zevWLAq0pYgJ. 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: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: But computers can only do what their programs/hardware tell them to do. If computers only did what their programers told them to do their would be absolutely no point in building computers because they would know what the machines would end up doing before it even started working on the problem. And you can't solve problems without your hardware so I don't see why you expect a computer to. To be intelligent they have to be able to make choices beyond that. We're back to invoking that mystical word choices as if it solves a philosophical absurdity. It does not. They should be able to beat me at poker even though they have no poker program. Why? You can't play poker if you don't know something about the game and neither can the computer. And you can cry sour grapes all you want about how the computer isn't really intelligent but it will do you no good because at the end of the day the fact remains that the computer has won all your money at poker and you're dead broke. I said it before I'll say it again, if computers don't have intelligence then they have something better. Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. And I would say what's God's theory on how he is able to keep things functioning? 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: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote: Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e. DNA). It isn't really clear exactly what controls what in a living cell. I can say that cars are controlled by traffic signals, clocks, and calendars. To whatever we ascribe control, we only open up another level of unexplained control beneath it. What makes DNA readable to a ribosome? What makes anything readable to anything? Sense is irreducible. No software can control anything, even itself, unless something has the power to make sense of it as software and the power to execute that sense within itself as causally efficacious motive. 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/-/rs-VsPOMIRsJ. 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: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/29/2012 12:43 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 12:23:35 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig, What is the difference between the two? Ultimately, what we are talking about is just that set of fact that is incontrovertible among us. I think the difference is that if we assume expansion then we have to assume an infinite unexplained plenum of space, whereas if we assume expansion of ratios between sensible nodes, then there need not be any plenum and space becomes nothing but information entropy - a gap between perceptual frames. If you are a native of one frame, you see space, if you are the native of another frame, there is 'entanglement' (i.e. pre-space reflection of node unity). Craig Hi Craig But what you are saying here is true for each and every individual observer; it is a 1p duality, along the lines of a figure/frame relation. We have to consider multiple observers, each with this property and see how components , in the entanglement frame, in one observer, A maps onto a component in the spatial frame of observer B and vise versa. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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.
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
If you can solve the problem of what degree of involvement/dependence towards an idea/substance/drug is problematic and which is not, then go ahead. I will certainly read that book. Personal anecdotes and hyperbolic stuff is everywhere: e.g. the study that opened this thread. Even if I take your opinions seriously: nobody here is claiming drugs are harmless, nobody has precise data on what common usage constitutes (if you have a link to worldwide study on this, with precise accounts of plant types, their chemical makeup, routes of administration, dosage, daily quantity consumed etc. please share), what constitutes recreational vs. respectable etc. If Jimmy Hendrix writes a song alone, having gotten stoned, and his royalties bring in millions to the family that inherits them afterwards... is this respectable or not? Branson having a great business idea? Sorry, drugs are harmless compared to (*) historically naturalized authoritarian governance intertwining with manipulated supply and demand of goods, weapons, and services through market forces = creates the need for false heroes, mediocre science, straw men, scapegoats = war on blacks, gays, drugs, sexuality, terror. This accounts only for tiny part of context touching the problematic drug use that you cite. Without them, common sense would dictate that people seek out, and research be dispatched to finding, drugs that are more euphoric, less toxic, and can thus be used more sustainably. Another non-anecdotal example, Prof. David Nutt has found a benzodiazepine that has dis-inhibition and euphoric qualities of alcohol, with only minimum of motor-skill loss. It is less toxic, more fun, impossible to overdose on because concentrations beyond certain limits in bloodstream do not further augment effect and LD-50 is huge. Not only this, he has found an antidote to it that will make you ready to drive in 30 minutes. I'm not claiming this as cure for alcohol problem. Just stating that we are technologically ready to do these things and think we could engineer much better if we were a bit less addicted to money, power, + our own set of ideologies (the hardest most persistent drug of all, responsible for every intentional killing in history). Mind altering substances have always had a minority that abused them to self-destruction, and this will stay like this. What is left unsaid is that most people find their limits and survive. This gives a plausible reason for cautious optimism about human/machine condition. I don't see Cannabis users, drugs or any of the other scapegoats as real threats/problems. The context I sketch with many unfair reductions here (see*), that we have naturalized in our day-to-day affairs, in terms of law, justice, politics, economics creates the foundation for problematic cannabis user smoking alone. I don't think she/he really exists, even though people I know could be described that way. I see them as victims of the kind of circumstances I point towards in this post. And yes, that is unnecessary and sad. But it is neither their fault, nor the fault of Cannabis. They are victims of parasites, bullies, and thieves that have informational advantage for historical reasons. m On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:10 PM, Quentin Anciaux allco...@gmail.com wrote: 2012/8/29 Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com Agreed. But abuse of anything... is simply abuse. Wel yes... but abuse is easy with cannabis, if you smoke *everyday* it is abuse. And when you smoke everyday, you often smoke more than one... and that condition *is not* rare among cannabis users. I think it's no more recreational when you start using it alone. You still can use it that way, but you have to stop pretending it is not problematic (the well known, I can stop when I want... I'm not an addict). And of all the cannabis users I know, well recreational only are the rare types, not the common ones... I'm really not against a non abusive type of usage, but to say it's the common usage is to have a beam in the eye... Quentin Talking about consciousness altering alternatives on a plant or chemical basis, I maintain that evidence, such as the harm assessment reports of Prof. David Nutt, NIDA studies, papers/sources cited in The Emperor wears no clothes, suggest that Cannabis dangers and harms are, keeping perspective on the whole set of mind altering substances, minuscule and that the overall BENEFITS of the plant towards society are much greater than we realize. Clicking on the link for emperor wears no clothes PDF, can win you a 100 thousand dollars, if you can prove them wrong: http://www.google.com/url?sa=trct=jq=esrc=ssource=webcd=2ved=0CCkQFjABurl=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fb%2Fbd%2FJack_Herer_-_The_Emperor_Wears_No_Clothes.pdfei=ukY-UOSbBMyT0QXpzIGAAQusg=AFQjCNFAY1qMBV1jD6LDWyeA5QM_ERjcygsig2=saSV5VJJCh2MgiRD6bUm1Q (If you don't trust the link or it doesn't work, just google emperor wears no
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:24:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig But what you are saying here is true for each and every individual observer; it is a 1p duality, along the lines of a figure/frame relation. We have to consider multiple observers, each with this property and see how components , in the entanglement frame, in one observer, A maps onto a component in the spatial frame of observer B and vise versa. Hi Stephen, I am thinking that it's like this. As an outsider to the Chinese language, I can't recognize the significance of the difference between one character or word and another. As an outsider to the world of modern kids, I can't recognize the difference between one brand of toy and another or one style of shoe and another. The information entropy is high. It seems like I could substitute any new shoe and it should serve the same purpose - but of course, that's because I'm not young and cool so I don't know what is cool. I have to take the kids word for it. This same principle is what we are dealing with in our conception of matter and space. We have to rely on the reports of our body to us about its world. We are getting a consensus of organs, tissues, cells, molecules and coming up with an anthropologically-appropriate sense of scale and space. Now we have extended those body reports to include other instruments which give us a prosthetic enhancement to our sense of scale and space into the microcosm and macro-universe. This extension has given us a peek behind our direct range of space and scale and into realms of unexpected unities (quantum entanglement for example, particle/wave duality, vacuum flux, etc) so that we are getting more of an insider's view of the universe that we are not directly inside of. As for mapping components onto each other's frames, the frames are already the manifestation of all components separation from unity with each other. Like tickling yourself doesn't work because on some level you know exactly when you are going to try to tickle yourself. It isn't that you have a model of a tickler of people and a tickled person and they interfere with each other when you try to tickle yourself - there isn't any model at all. When someone tickles you it is precisely because you can't anticipate their action that the sensation of being tickled becomes possible. Space is like that. It is matter being tickled by matter that is not itself. It might experience it as some sound or feeling or something we can't understand, but whatever it is that atoms experience on that level, or bodies of atoms experience on another level, is what we see, feel, and understand on our level as space or place relations. It's like that example of the parking lot full of shiny cars. Each chrome edge and corner shining is not a separate simulation of the sun, it is a single presentation of the sense that arises out of your relation to the sun and the cars. It is a specular sharing of sense, not a mechanical instantiation. 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/-/M1PQhJvQA0kJ. 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: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: do not think that accusations of vitalism add anything to the issue. It's really nothing but an ad hominem attack. It's not ad hominem if its true. We can't be talking about anything except vitalism and as one of the most enthusiastic apologists of the idea on this list I'm surprised you consider the term an insult. We use certain materials for computer chips and not hamsters Because (you think) hamsters have some sort of horseshit vital force that computer chips lack. organic chemistry, biology, zoology, and anthropology present dramatic qualitative breakthroughs in elaboration of sense. That's exactly what I'm talking about, vitalism; a idea that sucked when it was all the rage in the 18'th century and suckes even more so today. This is not vitalism. How would your above idea be any different if it were vitalism?? Clearly you believe that organic chemistry has something that computer chips lack; perhaps you don't like the phrase vital life force for that difference and prefer some other euphemism, but it amounts to the same thing. Programs can and do produce outcomes that are not directly anticipated by the programmer Absolutely! but that these outcomes are trivial If they could only do trivial stuff computers would not have become a multitrillion dollar industry that has revolutionized the modern world. Conway's game of life can produce a new kind of glider, but it can't come up with the invention of Elvis Presley, Not true. You can make a Turing Machine out of things other than a long paper tape, you can make one out of the game of life by using the gliders to send information; and if you started with the correct initial conditions you could have a game of life Turing Machine instruct matter how to move so that the matter was indistinguishable from the flesh and blood king of rock and roll. We only use materials which are subject to absolute control by outside intervention and behave in an absolutely automatic way to sustain those introduced controls. Living organisms are very much the opposite of that The opposite of automatic way is random way. 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: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote: It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to imply that machines could think, only that the closest we could come would be to construct machines that would be good at playing The Imitation Game. No you are entirely incorrect, that is not worth mentioning. There is no difference between arithmetic and simulated arithmetic and no difference between thinking and imitation thinking. I have used the example of a trashcan lid in a fast food place that says THANK YOU. And when a employee of a fast food restaurant says THANK YOU to the 47'th customer for the 47'th time in the last hour he puts about as much thought into the message as the trash can did. 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: No Chinese Room Necessary
On 8/29/2012 3:21 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 2:24:45 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote: Hi Craig But what you are saying here is true for each and every individual observer; it is a 1p duality, along the lines of a figure/frame relation. We have to consider multiple observers, each with this property and see how components , in the entanglement frame, in one observer, A maps onto a component in the spatial frame of observer B and vise versa. Hi Stephen, I am thinking that it's like this. As an outsider to the Chinese language, I can't recognize the significance of the difference between one character or word and another. As an outsider to the world of modern kids, I can't recognize the difference between one brand of toy and another or one style of shoe and another. The information entropy is high. It seems like I could substitute any new shoe and it should serve the same purpose - but of course, that's because I'm not young and cool so I don't know what is cool. I have to take the kids word for it. Hi Craig, You are on fire today! Nice! I like this real world example, but I am a bit fuzzy on how you are seeing it. Let me do my interpretation/reaction and see where it takes us. The lack of recognition is something important as it can show us how bisimulations are almost never a single step process. More often than not we have to go through several steps to, for this instance, knowing what the cool shoe is. This implies that more resources are required for strange objects to be recognized as opposed to fewer resources to recognize the familiar ones. This same principle is what we are dealing with in our conception of matter and space. We have to rely on the reports of our body to us about its world. We are getting a consensus of organs, tissues, cells, molecules and coming up with an anthropologically-appropriate sense of scale and space. Now we have extended those body reports to include other instruments which give us a prosthetic enhancement to our sense of scale and space into the microcosm and macro-universe. Sure. This extension has given us a peek behind our direct range of space and scale and into realms of unexpected unities (quantum entanglement for example, particle/wave duality, vacuum flux, etc) so that we are getting more of an insider's view of the universe that we are not directly inside of. Umm, this is wandering off topic a little. The pointed question is how does the duality on each individual maps between many such individuals? This is how interaction, IMHO, is to be represented. The point about QM is important because the mutual commutativity rule is very important! For a given set of interacting/measuring/observing entities, their set of incontrovertible facts is strictly limited to observables in mutually commuting bases. For example, I cannot measure position data of a set of electrons and you measure momentum data on the same set of electrons if there is the possibility that we can share data. Mutual commutativity acts as a filter on what is the same 3p object. It is interesting to note that classical physics assumes that all observable bases commute... Newton et al never considered saw the need to consider the non-commutative case. As for mapping components onto each other's frames, the frames are already the manifestation of all components separation from unity with each other. Yes, that's true, but there is more detail to how the separation goes. There is something like a path and a distance between them and unity that can be exploited. My thought is that the path might be defined on the graph of all of the components relative to each other. From my research these graphs are ultrametric and non-archimedean in the absolute sense, so the usual graph ideas don't quite apply. This article explains the critical difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Archimedean_time The trick is the inclusion of event horizons that act to hide the infinitely distance parts. This shows up as limited forgetfulness of residuation in Pratt's dualism idea. Like tickling yourself doesn't work because on some level you know exactly when you are going to try to tickle yourself. It isn't that you have a model of a tickler of people and a tickled person and they interfere with each other when you try to tickle yourself - there isn't any model at all. When someone tickles you it is precisely because you can't anticipate their action that the sensation of being tickled becomes possible. Right, but consider the schizophrenic that is operating out of synch between his hand movements and his perceptions of the sensations. He would be able to convincingly tickle himself but not recognize that those are his hands that are doing the tickling. Space is like that. It is matter being tickled by matter that is not itself. No, its just
Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 8:07 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: If a computer could compute new knowledge, how would you know whether it is new or not, or even what it means ? This is called the translation problem. If a person could create new knowledge, how would you know whether it is new or not, or even what it means? This is called the bullshit problem. 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: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
What is DNA if not software? On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: Hi Richard Ruquist Pre-ordained is a religious position And we aren't controlled by software. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 8/29/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - *From:* Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com *Time:* 2012-08-29, 07:37:02 *Subject:* Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence Roger, Do you think that humans do not function in accord with pre-ordained hardware and software? Richard On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote: ROGER: Hi Bruno Marchal I don't agree. Machines must function according to their software and hardware, neither of which are their own. BRUNO: A robot can already answer questions ,and talk, about its own software and hardware. The language Smalltalk makes this explicit by a command self, but this can be done in all programming language by the use of a famous diagonalization trick, which I sum up often by: if Dx gives xx, then DD gives DD. DD gives a description of itself. You get self-duplicators and other self-referential construct by generalization of that constructive diagonal. A famous theorem by Kleene justifies its existence for all universal systems. � ROGER:燛ither the operation follows pre-established rules or it does not. � If any operation follows rules, then it cannot come up with anything new, it is merely following instructions so that any such result can be traced back in principle to some algorithm. � If any operation does not follow rules, it can only generate gibberish. Which is to say that synthetic statements cannot be generated by analytic thought. More below, but I will stop here for now. -- Did the robot design its hardware ? No. So it is constrained by the hardware. Did the robot write the original software that can self-construct (presumably according to some rules of construction) ? No. And so, machines cannot do anything not intended by the software author in his software program and constrained by the hardware. What you are missing here is the aspect of free will or at least partly free will. Intelligence is the ability to make choices on one's own. That means freely, of its own free will. Following no rules of logic. Transcending logic, not limited by it. BRUNO:� Do you really believe that Mandelbrot expected the Mandelbrot set? He said itself that it has come as a surprise, despite years of observation of fractals in nature. � ROGER:� OK, it came intuitively, freely,爃e did not arrive at it 燽y logic, although it no doubt has its own logic. BRUNO: Very simple program (simple meaning few Ks), can lead to tremendously complex behavior. If you understand the basic of computer science, you understand that by building universal machine, we just don't know what we are doing. To keep them slaves will be the hard work, and the wrong work. � This was the issue you brought up before, which at that time I thought was miraculous, the Holy Grail I had been seeking. But on reflection, I no longer believe that.牋IMHO anything that燼燾omputer does still must follow its own internal logic, contrained by its爃ardware constraints and the constraint of its language, even if those calculations are of infinite complexity. Nothing magical can happen. There ought to be a theorem showing that that must be true.� So machines cannot make autonomous decisions, they can only make decisions intended by the software programmer. BRUNO: You hope. Bruno Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net +rclo...@verizon.net 8/28/2012 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything could function. - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-08-27, 09:52:32 Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence On 27 Aug 2012, at 13:07, Roger Clough wrote: Hi meekerdb IMHO I don't think that computers can have intelligence because intelligence consists of at least one ability: the ability to make autonomous choices (choices completely of one's own). Computers can do nothing on their own, they can only do what softward and harfdware tells them to do. Another, closely related, reason, is that there must be an agent that does the choosing, and IMHO the agent has to be separate from the system. Godel, perhaps, I speculate. I will never insist on this enough. All the G?el's stuff shows that machines are very well suited for autonomy. In a sense, most of applied computer science is used to help
Re: No Chinese Room Necessary
From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me recommend a distinction. Moral is what I expect of myself. Ethics is what I do and what I hope other people will do in their interactions with other people. They of course tend to overlap since I will be ashamed of myself if I cheat someone, so it's both immoral and unethical. But they are not the same. If I spent my time smoking pot and not working I'd be disappointed in myself, but it wouldn't be unethical. Brent On 8/29/2012 8:54 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote: Not only to lie. In order to commerce and in general to interact, we need to know what to expect from whom. and the other need to know what the others expect form me. So I have to reflect on myself in order to act in the enviromnent of the moral and material expectations that others have about me. This is the origin of reflective individuality, that is moral from the beginning.. 2012/8/29 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net But Craig makes a point when he says computers only deal in words. That's why something having human like intelligence and consciousness must be a robot, something that can act wordlessly in it's environment. Evolutionarily speaking, conscious narrative is an add-on on top of subconscious thought which is responsible for almost everything we do. Julian Jaynes theorized that humans did not become conscious in the modern sense until they engaged in inter-tribal commerce and it became important to learn to lie. 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: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
On 8/29/2012 9:02 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Research on this is ambiguous and ideologically freighted, but you put your finger on the right spot with: though maybe not as much. Because given all the toxic compounds from burning carbon based plant matter, the question is why the smoking cannabis leads to lung cancer evidence is much more of a mixed bag and less clear, than it ought to be, compared with tobacco smoking. This gap in the figures between regular tobacco users and pure cannabis smokers, allows for the plausible conjecture that there is an anti-cancerous effect (of Cannabis in your bloodstream, irrespective of method of admin; of course smoking augments risk).. I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively affect cancer cells. Survey the studies, these harms are minute compared to risky legal behavior, such as tobacco, alcohol etc. The great harm of marijuana and cocaine comes from enforcing laws against them - ruining people's lives by trials and prison, funding gangs and smuggling. I expect they are harmful to some people as is alcohol, but that's small relative to the social cost of law enforcement. Brent Prof. David Nutt's work on harm assessment is particularly interesting for anyone wanting a large scale and broad assessment of harms of different drugs in comparison. I think even NIDA found an anti-cancerous effect in their 2006 report, while other studies note the opposite. This is less clear than people think. m -- 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
But there are no infinities at any give state - only potential infinities. Of course that also implies that you are never complete, since at any given state in the UD there still remain infinitely many computations that will, in later steps, go through the states instantiating you. Brent On 8/29/2012 9:04 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's an infinity of computations that generate my state. I suppose it comes down to the ordinality of the infinities involved. Terren Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of you is very small, but non-zero. But we already knew that. 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: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 8/29/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: It's worth mentioning that Turing did not intend his test to imply that machines could think, only that the closest we could come would be to construct machines that would be good at playing The Imitation Game. No you are entirely incorrect, that is not worth mentioning. There is no difference between arithmetic and simulated arithmetic and no difference between thinking and imitation thinking. I have used the example of a trashcan lid in a fast food place that says THANK YOU. And when a employee of a fast food restaurant says THANK YOU to the 47'th customer for the 47'th time in the last hour he puts about as much thought into the message as the trash can did. John K Clark -- Hi Craig, John C. Has a very good point here. The difference is in the framing. -- Onward! Stephen http://webpages.charter.net/stephenk1/Outlaw/Outlaw.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.
Re: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
Brent wrote: *I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively affect cancer cells.* * *Sorry, this is no argument. You (or any later chap) may learn later-on knowledge beyond our present inventory. Besides: e.g. *Iodo Uracyl* attacks (cancer-) tumor cells selectively, used mostly in dermatology. Is it unique??? Your second par is perfect. Thank you JohnM On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:37 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/29/2012 9:02 AM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote: Research on this is ambiguous and ideologically freighted, but you put your finger on the right spot with: though maybe not as much. Because given all the toxic compounds from burning carbon based plant matter, the question is why the smoking cannabis leads to lung cancer evidence is much more of a mixed bag and less clear, than it ought to be, compared with tobacco smoking. This gap in the figures between regular tobacco users and pure cannabis smokers, allows for the plausible conjecture that there is an anti-cancerous effect (of Cannabis in your bloodstream, irrespective of method of admin; of course smoking augments risk).. I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively affect cancer cells. Survey the studies, these harms are minute compared to risky legal behavior, such as tobacco, alcohol etc. The great harm of marijuana and cocaine comes from enforcing laws against them - ruining people's lives by trials and prison, funding gangs and smuggling. I expect they are harmful to some people as is alcohol, but that's small relative to the social cost of law enforcement. Brent Prof. David Nutt's work on harm assessment is particularly interesting for anyone wanting a large scale and broad assessment of harms of different drugs in comparison. I think even NIDA found an anti-cancerous effect in their 2006 report, while other studies note the opposite. This is less clear than people think. m -- 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.**comeverything-list@googlegroups.com . To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscribe@ **googlegroups.com everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/** group/everything-list?hl=enhttp://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: No Chinese Room Necessary
On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:12 PM, Stephen P. King stephe...@charter.netwrote: Hi Craig, You are on fire today! Nice! I like this real world example, but I am a bit fuzzy on how you are seeing it. Let me do my interpretation/reaction and see where it takes us. The lack of recognition is something important as it can show us how bisimulations are almost never a single step process. More often than not we have to go through several steps to, for this instance, knowing what the cool shoe is. This implies that more resources are required for strange objects to be recognized as opposed to fewer resources to recognize the familiar ones. I could go either way on the resource issue. In practice, trying to read Chinese takes more resources if I try to read it or perhaps if I am frustrated and trying to suppress my trying to read it. If I ignore the Chinese instead, then of course it uses less resources. When this happens at a lower level of my perception, I may not really even see the Chinese characters as something worth looking at. You may be talking about a more defined 'information processing' view though. This same principle is what we are dealing with in our conception of matter and space. We have to rely on the reports of our body to us about its world. We are getting a consensus of organs, tissues, cells, molecules and coming up with an anthropologically-appropriate sense of scale and space. Now we have extended those body reports to include other instruments which give us a prosthetic enhancement to our sense of scale and space into the microcosm and macro-universe. Sure. This extension has given us a peek behind our direct range of space and scale and into realms of unexpected unities (quantum entanglement for example, particle/wave duality, vacuum flux, etc) so that we are getting more of an insider's view of the universe that we are not directly inside of. Umm, this is wandering off topic a little. The pointed question is how does the duality on each individual maps between many such individuals? This is how interaction, IMHO, is to be represented. What I am trying to say is that while it is necessary for us to feel each finger as a part of our hand, each finger does not have to model its neighboring fingers because they are all part of the same hand. It's one consciousness that is being all limbs, fingers, and toes at the same time. What I'm saying about space though is that ultimately there is no models being simulated, it is the particular definition of the separation which is being simulated. We are the hand on the inside but when we look out, all we see are separate fingers. In the absolute sense, nothing is separate, only diffracted. Our entire existence is partially diverged-converging, and partially converged-diverging. The point about QM is important because the mutual commutativity rule is very important! For a given set of interacting/measuring/observing entities, their set of incontrovertible facts is strictly limited to observables in mutually commuting bases. For example, I cannot measure position data of a set of electrons and you measure momentum data on the same set of electrons if there is the possibility that we can share data. Mutual commutativity acts as a filter on what is the same 3p object. It is interesting to note that classical physics assumes that all observable bases commute... Newton et al never considered saw the need to consider the non-commutative case. I think that the whole standard model is, in an absolute sense, inside-out. Electrons are not particles but sensitivity modes which seem particulate to our instruments because we are using their exteriors specifically to externalize/objectify the events. QM measures that objectification of matter interacting with itself from the outside. As for mapping components onto each other's frames, the frames are already the manifestation of all components separation from unity with each other. Yes, that's true, but there is more detail to how the separation goes. There is something like a path and a distance between them and unity that can be exploited. My thought is that the path might be defined on the graph of all of the components relative to each other. From my research these graphs are ultrametric and non-archimedean in the absolute sense, so the usual graph ideas don't quite apply. This article explains the critical difference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Archimedean_time The trick is the inclusion of event horizons that act to hide the infinitely distance parts. This shows up as limited forgetfulness of residuation in Pratt's dualism idea. I'm not sure if I am getting the non-Archimedean concept. It sounds like a Zeno paradox which divides time instead of space. My view of space is that it exists on some levels of description of the universe and not
Fwd: [math-fun] Turing machine gives order to chaotic Penrose universe
Original Message FYI -- http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2-turing-machine-gives-order-to-chaotic-penrose-universe.html New Scientist Physics Math Turing machine gives order to chaotic Penrose universe 15:23 29 August 2012 by Jacob Aron A theoretical computer built in a mixed-up mathematical universe might not sound like the most practical invention. But the discovery shows that computation can turn up in the most unlikely places, which in turn might spur more realistic models of physical and chemical processes. The computer is what's known as a universal Turing machine, a theoretical construct invented by mathematician Alan Turing that's capable of simulating any computer algorithm. The computers we use today are approximations of Turing's idealised machine. Katsunobu Imai at Hiroshima University in Japan and colleagues have found a way to bring Turing's computational order to an irregular universe based on Penrose tiles – a feat that was considered highly improbable until now. Named after mathematician Roger Penrose, the tiling is an arrangement of two four-sided shapes called a kite and a dart, which covers a two-dimensional plane, without repeating, to create a constantly shifting pattern. The team used this mathematical playing field to make a cellular automaton, a two-dimensional universe in which patterns of cells evolve to create complex structures. The most famous cellular automaton is the Game of Life, a grid of identical square cells that can either be alive or dead. Players have created universal Turing machines in the Game of Life's orderly, two-state universe. But making one work in a more chaotic Penrose universe presented a greater challenge to Imai's team. Wired tiles The scientists constructed logic gates for their universal Turing machine by assigning one of eight different states to each Penrose tile, with the states changing over time according to a few simple rules. Tiles in the first state act as wires that transmit signals between the logic gates, with the signal itself consisting of either a front or back state. Four other states manage the redirecting of the signal within the logic gates, while the final state is simply an unused background to keep the various states separate. At first it wasn't clear whether Imai's team would be able to keep their logic gates wired together, as the gates can only appear in certain places where the tiles come together in the right way. However, the team found that a long enough wire would always make the connection, proving that a universal Turing machine is possible in the Penrose universe. Imai will present the work next month at the Automata conference in La Marana on the French island of Corsica. More natural modelling Earlier this month, researchers also made the unexpected discovery of a highly repetitive object called a glider in the Penrose universeMovie Camera. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn22134-first-gliders-navigate-everchanging-penrose-universe.html Gliders actually form the basis for a universal Turing machine in the Game of Life, shuttling information around in place of wires. Imai didn't know about the Penrose glider at the time, so he was forced to take an alternative approach. Susan Stepney, a computer scientist at the University of York, UK, says Imai's creation is not very practical as it requires a theoretically infinite number of cells to function. Still, Imai says he was inspired to try and make a universal Turing machine because he wanted to probe the limits of complexity in a Penrose universe. Just showing that it's possible could open the door to other, more useful applications, he says. Cellular automata are widely used for modelling physical and chemical phenomena, but sometimes the resulting patterns are quite artificial, he explains. While grid-based patterns don't really reflect the natural world, the irregular patterns in Penrose tiling could provide a better model. Journal reference: arxiv.org/abs/1208.2771v1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1208.2771v1 ___ math-fun mailing list math-...@mailman.xmission.com http://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun -- 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: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
On 8/29/2012 2:15 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent wrote: /I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively affect cancer cells./ / /Sorry, this is no argument. You (or any later chap) may learn later-on knowledge beyond our present inventory. And that would be a good reason to think differently later-on. But not now. 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: Final Evidence: Cannabis causes neuropsychological decline
Try a google search for: thc anti cancer There are numerous articles done by different groups that support this theory. Jason On Aug 29, 2012, at 6:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: On 8/29/2012 2:15 PM, John Mikes wrote: Brent wrote: I can think of no plausible mechanism whereby cannabis could selectively affect cancer cells. Sorry, this is no argument. You (or any later chap) may learn later- on knowledge beyond our present inventory. And that would be a good reason to think differently later-on. But not now. 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with regard to any particular state of the UD - one can imagine that all computations have been performed in a timeless way. If so, it follows that the state that corresponds to my mind at this moment has an infinite number of instantiations in the UD (regardless of some arbitrary current state of the UD). In fact this is the only way I can make sense of the reversal, where physics emerges from the infinite computations going through my state. Otherwise, I think the physics that emerges would depend in a contigent way on the particulars of how the UD unfolds. Whether the infinities involved with my current state are of the same ordinality as the infinitie of all computations, I'm not sure. But I think if it was a lesser infinity, so that the probability of my state being instantiated did approach zero in the limit, then my interpretation above would imply that the probability of my existence is actually zero. Which is a contradiction. Terren On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote: But there are no infinities at any give state - only potential infinities. Of course that also implies that you are never complete, since at any given state in the UD there still remain infinitely many computations that will, in later steps, go through the states instantiating you. Brent On 8/29/2012 9:04 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's an infinity of computations that generate my state. I suppose it comes down to the ordinality of the infinities involved. Terren Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of you is very small, but non-zero. But we already knew that. 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. -- 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: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers
On 8/29/2012 7:40 PM, Terren Suydam wrote: hmmm, my interpretation is that in platonia, all computations, all the potential infinities of computations, have the same ontological status. Meaning, there's nothing meaningful that can be said with regard to any particular state of the UD - one can imagine that all computations have been performed in a timeless way. If so, it follows that the state that corresponds to my mind at this moment has an infinite number of instantiations in the UD (regardless of some arbitrary current state of the UD). In fact this is the only way I can make sense of the reversal, where physics emerges from the infinite computations going through my state. Otherwise, I think the physics that emerges would depend in a contigent way on the particulars of how the UD unfolds. Whether the infinities involved with my current state are of the same ordinality as the infinitie of all computations, I'm not sure. But I think if it was a lesser infinity, so that the probability of my state being instantiated did approach zero in the limit, then my interpretation above would imply that the probability of my existence is actually zero. Which is a contradiction. You may be right. I we think of the UD as existing in Platonia, then we might as well think of it's computations as completed. I don't think that your probability having measure zero implies you can't exist. The number pi has zero measure on the real line, but it still exists. Brent Terren On Wed, Aug 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net wrote: But there are no infinities at any give state - only potential infinities. Of course that also implies that you are never complete, since at any given state in the UD there still remain infinitely many computations that will, in later steps, go through the states instantiating you. Brent On 8/29/2012 9:04 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: It may not even be zero in the limit, since there's an infinity of computations that generate my state. I suppose it comes down to the ordinality of the infinities involved. Terren Not zero, only zero in the limit of completing the infinite computations. So at any stage short the infinite completion the probability of you is very small, but non-zero. But we already knew that. 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. -- 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.
