date:20120830

I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days.

Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer:

Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto-phage
(eating themselves):

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper)

And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I
did'nt belive it, until the spanish rediscovered this:

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm

http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/

Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those
combination are known to be addictive, but there is no statistical
evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you Quentin, it uses can be
dangerous, but the use of windows too.

Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs.
The one found have been debunked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count up
to 173 cancers where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe video
provides indivvidual witnessing also, notably on babies like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcI5tWYr6do

Bruno

On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:26, meekerdb 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
.

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.

RIES


Bruno and some others on the list may find this inverse equation solver amusing

http://mrob.com/pub/ries/index.html

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.

Jeremiah, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-d9d23053f9-gOeBAPnTS6-xfw9j7deIQwS9HBY?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-d9d23053f9-gOeBAPnTS6-xfw9j7deIQwS9HBY?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Susan, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-9e6c217dff-BSKeTRifn1Se5nqXP2B31IEZIMY?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-9e6c217dff-BSKeTRifn1Se5nqXP2B31IEZIMY?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Harry, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-673922f365-XVEWHggLEfIyW4kxY0jTx5HV35c?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-673922f365-XVEWHggLEfIyW4kxY0jTx5HV35c?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Lance, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-5e3db8df36-F6W1ZAQXzJIP1mjsgr90ETq-frw?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-5e3db8df36-F6W1ZAQXzJIP1mjsgr90ETq-frw?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Marna, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-69b058a53a-5uJbJgzg4Iwp0i3Nv7zG0j3c6pU?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-69b058a53a-5uJbJgzg4Iwp0i3Nv7zG0j3c6pU?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Miguel, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-65df2d7f3e-_AIb_hsk9eq1IoFHBdEcLOzsEpc?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-65df2d7f3e-_AIb_hsk9eq1IoFHBdEcLOzsEpc?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Mike, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-cc61892a0f-VkCs7BF6I_1Aq5C7SX-mEwVA4ws?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-cc61892a0f-VkCs7BF6I_1Aq5C7SX-mEwVA4ws?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Edna, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-75a4977f15-zhSuai2A2Hj-felFSdlb3bnpYwA?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-75a4977f15-zhSuai2A2Hj-felFSdlb3bnpYwA?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Hilary, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-f1401bb16d-ZUxaL9wAjr1DGZGYom4AoqHKXIM?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-f1401bb16d-ZUxaL9wAjr1DGZGYom4AoqHKXIM?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Gina, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-e38febb1bd-2Vlol3w1aJuezrmpfFm1OKMsP-w?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-e38febb1bd-2Vlol3w1aJuezrmpfFm1OKMsP-w?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Jamal, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-017e47d2ac-h4N0SSNGSdXVoo457cX9SE5eDak?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-017e47d2ac-h4N0SSNGSdXVoo457cX9SE5eDak?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Joshua, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-70fe27a267-xzz0eb15jRaDPnic-iEDEtgLLYY?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-70fe27a267-xzz0eb15jRaDPnic-iEDEtgLLYY?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Bernie, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-d422293acd-fjp7EFZ8LebPQm5g1x8dIa0aGCQ?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-d422293acd-fjp7EFZ8LebPQm5g1x8dIa0aGCQ?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Ossa, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-90db775af4-WRmDS2b2uFtr3_W9QFpS_GkHYFc?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-90db775af4-WRmDS2b2uFtr3_W9QFpS_GkHYFc?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Vince, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-06743ee186-kqfB9GvuM93_ddKd3uEN2yi6IQ0?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-06743ee186-kqfB9GvuM93_ddKd3uEN2yi6IQ0?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Linda, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-e0eb1e3f0d-VSK0d_IrCxbtJZ8Bm5AJcs5T9pM?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-e0eb1e3f0d-VSK0d_IrCxbtJZ8Bm5AJcs5T9pM?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Gio, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-3748098257-c4Kif5q1HoMW5PbQYM0TAb6gYrI?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-3748098257-c4Kif5q1HoMW5PbQYM0TAb6gYrI?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Renault, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-172956545c-s4D8rhU5X1ok1Vy3McL7Oywf7sI?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-172956545c-s4D8rhU5X1ok1Vy3McL7Oywf7sI?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Perry, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-69484c868e-ndHHmOLEuNzov11tH9KQy_idB5E?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-69484c868e-ndHHmOLEuNzov11tH9KQy_idB5E?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Missa, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-a4d071ca01-aVfGRvvJNA3G3vXcqoQuol9G6ts?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-a4d071ca01-aVfGRvvJNA3G3vXcqoQuol9G6ts?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Greg, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-417c9cff17--ksGS2vym28H5hNqSKUtPu1dC3U?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-417c9cff17--ksGS2vym28H5hNqSKUtPu1dC3U?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Barry, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-f07c3c6021-liuj6KxROS0ts1j8N62E8jgDCo4?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-f07c3c6021-liuj6KxROS0ts1j8N62E8jgDCo4?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Tina, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-2133044df1-WuUdjWTPY2TP0kb0etmAD6L19tI?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-2133044df1-WuUdjWTPY2TP0kb0etmAD6L19tI?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Everett, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-b721ac888e-sKIum7MHxVcSwBFfmy5RfqTx7jM?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-b721ac888e-sKIum7MHxVcSwBFfmy5RfqTx7jM?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Bret, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-a7c053de6c-QkRm512TB2Aenp9ZMeh5LSRAa6g?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-a7c053de6c-QkRm512TB2Aenp9ZMeh5LSRAa6g?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Janie, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-fe7cf42625-cKmxvxDUN3u6gT7KKTAAt-lAmp8?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-fe7cf42625-cKmxvxDUN3u6gT7KKTAAt-lAmp8?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Opal, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-3a2e546b27-Hz7TsVF4YBjPxta22Lis5VRutL8?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-3a2e546b27-Hz7TsVF4YBjPxta22Lis5VRutL8?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Io, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-b3bb175b82-gMTF3Vy0LUYpqAx_BWRsUDl7ctA?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-b3bb175b82-gMTF3Vy0LUYpqAx_BWRsUDl7ctA?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Georgine, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-69ecf8bf5f-WKbeNCIvys8OHVRd0DVhTR6eW5c?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-69ecf8bf5f-WKbeNCIvys8OHVRd0DVhTR6eW5c?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Fran, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-d1614a0415-LBwHLjvnEJGHxyzHsIckpMuOOJk?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-d1614a0415-LBwHLjvnEJGHxyzHsIckpMuOOJk?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Serina, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-719bbe89ea-t4ko9Y2bT1hiU59wUct9G9qWHYU?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-719bbe89ea-t4ko9Y2bT1hiU59wUct9G9qWHYU?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Reginald, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-e39dfca7e1-iBaN55mNYkp1-tZQOopNGRAKbXc?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-e39dfca7e1-iBaN55mNYkp1-tZQOopNGRAKbXc?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Cierra, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-01c23483c8-uUDlx1y-wRK2uw396-_tWzGhDoY?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-01c23483c8-uUDlx1y-wRK2uw396-_tWzGhDoY?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Xavier, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-ed2cf5ac45-XxRMAjcx4DAOsNPB_npcsrTZFjM?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-ed2cf5ac45-XxRMAjcx4DAOsNPB_npcsrTZFjM?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Jason, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-aa5698823c-gS6sIzsFfDjyKUrUGAh0tLT37L4?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-aa5698823c-gS6sIzsFfDjyKUrUGAh0tLT37L4?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Popo, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-a4fcf787a5-PkHXMU8HQVQbzif4sVFkqgksWio?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-a4fcf787a5-PkHXMU8HQVQbzif4sVFkqgksWio?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Weston, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-db03b55142-zMrahl4C5Jne2uZjFRpALq740dk?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-db03b55142-zMrahl4C5Jne2uZjFRpALq740dk?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Quincy, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-0be4ec11f2-L51eovy2uvU5Cr9vqGlVL_sO07M?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-0be4ec11f2-L51eovy2uvU5Cr9vqGlVL_sO07M?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Zach, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-207170136e-bA1o7hWflMCZsOP-c5l6fy-ntg0?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-207170136e-bA1o7hWflMCZsOP-c5l6fy-ntg0?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Lisa, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-c0ea03d57b-bBYQgS8iKY3L1EAR_12haOY70yY?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-c0ea03d57b-bBYQgS8iKY3L1EAR_12haOY70yY?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Bo, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-3df93f63bd-23nsfSb_0nbx7r1WzAENFMTcVX8?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-3df93f63bd-23nsfSb_0nbx7r1WzAENFMTcVX8?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Ana, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-48455622e9-wdvYwxB3E90gJI9NK1kNGdesUb0?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-48455622e9-wdvYwxB3E90gJI9NK1kNGdesUb0?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Sonny, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-abbc0bfef0-lB0gUYv09yyMl0e6sIj-RWZCj-Y?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-abbc0bfef0-lB0gUYv09yyMl0e6sIj-RWZCj-Y?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

David, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-d62096022e-EHXFd31iSmrRrGWhz8l938lWqIw?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-d62096022e-EHXFd31iSmrRrGWhz8l938lWqIw?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Homer, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-275faaacc3-Ur-DlLgpVY8BtJF_3spXG6gM2Ds?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-275faaacc3-Ur-DlLgpVY8BtJF_3spXG6gM2Ds?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Cici, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-c9c4510a5c-4IrCbAIaSpdLtuwo56jMZuiT3uQ?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-c9c4510a5c-4IrCbAIaSpdLtuwo56jMZuiT3uQ?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Levi, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-5fac0ee63b-fUu2iDSa4iMKhKSjDFHSWn-d6Ao?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-5fac0ee63b-fUu2iDSa4iMKhKSjDFHSWn-d6Ao?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Deena, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account

I've been using Gmail and thought you might like to try it out. Here's an
invitation to create an account.

You're Invited to Gmail!

Bob L. Crompton, Jr. has invited you to open a Gmail account.

Gmail is Google's free email service, built on the idea that email can be
intuitive, efficient, and fun. Gmail has:

*Less spam*
Keep unwanted messages out of your inbox with Google's innovative
technology.

*Lots of space*
Enough storage so that you'll never have to delete another message.

*Built-in chat*
Text or video chat with Bob L. Crompton, Jr. and other friends in real time.

*Mobile access*
Get your email anywhere with Gmail on your mobile phone.

You can even import your contacts and email from Yahoo!, Hotmail, AOL, or
any other web mail or POP accounts.

Once you create your account, Bob L. Crompton, Jr. will be notified of your
new Gmail address so you can stay in touch. Learn
morehttp://mail.google.com/mail/help/intl/en/about.htmlor get
startedhttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-bb5f9c8351-ER3l2mOSwDsrqkRFEZJUy4wgUDY?pc=en-rf---a
!
Sign
uphttp://mail.google.com/mail/a-f9f6082e2f-bb5f9c8351-ER3l2mOSwDsrqkRFEZJUy4wgUDY?pc=en-rf---a

Google Inc. | 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway | Mountain View, California 94043

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

2012-08-30 Thread Terren Suydam

That's true, it is not a contradiction. However, from a Bayesian
perspective one must favor the alternative that gives one's a
existence a non-zero measure.

Terren

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:21 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
 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.


-- 
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 John Clark 

No, presumably each software program is different.
So the machine is still controlled in various ways  by the programmer.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 13:42:26
Subject: 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?eyond 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?oker 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.

-- 
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

Hi John Clark 

Vitalism is simply life.  Otherwise an organism or whatever is dead.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 15:54:47
Subject: 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.

-- 
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.

What is thinking ?

Hi John Clark 

Please define the term thinking.
What is thinking ?


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 16:10:20
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg 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




-- 
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: What is thinking ?

2012-08-30 Thread Brian Tenneson

Thinking implies a progression of time.  So perhaps it is equally important
to define time.

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi John Clark

 Please define the term thinking.
 What is thinking ?


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/30/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 16:10:20
 *Subject:* 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.

  --
 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: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Hi William R. Buckley 

OK, DNA is wetware If you like.

But I am conscious, as are all living entities, and
that's the 1p problem, as I understand it, even for a bacterium,
and that cannot be solved because it is indeterminate.

To be alive, one must be able to think on one's own, 
to be able to make choices on one's own, not choices
made by soft- or wetware. 

To have intelligence, one must have a self, 
and software cannot even emulate that.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
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: 2012-08-29, 13:22:31
Subject: 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 
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,

Re: Re: What is thinking ?

Hi Brian Tenneson 

Thought itself, IMHO, is beyond spacetime.
It belongs to that Platonic realm to which the
circumstances of time are wholly irrelevant.

But the brain is not. Perhaps it is something like
a fishing line and hook waiting for something
of interest or useful in the sea of thought 
to become esnared on it.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Brian Tenneson 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 11:16:13
Subject: Re: What is thinking ?


Thinking implies a progression of time.  So perhaps it is equally important to 
define time.


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi John Clark 
 
Please define the term thinking.
What is thinking ?
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 16:10:20
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg 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




-- 
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.

-- 
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

Wouldn't that alternative be one in which there are only a finite number of possible 
persons?...e.g. materialism.


Bren

On 8/30/2012 7:49 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:

That's true, it is not a contradiction. However, from a Bayesian
perspective one must favor the alternative that gives one's a
existence a non-zero measure.

Terren

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:21 AM, meekerdbmeeke...@verizon.net  wrote:

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.



--
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 Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:54:49 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012  Craig Weinberg whats...@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. 


No, it doesn't matter what names you call someone, or whether you think 
they are true, the point is that name calling is not a logical argument and 
that it derails the discussion.
 

 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. 


It is because that you say that I have something to do with defending 
vitalism that I know you don't understand my ideas. There is nothing 
special about organic matter that makes life possible. There is nothing 
about matter that makes anything possible. It is the sense that is made 
through matter that makes things possible, and that sense has qualitative 
potentials which are represented in particular ways. The way that 
biological qualities are represented in space and matter is as living 
cells, tissues, and living bodies. Being cell like doesn't make something 
alive, being alive leaves a cell like footprint.
 


  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. 


Um, no. Because you can't control hamsters. I don't care if hamsters were 
made of cobalt and zinc, you can't make a computer out of them because they 
have their own agenda that you can't effectively control. I don't want to 
sink to your level, but if you continue with your false accusations and ad 
hominem horseshit, the I'm not going to bother with you.
 

  

  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.  


Your opinions about what sucks might be interesting to some people. You 
should find them. To say that there is a qualitative breakthrough between 
biology and zoology is vitalist how? I would say that the qualitative bump 
from single cell to animal is even more significant than the bump from 
molecule to cell, or atom to molecule. I am talking about a punctuated 
equilibrium of scale and history, not a categorization of substances.


  This is not vitalism.


 How would your above idea be any different if it were vitalism?? 


Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by 
biological organisms and others that are not. There would be no bump from 
cell to animal to human being, or even from molecule to cell - vitalism 
would be that living cells are composed of life-giving molecules which are 
fundamentally different from non life-giving molecules. I'm not saying that 
at all. I am saying that you can have all the organic chemistry you like 
and you still won't get cells unless the molecules themselves figure out 
how to make them. I don't say that silicon can't make cells, only that they 
haven't so far, and that if we force silicon to act like cells, they won't 
be the same as organic cells which generate themselves naturally.

 

 Clearly you believe that organic chemistry has something that computer 
 chips lack; 


Clearly you believe that there is nothing that a ham sandwich has that a 
bag of sand lacks.
 

 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.


No, it is not the same thing in any way. I am specifically saying that 
there are no forces or fields in the universe. None. Not literally anyhow. 
No more than there is a force which stops my car at a red light. There is 
only sense: perception and participation on different levels of qualitative 
depth.


  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.   


That's like saying 'If soft drinks were just carbonated sugar water with 
drugs in it, they wouldn't have become a  multibillion dollar industry 
It's a fallacy and a misrepresentation of my comment. I didn't ever say 
that computers can only 'do trivial stuff', only that their capacity to 
exceed the constraints of their programming is trivial. Computers have 
capacities that far exceed our own, but only in some respects and not 
others. They are good at doing boring repetitive shit that we can't stand 
doing. Why are they good at it? Because they are unbelievably stupid. They 
will compute Pi to the last digit until they corrode just because someone 
accidentally

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:43:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

  On 8/29/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:
  
 On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg 
 whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
  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.   


Incorrect about what? Are you saying that Turing asserted that machines 
could think, or that if we could not tell the difference between a machine 
and a living person that means there is no difference?
 


   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.


Absolutely. The repetition makes it...automatic, and therefore 
disingenuous, mechanical. Unconscious. 


   John K Clark
  

  --

 Hi Craig,

 John C. Has a very good point here. The difference is in the framing.


Nah, his point is a conflation of appearances and reality. Like this 
sentence. It is not a thought. It is not speaking. I am using these empty 
forms to communicate my thought, my speaking. He is saying that if my 
computer posts these words without me typing them in then it must mean 
something just because nobody can tell the difference. It's the same as 
saying that a glass of water must be the same as a glass of distilled 
vinegar because they look the same.

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/-/ZA4PAkYbyhYJ.
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.

Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)


What is thinking ? Parmenides thought that thinking and being are one, which 
IMHO I agree with.
Thoughts come to us from the Platonic realm, which I personally, perhaps 
mistakenly, 
associate with what would be Penrose's incomputable realm. 
Here is a brief discussion of technological or machine thinking vs lived 
experience.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/00201740310002398#tabModule
IMHO Because computers cannot have lived experience, they cannot think.
Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy 
Volume 46, Issue 3, 2003 

Thinking and Being: Heidegger and Wittgenstein on Machination and 
Lived-Experience
Version of record first published: 05 Nov 2010
Heidegger's treatment of 'machination' in the Beitr鋑e zur Philosophie begins 
the critique of technological thinking that would centrally characterize his 
later work. Unlike later discussions of technology, the critique of machination 
in Beitr鋑e connects its arising to the predominance of 'lived-experience' ( 
Erlebnis ) as the concealed basis for the possibility of a pre-delineated, 
rule-based metaphysical understanding of the world. In this essay I explore 
this connection. The unity of machination and lived-experience becomes 
intelligible when both are traced to their common root in the primordial Greek 
attitude of techne , originally a basic attitude of wondering knowledge of 
nature. But with this common root revealed, the basic connection between 
machination and lived-experience also emerges as an important development of 
one of the deepest guiding thoughts of the Western philosophical tradition: the 
Parmenidean assertion of the sameness of being and thinking. In the Beitr鋑e 's 
analysis of machination and lived-experience, Heidegger hopes to discover a way 
of thinking that avoids the Western tradition's constant basic assumption of 
self-identity, an assumption which culminates in the modern picture of the 
autonomous, self-identical subject aggressively set over against a 
pre-delineated world of objects in a relationship of mutual confrontation. In 
the final section, I investigate an important and illuminating parallel to 
Heidegger's result: the consideration of the relationship between experience 
and technological ways of thinking that forms the basis of the late 
Wittgenstein's famous rule-following considerations.
everything-list



Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.

-- 
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

Consider that we begin with a living, biological cell.

 

Next, we begin to remove systems and elements from the cell, 

and replace them with non-biological alternatives.  For example, 

we replace the genome and nucleic acid production system with 

a nanotechnology systems that yields the same nucleic acids as 

products, in the same amounts over time as occurs in the natural 

cell.

 

At what point does removal of some element yield irrevocable 

loss of state - it no longer lives but instead ceases all behavior, 

and returns to the non-living state?

 

Whatever is that element that yields such irrevocable loss of 

state, that is a vital element.  It is not a mystical or deistical 

definition.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:42 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Cc: johnkcl...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 



On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 3:54:49 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012  Craig Weinberg whats...@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. 


No, it doesn't matter what names you call someone, or whether you think they
are true, the point is that name calling is not a logical argument and that
it derails the discussion.
 

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. 


It is because that you say that I have something to do with defending
vitalism that I know you don't understand my ideas. There is nothing special
about organic matter that makes life possible. There is nothing about matter
that makes anything possible. It is the sense that is made through matter
that makes things possible, and that sense has qualitative potentials which
are represented in particular ways. The way that biological qualities are
represented in space and matter is as living cells, tissues, and living
bodies. Being cell like doesn't make something alive, being alive leaves a
cell like footprint.
 

 

 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. 


Um, no. Because you can't control hamsters. I don't care if hamsters were
made of cobalt and zinc, you can't make a computer out of them because they
have their own agenda that you can't effectively control. I don't want to
sink to your level, but if you continue with your false accusations and ad
hominem horseshit, the I'm not going to bother with you.
 

 

 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.  


Your opinions about what sucks might be interesting to some people. You
should find them. To say that there is a qualitative breakthrough between
biology and zoology is vitalist how? I would say that the qualitative bump
from single cell to animal is even more significant than the bump from
molecule to cell, or atom to molecule. I am talking about a punctuated
equilibrium of scale and history, not a categorization of substances.

 

 This is not vitalism.


How would your above idea be any different if it were vitalism?? 


Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by
biological organisms and others that are not. There would be no bump from
cell to animal to human being, or even from molecule to cell - vitalism
would be that living cells are composed of life-giving molecules which are
fundamentally different from non life-giving molecules. I'm not saying that
at all. I am saying that you can have all the organic chemistry you like and
you still won't get cells unless the molecules themselves figure out how to
make them. I don't say that silicon can't make cells, only that they haven't
so far, and that if we force silicon to act like cells, they won't be the
same as organic cells which generate themselves naturally.

 

Clearly you believe that organic chemistry has something that computer chips
lack; 


Clearly you believe that there is nothing that a ham sandwich has that a bag
of sand lacks.
 

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.


No, it is not the same thing in any way. I am specifically saying that there
are no forces or fields in the universe. None. Not literally anyhow. No more
than there is a force which stops my car at a red light. There is only
sense: perception and participation on different levels of qualitative
depth.

 

 Programs can and do

Good is that which enhances life


I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus

I think that the good is that which enhances life.

So IMHO smoking pot would not be good.

Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/21/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Platonist Guitar Cowboy 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-20, 10:46:52
Subject: Re: The logic of agendas


Hi Roger,

That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the 
attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I fail 
to see how the discussion advances through them.

There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking restricting to 
linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don 
Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at times, but I agree 
that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of these 
linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse.

Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a 
listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether:

1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and 
is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep 
consideration.

2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of 
desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already 
jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he 
just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though 
all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, 
politeness expectations of discourse.

Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, 
publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private 
discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no 
significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend follow-up 
to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets devious/cruel when 
agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1). 

Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control structure 
self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because notions of self, are 
as semantically slippery as they have always been.

My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really 
consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1 is 
beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no taste- 
or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire some or more, 
if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take this with a large 
grain of salt.

But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and Bruno for 
yours.




On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all
 
The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle
called final causation. where an object is PULLED forward by a goal.
By what should be.
 
This is the opposite of efficient causation, as in determinism,
in which objects are PUSHED forward.  By what is.
 
 

Hi Roger,

It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor 
concept of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating. But I fail to see 
how the discussion advances through them.

There is something difficult about power/control, even limiting ourselves to 
linguistic frame, barring that we have access to the total set of possible 
computations running through our 1p state at any one time. Whether one looks to 
Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political 
axes to grind at times, but I am somewhat convinced that power/will to control 
can mask itself as anything and the work of these linguists is to document and 
expose how this marks discourse.

Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you lend a 
listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether:

1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems, and 
is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep 
consideration.

2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of 
desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has already 
jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really matter: she/he 
just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with you jumping though 
all of their problems and questions, necessitated by solidarity, respect, 
politeness expectations of discourse.

Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto others, 
publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private 
discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no 
significant concern for answers or the problems

Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Hi Richard Ruquist 

IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective.
So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
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, 16:27:17
Subject: 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 
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

Re: Re: What is thinking ?

2012-08-30 Thread Brian Tenneson

Hi

I agree with what you say about thought but the question was about thinking
which to me suggests a process.  The word thinking is a verb, meaning
something (the thinker) is doing something (thinking).

There is a dictionary-type correspondence between processes and
formally-defined algorithms.  The first is in the realm of the physical
universe and the second is in the Platonic realm.  This correspondence is
like a bridge between the two.  (Although Max Tegmark might say there is no
essential difference between the two realms.)

Thinking is a process and thoughts are the outputs of algorithms
(algorithms exist in the Platonic realm and may or may not be expressible
in a natural language).  PERHAPS we can identify (concrete) thinking with
specific (abstract) algorithms or at least encode one by the other.  With
that identification made I can see how thinking can be viewed as something
abstract.



On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi Brian Tenneson

 Thought itself, IMHO, is beyond spacetime.
 It belongs to that Platonic realm to which the
 circumstances of time are wholly irrelevant.

 But the brain is not. Perhaps it is something like
 a fishing line and hook waiting for something
 of interest or useful in the sea of thought
 to become esnared on it.

 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/30/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-30, 11:16:13
 *Subject:* Re: What is thinking ?

  Thinking implies a progression of time. So perhaps it is equally
 important to define time.

 On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi John Clark
  Please define the term thinking.
 What is thinking ?
   Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/30/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 16:10:20
 *Subject:* 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.

 --
 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.


-- 
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


Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by
biological organisms and others that are not. There would be no bump from
cell to animal to human being, or even from molecule to cell - vitalism
would be that living cells are composed of life-giving molecules which are
fundamentally different from non life-giving molecules. I'm not saying that
at all. I am saying that you can have all the organic chemistry you like and
you still won't get cells unless the molecules themselves figure out how to
make them. I don't say that silicon can't make cells, only that they haven't
so far, and that if we force silicon to act like cells, they won't be the
same as organic cells which generate themselves naturally.



They certainly won't be the same but, how will they differ?  Do you claim
that such a non-biological cell will not be able to perform each and every
action that is performed by a biological cell?  If you do make such claim,
on what basis, what justification do you make that claim?


 

Clearly you believe that organic chemistry has something that computer chips
lack; 


Clearly you believe that there is nothing that a ham sandwich has that a bag
of sand lacks.
 

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.


No, it is not the same thing in any way. I am specifically saying that there
are no forces or fields in the universe. None. Not literally anyhow. No more
than there is a force which stops my car at a red light. There is only
sense: perception and participation on different levels of qualitative
depth.

 

 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.   


That's like saying 'If soft drinks were just carbonated sugar water with
drugs in it, they wouldn't have become a  multibillion dollar industry
It's a fallacy and a misrepresentation of my comment. I didn't ever say that
computers can only 'do trivial stuff', only that their capacity to exceed
the constraints of their programming is trivial. Computers have capacities
that far exceed our own, but only in some respects and not others. They are
good at doing boring repetitive shit that we can't stand doing. Why are they
good at it? Because they are unbelievably stupid. They will compute Pi to
the last digit until they corrode just because someone accidentally pressed
the enter key. Dumb. Not sentient. No awareness. They don't care, they don't
feel, they don't understand...anything at all. Those are things that we are
(supposedly) good at.

 

This is a problematic statement.  Consider Myhill's work on constructor
machines, where their abilities to construct is unbounded.  Each machine is
able to construct 

a machine having just slightly greater construction capacity, ad infinitum.
See the paper The Abstract Theory of Self-Reproduction as presented in Burks
collection Essays on Cellular Automata, U of Illinois Press, 1970.

 

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.  


You are missing my point entirely. It is no trick to make Elvis from a
machine which has the correct initial conditions to make Elvis. The point is
that no amount of GoL transitions strung together will ever become anything
other than what it is - recursively enumerated digits. There is nothing to
generate any qualities other than that in the machine or the program - any
patterns which we project on this data; 'gliders', 'cells', whatever, are
nothing but simulacra...the projections of our own psyche.

 

Thus my interest in constructing machines, not just Turing machines.
Biological organisms are at root built on the backs of constructing
machines.


 

 

 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.


That is your completely unsupported prejudice. The legal system of every
human group that has ever persisted on Earth would disagree. The opposite of
automatic, according to them, is voluntary or intentional. Welcome to planet
Earth, where there are things we like to call living organisms who are able
to do things 'on purpose' rather than randomly or

Re: What is thinking ?



On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:

Thinking implies a progression of time.  So perhaps it is equally  
important to define time.


In the computationlist theory, the digital discrete sequence 0, s(0),  
s(s(0)) ... is enough, notably to named the steps of execution of the  
UD (UD*), or of the programs execution we can see in UD*, or  
equivalently in a tiny subset of arithmetical truth.


Bruno





On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net  
wrote:

Hi John Clark

Please define the term thinking.
What is thinking ?


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so  
everything could function.

- Receiving the following content -
From: John Clark
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-08-29, 16:10:20
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit  
intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg  
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



--
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 
.


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: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 4:43:38 PM UTC-4, Stephen Paul King wrote:

On 8/29/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote:

On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com
javascript:  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.   

Incorrect about what? Are you saying that Turing asserted that machines
could think, or that if we could not tell the difference between a machine
and a living person that means there is no difference?

 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.

Absolutely. The repetition makes it...automatic, and therefore disingenuous,
mechanical. Unconscious. 

  John K Clark

--

Hi Craig,

John C. Has a very good point here. The difference is in the framing.

Nah, his point is a conflation of appearances and reality. Like this
sentence. It is not a thought. It is not speaking. I am using these empty
forms to communicate my thought, my speaking. He is saying that if my
computer posts these words without me typing them in then it must mean
something just because nobody can tell the difference. It's the same as
saying that a glass of water must be the same as a glass of distilled
vinegar because they look the same.

Yes, the conclusion is errant.  However, whether they are or are not the
same requires further inquiry.  Neither side has yet enough information by
which to decide with certainty.

wrb

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/-/ZA4PAkYbyhYJ.
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: RIES



On 30 Aug 2012, at 09:13, meekerdb wrote:

Bruno and some others on the list may find this inverse equation  
solver amusing


http://mrob.com/pub/ries/index.html


LOL.

Hmm... not sure his definition of the Mandelbrot is correct. It is  
bounded instead of finite. I think that the bound 2 is enough, if  
I remember well.


Bruno

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: Re: Re: What is thinking ?

Hi Brian Tenneson 

I don't kinow the answer to what thinking is. Some believe that the thoughts
appear spontaneously and think themselves. I suppose such could happen in the
mind of God (or as some prefer, the supreme monad).

At one point Wittgenstein said that he hadn't a clue as to what thinking is.

BTW Leibniz and no doubt Plato was a fan of formal systems.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Brian Tenneson 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 12:14:37
Subject: Re: Re: What is thinking ?


Hi 

I agree with what you say about thought but the question was about thinking 
which to me suggests a process.  The word thinking is a verb, meaning something 
(the thinker) is doing something (thinking).

There is a dictionary-type correspondence between processes and 
formally-defined algorithms.  The first is in the realm of the physical 
universe and the second is in the Platonic realm.  This correspondence is like 
a bridge between the two.  (Although Max Tegmark might say there is no 
essential difference between the two realms.)

Thinking is a process and thoughts are the outputs of algorithms (algorithms 
exist in the Platonic realm and may or may not be expressible in a natural 
language).  PERHAPS we can identify (concrete) thinking with specific 
(abstract) algorithms or at least encode one by the other.  With that 
identification made I can see how thinking can be viewed as something abstract.




On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:31 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi Brian Tenneson 
 
Thought itself, IMHO, is beyond spacetime.
It belongs to that Platonic realm to which the
circumstances of time are wholly irrelevant.
 
But the brain is not. Perhaps it is something like
a fishing line and hook waiting for something
of interest or useful in the sea of thought 
to become esnared on it.
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: Brian Tenneson 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-30, 11:16:13
Subject: Re: What is thinking ?


Thinking implies a progression of time.  So perhaps it is equally important to 
define time.


On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:10 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

Hi John Clark 
 
Please define the term thinking.
What is thinking ?
 
 
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so everything 
could function.
- Receiving the following content - 
From: John Clark 
Receiver: everything-list 
Time: 2012-08-29, 16:10:20
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence


On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 7:21 PM, Craig Weinberg 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




-- 
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.

-- 
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

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

On 30 Aug 2012, at 06:21, meekerdb wrote:

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.

OK. All what counts should be the relative measure. In some state,
some continuations should have a bigger measure, and this should
correspond to more computations going in your current states, and the
most probable next one.

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,

Well, with comp Platonia is just a tiny part of arithmetical truth,
and the UD exists there in some provable way. We don't need to think
this to make it true.

then we might as well think of it's computations as completed.

OK.

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.

But this mixes different questions. Computations involving PI might
have, from the first person machine's point of view, a high measure,
in case the circle idea-program get some relatively local crucial
rôle (as it is very probable, as the circle is a key in many part of
number theory, and elsewhere).

Bruno

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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

This statement is blatant vitalism, and in the traditional (ancient) sense:

  So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  

 

DNA has nothing inside of it that is critical to the message it represents.

 

wrb

 

 

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:13 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit 
intelligence

 

Hi Richard Ruquist 

 

IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective.

So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  

 

 

Roger Clough,  mailto:rclo...@verizon.net rclo...@verizon.net

8/30/2012 

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, 16:27:17

Subject: 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 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.

Creating our energy needs from waste sites or out of the sea.

Hi William R. Buckley 

Living things extract energy from entropy.
That's also a simple definition of vitalism.

If anyone here knows a computer or computer program
that can do that, the energy problem is solved and we will get rich.
We'll create some energy to run the country from
the waste dumps or even out of the sea.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
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: 2012-08-30, 12:20:32
Subject: RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence



Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by biological 
organisms and others that are not. There would be no bump from cell to animal 
to human being, or even from molecule to cell - vitalism would be that living 
cells are composed of life-giving molecules which are fundamentally different 
from non life-giving molecules. I'm not saying that at all. I am saying that 
you can have all the organic chemistry you like and you still won't get cells 
unless the molecules themselves figure out how to make them. I don't say that 
silicon can't make cells, only that they haven't so far, and that if we force 
silicon to act like cells, they won't be the same as organic cells which 
generate themselves naturally.


They certainly won抰 be the same but, how will they differ?  Do you claim that 
such a non-biological cell will not be able to perform each and every action 
that is performed by a biological cell?  If you do make such claim, on what 
basis, what justification do you make that claim?

 
Clearly you believe that organic chemistry has something that computer chips 
lack; 

Clearly you believe that there is nothing that a ham sandwich has that a bag of 
sand lacks.
 
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.

No, it is not the same thing in any way. I am specifically saying that there 
are no forces or fields in the universe. None. Not literally anyhow. No more 
than there is a force which stops my car at a red light. There is only sense: 
perception and participation on different levels of qualitative depth.

 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.   

That's like saying 'If soft drinks were just carbonated sugar water with drugs 
in it, they wouldn't have become a  multibillion dollar industry It's a 
fallacy and a misrepresentation of my comment. I didn't ever say that computers 
can only 'do trivial stuff', only that their capacity to exceed the constraints 
of their programming is trivial. Computers have capacities that far exceed our 
own, but only in some respects and not others. They are good at doing boring 
repetitive shit that we can't stand doing. Why are they good at it? Because 
they are unbelievably stupid. They will compute Pi to the last digit until they 
corrode just because someone accidentally pressed the enter key. Dumb. Not 
sentient. No awareness. They don't care, they don't feel, they don't 
understand...anything at all. Those are things that we are (supposedly) good at.

This is a problematic statement.  Consider Myhill抯 work on constructor 
machines, where their abilities to construct is unbounded.  Each machine is 
able to construct 
a machine having just slightly greater construction capacity, ad infinitum.  
See the paper The Abstract Theory of Self-Reproduction as presented in Burks 
collection Essays on Cellular Automata, U of Illinois Press, 1970.

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.  

You are missing my point entirely. It is no trick to make Elvis from a machine 
which has the correct initial conditions to make Elvis. The point is that no 
amount of GoL transitions strung together will ever become anything other than 
what it is - recursively enumerated digits. There is nothing to generate any 
qualities other than that in the machine or the program - any patterns which we 
project on this data; 'gliders', 'cells', whatever, are nothing but 
simulacra...the projections of our own psyche.

Thus my interest in constructing machines, not just Turing machines.  
Biological organisms are at root

Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibitintelligence

Hi William R. Buckley 

A set of instructions (DNA) can not create a living chimpanzee all by itself.


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
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: 2012-08-30, 12:42:17
Subject: RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot 
exhibitintelligence


This statement is blatant vitalism, and in the traditional (ancient) sense:
  So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  

DNA has nothing inside of it that is critical to the message it represents.

wrb



From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:13 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit 
intelligence

Hi Richard Ruquist 

IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective.
So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  


Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012 
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, 16:27:17
Subject: 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 
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

Re: What is thinking ?


On 8/30/2012 9:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:


On 30 Aug 2012, at 17:16, Brian Tenneson wrote:


Thinking implies a progression of time.  So perhaps it is equally important to 
define time.


In the computationlist theory, the digital discrete sequence 0, s(0), s(s(0)) ... is 
enough, notably to named the steps of execution of the UD (UD*), or of the programs 
execution we can see in UD*, or equivalently in a tiny subset of arithmetical truth.


Are you saying time-order corresponds to the order of execution of steps in the UD?  I 
don't see how that can be consistent with your idea that our sequence of conscious 
experiences corresponds to a closest continuation of a our present state.  Our present 
state is supposedly visited infinitely many times by the UD.


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: For your review (Craig, William, John meekerdb)

Hm. I don't understand. Looks like an ecological study of flies in the mud.


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:20:56 AM UTC-4, Roger wrote:

 Hello group, 

 Please read the attached document and respond with feedback, but only if 
 your name is in the subject line.  For the rest of you, I don't even want 
 to hear it.

 Deadline for feedback will be 6 am EDT on Saturday, 1 Sept.  Responses 
 after that will be *deleted*.


 *Thank you,** 
 *Sam Spencer, *Ph.D.* 

-- 
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/-/iOP8YcwAuDgJ.
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 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

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.

I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either.
Disappointing, yes, but immoral?

BTW:
I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and
smoke pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people
smokes pot and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot
from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood,
was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post
in the US.

As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not
been allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that
they were using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for
study. It is so easy.

Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while
the number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a
lot, because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior,
but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like
children. I think.

Bruno

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
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.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence



On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:




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?


Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and  
multiplication, ...





Sense is irreducible.


From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


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.


This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws  
by invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not  
explain anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find  
sense there, but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that  
suspicious, to be frank.


Bruno


http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/



--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

On 8/30/2012 10:03 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

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.

I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either. Disappointing, yes,
but immoral?

In my definition it would be immoral because I expect myself to work. It's personal. It
doesn't imply that it would be immoral for you to not work. But it would be unethical for
you to not work and to be supported by others. That's the point of making a distinction
between moral (consistent with personal values, 1P) and ethical (consistent with social
values, 3p).

BTW:
I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke pot, and then
blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work very well. The only
researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening, everyday, since hies early
childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US.

But a single example doesn't tell one much about social policy. I certainly wouldn't
conclude that smoking lots of pot will improve your academic production.

As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been allowed for
justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to lie to
themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy.

Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the number of car
accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the real culprit is not
this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating
adults like children. I think.

It's also encouraged by being drunk.

Brent

Bruno

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
mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
mailto: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/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/

--
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: What is thinking ?

I think that thinking can be best understood as hypothetical feeling. If 
you start from sensation and allow that through time, memory would elide 
separate instances of sense together, giving us meta-sensation or emotion. 
This can be thought of as an emergent property, as a melody is an emergent 
property of a sequence of notes, but this is not enough to explain what it 
really is. It makes just as much sense to see the individual notes as mere 
stepping stones to recover the richer sense of melodies. It works both 
ways, gestalts pulling algebraically from the top down and fragments 
pushing geometrically from the bottom up.

From emotional gestalts, we get mental gestalts, which are essentially 
placeholders for emotions. Evacuated logical frameworks which we use like 
formulas to attach our awareness as lenses and prisms manipulate light. 
Thoughts have no extension in space, they literally aren't structures in 
space, they are metaphorical tropes through time.

Think of how the advent of language extends experience beyond the present. 
In a paleolithic tribe, even if I can gesture and grunt, it can only be 
assumed that I am communicating about something imminent and local. With 
language and writing we can hear voices from centuries ago and far away. We 
can replace the concrete fluidity of our shared realism with bubbles of 
hypothetical possibility. We can feel emotions that we are not 
realistically justified in feeling. We can plan and conspire to create 
things to be rather than just what already is. Mind is emotion squared. 
Emotion is sensation squared. Sensation is detection squared. 
Semiconductors detect, living cells feel, nervous systems think. This is 
simplified of course, the reality is a much subtler continuum.

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/-/C0IM36eeQmYJ.
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: What is thinking ?

I don´t know

2012/8/30 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net

  Hi John Clark

 Please define the term thinking.
 What is thinking ?


 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/30/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-29, 16:10:20
 *Subject:* 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.

  --
 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: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)

I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing but 
experience.

Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience.

The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as a 
topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those terms. 
In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes 
closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part of 
the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because you are 
the subject of the experience. If anything, the outside world is a Platonic 
realm of geometric perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism 
is private time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, 
etc. Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, 
realms come from thought.

Craig


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 11:54:32 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:

  What is thinking ? Parmenides thought that thinking and being are 
 one, which IMHO I agree with. 

 Thoughts come to us from the Platonic realm, which I personally, perhaps 
 mistakenly, 

 associate with what would be Penrose's incomputable realm. 
 Here is a brief discussion of technological or machine thinking vs lived 
 experience. 
 http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/ref/10.1080/00201740310002398#tabModule IMHO 
 Because computers cannot have lived experience, they cannot think. Inquiry: 
 An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy Volume 
 46http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sinq20?open=46#vol_46, 
 Issue 3 http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/sinq20/46/3, 2003 
   
  Thinking and Being: Heidegger and Wittgenstein on Machination and 
 Lived-Experience
  Version of record first published: 05 Nov 2010
  
 Heidegger's treatment of 'machination' in the Beiträge zur Philosophie 
 begins the critique of technological thinking that would centrally 
 characterize his later work. Unlike later discussions of technology, the 
 critique of machination in Beiträge connects its arising to the 
 predominance of 'lived-experience' ( Erlebnis ) as the concealed basis for 
 the possibility of a pre-delineated, rule-based metaphysical understanding 
 of the world. In this essay I explore this connection. The unity of 
 machination and lived-experience becomes intelligible when both are traced 
 to their common root in the primordial Greek attitude of techne , 
 originally a basic attitude of wondering knowledge of nature. But with this 
 common root revealed, the basic connection between machination and 
 lived-experience also emerges as an important development of one of the 
 deepest guiding thoughts of the Western philosophical tradition: the 
 Parmenidean assertion of the sameness of being and thinking. In the 
 Beiträge 's analysis of machination and lived-experience, Heidegger hopes 
 to discover a way of thinking that avoids the Western tradition's constant 
 basic assumption of self-identity, an assumption which culminates in the 
 modern picture of the autonomous, self-identical subject aggressively set 
 over against a pre-delineated world of objects in a relationship of mutual 
 confrontation. In the final section, I investigate an important and 
 illuminating parallel to Heidegger's result: the consideration of the 
 relationship between experience and technological ways of thinking that 
 forms the basis of the late Wittgenstein's famous rule-following 
 considerations.
 everything-list
  
  
  
  Roger Clough, rcl...@verizon.net javascript:
 8/30/2012 
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so 
 everything could function.


-- 
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/-/WEvmwMTgZdoJ.
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.

Stone spaces as observables

2012-08-30 Thread Stephen P. King


Hi Friends,


I found a paper that outlines the idea that I am pursuing using 
lattice and spectrum theory.


http://www.guspepper.net/art-cuantica/Observables.pdf

I am trying for a more direct tops approach by gluing presheaves to 
the members of a Stone space, but this is still very much a static 
picture. The ultimate goal is to recast Vaughan Pratt's vision into a 
calculus of variations for Logical algebras. I welcome any and all comments.


--
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: Technological (Machine) Thinking and Lived Being (Erlebnis)

2012-08-30 Thread Stephen P. King


On 8/30/2012 1:53 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I think that the Platonic realm is just time, and that time is nothing 
but experience.


 Hi Craig,

I would say that time is the sequencing order of experience. The 
order of simultaneously givens within experience is physical space.




Thought is the experience of generating hypothetical experience.


Agreed.



The mistake is presuming that because we perceive exterior realism as 
a topology of bodies that the ground of being must be defined in those 
terms.


The mistake of subtracting the observer from observations.

In fact, the very experience you are having right now - with your eyes 
closed or half asleep...this is a concretely and physically real part 
of the universe, it just isn't experienced as objects in space because 
you are the subject of the experience.


Exactly!

If anything, the outside world is a Platonic realm of geometric 
perspectives and rational expectations. Interior realism is private 
time travel and eidetic fugues; metaphor, irony, anticipations, etc. 
Not only Platonic, but Chthonic. Thought doesn't come from a realm, 
realms come from thought.


Thoughts might be defined as the very act of n-th order categorization.

--
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

On 8/29/2012 11:19 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:

I might write a longer comment, but I will be a bit busy those days.

Here are some references on the fact that cannabis can cure cancer:

Cannabis selectively target cancerous cell, and makes them auto-phage (eating
themselves):

http://www.jci.org/articles/view/37948(original spain paper)

And we know that since 1974. When I read that in Jack Herer book, I did'nt belive it,
until the spanish rediscovered this:

http://www.mapinc.org/newstcl/v01/n572/a11.html

http://www.safeaccess.ca/research/cancer.htm

http://www.gsalternative.com/2010/05/cannabinoids-kill-cancer/

I see I was too quick in my skepticism about cannabis affecting cancer.

Quentin, did you mix cannabis with tobacco? With alcohol. Those combination are known to
be addictive, but there is no statistical evidences for cannabis alone. I agree with you
Quentin, it uses can be dangerous, but the use of windows too.

Brent, there are no evidences that cannabis is a problem for lungs. The one found have
been debunked:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/25/AR2006052501729.html

I never supposed it did. I just supposed that drawing smoke in your lungs probably isn't
good for them.

By googling on cannabis cancer, you will more information. I count up to 173 cancers
where cannabinoids can help to cure. Many youtbe video provides indivvidual witnessing
also, notably on babies like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pcI5tWYr6do

In this case it appears that the main effect of the cannabis was as anti-nausea, which of
course helps to cure the cancer, while there were a half-dozen other drugs that might have
killed the cancer cells.

Brent

Bruno

On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:26, meekerdb 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

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/%7Emarchal/

--
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

I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
particular universal values) where not social facts).

Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
unnecessary. They also believe that the current social reality is a
demiurgic creation of repressive social forces that hinder an era
of Wisdom and Peace

But this is impossible. Not only it is against judeochristian traditions,
but against the theorical basis of the progressive ideology: the theory of
evolution (natural selection). Men are social individuals and therefore
moral is deep in his hardwired (instintive) nature, as multilevel selection
theory can demonstrate.

So let´s call moral what is: moral.

2012/8/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


 On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

  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.


 I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either.
 Disappointing, yes, but immoral?

 BTW:
 I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke
 pot, and then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot
 and work very well. The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early
 morning to evening, everyday, since hies early childhood, was the one who
 published the most, and get the most prestigious post in the US.

 As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been
 allowed for justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were
 using pot to lie to themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy.

 Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the
 number of car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot,
 because the real culprit is not this product or that behavior, but
 irresponsibility, which is encouraged by treating adults like children. I
 think.

 Bruno



 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

  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.


  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

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence



On Thursday, August 30, 2012 1:11:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:



 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?


 Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and 
 multiplication, ...


My problem is that this implies that a pile of marbles know how many 
marbles they are. I could rig up a machine that weighs red marbles and then 
releases an equal weight of white marbles from a chute. Assuming calibrated 
marbles, there would be the same number, but no enumeration of the marbles 
has taken place. Nothing has been decoded, abstracted, or read, it's only a 
simple lever that opens a chute until the pan underneath it gets heavy 
enough to close the chute. There is no possibility of understanding at all, 
just a mindless enactment of behaviors. No mind, just machine.

To be viable, comp has to explain why these words don't speak English.
 




 Sense is irreducible. 


 From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.


 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.


 This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by 
 invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain 
 anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there, 
 but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be 
 frank.


I'm only explaining what comp overlooks. It presumes the possibility of 
computation without any explanation or understanding of what i/o is. Why 
does anything need to leave Platonia? How does encoding come to be a 
possibility and why should it be useful in any way (given a universal 
language of arithmetic truth). Comp doesn't account for realism, only a toy 
model of realism which is then passed off as genuine by lack of 
counterfactual proof - but proof defined only by the narrow confines of the 
toy model itself. It is the blind man proving that nobody can see by 
demanding that sight be put into the terms of blindness.

Craig
 


 Bruno


 http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/





-- 
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/-/baW65jd5eg4J.
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 Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics: 
 indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus 
 rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we 
 can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or 
 more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is 
 such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in 
 particular universal values) where not social facts).

 Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in 
 theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern 
 gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases, 
 that believes possible in a certain future a society with a 
 perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral 
 unnecessary. 


I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left wing 
opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect 
anything or that morals were unnecessary.

 
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/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ.
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 8/30/2012 11:01 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics: indiividual versus
social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus rational etc. The whole point is to
obviate the m*** world as much as we can, under the impression that moral is subjective
and not objetive, or more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective. An
there is such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
particular universal values) where not social facts).

That some societies value the education of women and some value their ignorance are both
certainly facts.

Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in theoretical and
practical terms. It is a consequence also of modern gnosticism, called progressivism
of which positivism is one of the phases, that believes possible in a certain future a
society with a perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
unnecessary. They also believe that the current social reality is a demiurgic creation
of repressive social forces that hinder an era of Wisdom and Peace

But this is impossible. Not only it is against judeochristian traditions, but against
the theorical basis of the progressive ideology: the theory of evolution (natural
selection). Men are social individuals and therefore moral is deep in his hardwired
(instintive) nature, as multilevel selection theory can demonstrate.

All the above is an example of using 'moral' where 'ethics' would be more accurate.
Morals (standards of self-evaluations) are subjective even though some of them are
hardwired by evolution, ethics are intersubjective (standards of public, social
evaluation) even though some of them are selected by cultural evolution.

I would ask Alberto how he defines morals and ethics. Are they rules? feelings?
opinions? what?

The point is not to separate them, in the sense of eliminating overlap, but to recognize
that ethics and morals are not coextensive and it is often useful to distinguish them.
Many people believe it is immoral not to worship God in church on Sunday - and as an
evaluation of their own behavoir that's fine. But that doesn't mean it is unethical to
think differently or that public policy should force or encourage church attendance (as it
did in earlier times).

Brent

So let´s call moral what is: moral.

2012/8/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be mailto:marc...@ulb.ac.be

On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

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.

I'm not sure I understand. not working wouldn't be immoral either.
Disappointing,
yes, but immoral?

BTW:
I would not relate pot with not working. Some people don't work and smoke
pot, and
then blame pot for their non working, but some people smokes pot and work
very well.
The only researcher I knew smoking pot from early morning to evening,
everyday,
since hies early childhood, was the one who published the most, and get the
most
prestigious post in the US.

As a math teacher, since I told students that blaming pot will not been
allowed for
justifying exam problems, some students realize that they were using pot to
lie to
themselves on their motivation for study. It is so easy.

Likewise, if we were allowed to drive while being drunk, after a while the
number of
car accidents due to alcohol would probably diminish a lot, because the
real culprit
is not this product or that behavior, but irresponsibility, which is
encouraged by
treating adults like children. I think.

Bruno

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

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary



On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:54, 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..


I agree, and it is plausibly related to the origin of self- 
consciousness.
But consciousness itself is also plausibly more primitive. You don't  
need another to feel pain, but you might still need two universal  
machines in front of each other, and some other one (the computable  
part of the probable environment). Perhaps.


Bruno





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

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


Hi Roger

On 29 Aug 2012, at 17:44, Roger Clough wrote:


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.



The problem is that you cannot know that.

In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to  
something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to  
something conscious, as that can generate suffering.


There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot  
looking very much like humans.
An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive  
people who might believe that such machine is alive.
He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so  
that they have no problem with such question.


As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but  
can your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a  
digital brain transplant).


When will machine get the right to vote?

When the Lutherans will baptize machines?

Etc.

Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal  
dynamical mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't  
develop respect for you.



Bruno







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

Re: Good is that which enhances life

2012-08-30 Thread Richard Ruquist

Roger,

Have you ever smoked pot.
If not you are not qualified to comment
Richard

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 12:01 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:


 I don't think morality is either arbitrary, political or public consensus

 I think that the good is that which enhances life.

 So IMHO smoking pot would not be good.

 Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
 8/21/2012
 Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
 everything could function.

 - Receiving the following content -
 *From:* Platonist Guitar Cowboy multiplecit...@gmail.com
 *Receiver:* everything-list everything-list@googlegroups.com
 *Time:* 2012-08-20, 10:46:52
 *Subject:* Re: The logic of agendas

  Hi Roger,

 That's just too trivial as a solution, although nothing finally is: the
 attractor of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating, although I
 fail to see how the discussion advances through them.

 There is something difficult about power/control, even speaking
 restricting to linguistic frame. Whether one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman
 Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these guys have political axes to grind at
 times, but I agree that power/will to control can mask itself as anything
 and the work of these linguists is to document and expose how this marks
 discourse.

 Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you
 lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether:

 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems,
 and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep
 consideration.

 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of
 desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has
 already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really
 matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with
 you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by
 solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse.

 Number 2) according to most linguists I've read, is force and harm onto
 others, publicly, through the media for instance, as well as in private
 discourse/messages, and marks its somewhat violent control agenda by no
 significant concern for answers or the problems themselves, pretend
 follow-up to answers, half listening, and half answering. But it gets
 devious/cruel when agenda 2) poses more convincingly as 1).

 Thus for now, I remain convinced that the ins and outs of the control
 structure self, as Bruno put it, make agendas inaccessible because
 notions of self, are as semantically slippery as they have always been.

 My aesthetic sense/intuition/taste, computational or not, doesn't really
 consider this to be a problem. It just tells me in Nietzsche style: No. 1
 is beautiful and No.2 is ugly. If you can't distinguish, then you have no
 taste- or at least lack some taste, a sense of style and should acquire
 some or more, if you want some measure on such problems. Of course, I take
 this with a large grain of salt.

 But any comments on self, agendas, control welcome. Thanks Robert and
 Bruno for yours.



 On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 12:25 PM, Roger rclo...@verizon.net wrote:

  Hi Platonist Guitar Cowboy and all
  The logic of an Agenda is purposeful or goal-oriented, what Aristotle
 called final causation. where an object is PULLED forward by a goal.
 By what should be.
  This is the opposite of efficient causation, as in determinism,
 in which objects are PUSHED forward. By what is.


 Hi Roger,

 It's hard to convince myself of that as a solution, although the attractor
 concept of dynamical systems and phase space are fascinating. But I fail to
 see how the discussion advances through them.

 There is something difficult about power/control, even limiting ourselves
 to linguistic frame, barring that we have access to the total set of
 possible computations running through our 1p state at any one time. Whether
 one looks to Teun van Dijk, Norman Fairclough, Don Kulick... yes, these
 guys have political axes to grind at times, but I am somewhat convinced
 that power/will to control can mask itself as anything and the work of
 these linguists is to document and expose how this marks discourse.

 Say somebody comes to you with a set of hundreds of problems and you
 lend a listening ear. It's ambiguous linguistically speaking whether:

 1) This somebody really needs your help with his jarring list of problems,
 and is prepared to sincerely tackle them, taking your advice into deep
 consideration.

 2) This somebody is barraging you with messages, out of
 desire/power/insecurity, and before one problem has been tackled, has
 already jumped to the next because the problems themselves don't really
 matter: she/he just wants to be taken seriously and feel control, with
 you jumping though all of their problems and questions, necessitated by
 solidarity, respect, politeness expectations of discourse.

 Number 2) according to

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary


On Thursday, August 30, 2012 3:03:32 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:


 Please excuse the word, but comp can only create zombies,
 which seem to be alive but are not actually so.



 The problem is that you cannot know that.


Then you can't know that he can't know that either. Maybe he does know it? 
Maybe he can tell in his bones that this is true? You are arbitrarily being 
conservative in your attribution of the veracity of human sense and liberal 
in your attribution of machine sense.
 


 In case of doubt it is ethically better to attribute consciousness to 
 something non conscious, than attributing non consciousness to something 
 conscious, as that can generate suffering.


It could generate suffering either way. If an android tells you that you 
can sing and you believe it, you could be brainwashed by an advertisement. 
You could choose to save a machine programmed to yell in a fire while other 
real people burn alive.
 


 There is japanese engineer who is building androids, that is robot looking 
 very much like humans. 
 An european journalist asked him if he was not worrying about naive people 
 who might believe that such machine is alive.
 He answered that in Japan they believe that everything is alive, so that 
 they have no problem with such question.

 As I said often, the real question is not can machine think, but can 
 your daughter marry a machine (like a man who did undergone a digital 
 brain transplant).

 When will machine get the right to vote?


When will the machine demand the right to vote?
 


 When the Lutherans will baptize machines?


When will they demand to be baptized?
 


 Etc.

 Universal machines are sort of universal babies, or universal dynamical 
 mirror. If you can't develop respect for them, they won't develop respect 
 for you.


Not even remotely persuasive to me. Sorry Bruno, but It sounds like you are 
selling me a pet rock. It's not scientific - has there ever been a case 
where a universal machine has developed respect for someone? Can a machine 
tell the difference between respect and disrespect? Nah.

Craig



 Bruno





  
 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, 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 rcl...@verizon.net javascript:

  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.

  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 rcl...@verizon.net javascript: 

  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, 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 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

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary

So you haven´t lived in the XX century perhaps.

2012/8/30 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
 indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
 rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
 can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
 more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
 such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
 particular universal values) where not social facts).

 Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
 theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
 gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
 that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
 perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
 unnecessary.


 I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left wing
 opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect
 anything or that morals were unnecessary.


 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/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ.

 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: No Chinese Room Necessary

Anyway this is tangential to the everything list, so I will not continue
discussions like this. I will only highlight these fact whenever the
question sufaces from other subjects, such is individuality.

2012/8/30 Alberto G. Corona agocor...@gmail.com

 So you haven´t lived in the XX century perhaps.

 2012/8/30 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com



 On Thursday, August 30, 2012 2:01:45 PM UTC-4, Alberto G.Corona wrote:

 I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
 indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
 rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
 can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
 more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
 such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
 particular universal values) where not social facts).

 Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
 theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
 gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
 that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
 perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
 unnecessary.


 I have never heard anyone who expresses progressive, liberal, or left
 wing opinions state that they believe in a future society with a perfect
 anything or that morals were unnecessary.


 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/-/yrAKTPjoVJcJ.

 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: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibitintelligence

Yes, and that other thing is the interpreter and constructor which is directed 
by 

the information represented by the nucleotide sequence that is any particular 

DNA molecule.

 

Again, the genome is not inside the DNA; it is represented by the DNA.

 

The interpreter and constructor are the cell.

 

Information in context.

 

Just as von Neumann envisioned.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:53 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot 
exhibitintelligence

 

Hi William R. Buckley 

 

A set of instructions (DNA) can not create a living chimpanzee all by itself.

 

 

Roger Clough,  mailto:rclo...@verizon.net rclo...@verizon.net

8/30/2012 

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 mailto:bill.buck...@gmail.com  

Receiver: everything-list mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com  

Time: 2012-08-30, 12:42:17

Subject: RE: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot 
exhibitintelligence

 

This statement is blatant vitalism, and in the traditional (ancient) sense:

　 So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  

DNA has nothing inside of it that is critical to the message it represents.

wrb

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 9:13 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit 
intelligence

Hi Richard Ruquist 

IMHO software alone cannot create life, because life is subjective.

So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.  

Roger Clough,  mailto:rclo...@verizon.net rclo...@verizon.net

8/30/2012 

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, 16:27:17

Subject: 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 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.

RE: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Bruno:

 

I rather take issue with the notion that the living cell is not controlled
by the genome.  As biosemioticians (like Marcello Barbieri) teach us, there 

are a number of codes used in biological context, and each has a governing
or controlling function within the corresponding context.  The genome 

is clearly at the top of this hierarchy, with Natural Selection and
mutational variation being higher-level controls on genome.

 

Readability I think is well understood in terms of interactions between
classes of molecules - ATP generation for one is rather well understood 

these days.

 

Programmers (well experienced professionals) are especially sensitive to
context issues.

 

wrb

 

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 10:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

 

 

On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:







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?

 

Encoding and decoding, or application and abstraction, or addition and
multiplication, ...

 






Sense is irreducible. 

 

From the first person perspective. Yes. For machine's too.

 





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.

 

This seems to me like justifying the persistence of the physical laws by
invoking God. It is too quick gap filling for me, and does not explain
anything, as relying on fuzzy vague use of words. I might find sense there,
but in the context of criticizing mechanism, I find that suspicious, to be
frank.

 

Bruno

 

 

http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

 

 

 

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

-- 
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

There is a human nature, and therefore a social nature with invariants.

 in computational terms, the human mind is a collection or hardwired
programs. codified by a developmental program, codified itself by a genetic
program, which incidentally is a 90% identical in all humans (this is an
amazing homogeneity for a single specie).

These hardwired programs create behaviours in humans, that interact in a
social environment. By game theory, you can verify that there are Nash
equilibriums among these human players. These optimums of well being for
all withing the constraints of human nature called nash equilibriums are
the moral code.

These equilibriums are no sharp maximums, but vary slightly according with
the social coordinates. They are lines of surface maximums. These maximums
are know by our intuition because we have suffered social selection, so a
knowledge of them are intuitive.  That we have suffered social selection
means that the groups of hominids or the individual hominids whose conducts
were away from the nash equilibriums dissapeared.  To be near these
equilibriums was an advantage so we have these hardwired intuitions, that
the greeks called Nous and the chistians call soul.

What happens a broad variety of  moral behaviours are really the expression
of the same moral code operating in different circunstances where the
optimum has been displaced. There are very interesting studies, for example
in foundational book of evolutionary psychology The adapted mind

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Adapted_Mind

about in which circunstances a mother may abandon his newborn child in
extreme cases (In the study about pregnancy sickness). This would be at the
extreme of the social spectrum: In the contrary in a affluent society close
to ours, the rules are quite normal. Both the normal behaviour or the
extreme behaviour is created by the same basic algoritm of
individual/social optimization. No matter if we see this from a dynamic way
(contemplating the variations and extremes) or a static one contemplating a
normal society, the moral is a unique, universal rule system.  Thanks to
the research on evolution applied to huumans, computer science and game
theory, It is a rediscovered fact of human nature and his society, that
await  a development of evolutionary morals


2012/8/30 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net

  On 8/30/2012 11:01 AM, Alberto G. Corona wrote:

 I think that there are many tries to separate moral from ethics:
 indiividual versus social, innate versus cultural, emotional versus
 rational etc.  The whole point is to obviate the m*** world as much as we
 can, under the impression that moral is subjective and not objetive, or
 more precisely that there is no moral that can be objective.  An there is
 such crap as the separation of facts and values (as if values (and in
 particular universal values) where not social facts).


 That some societies value the education of women and some value their
 ignorance are both certainly facts.



  Well, this is a more effect of positivism which is deeply flawed in
 theoretical and practical terms. It is a consequence also of  modern
 gnosticism,  called progressivism of which positivism is one of the phases,
 that believes possible in a certain future a society with a
 perfect harmony of individual desires and social needs, making moral
 unnecessary. They also believe that the current social reality is a
 demiurgic creation of repressive social forces that hinder an era
 of Wisdom and Peace

  But this is impossible. Not only it is against judeochristian
 traditions, but against the theorical basis of the progressive ideology:
 the theory of evolution (natural selection). Men are social individuals and
 therefore moral is deep in his hardwired (instintive) nature, as multilevel
 selection theory can demonstrate.


 All the above is an example of using 'moral' where 'ethics' would be more
 accurate.  Morals (standards of self-evaluations) are subjective even
 though some of them are hardwired by evolution, ethics are intersubjective
 (standards of public, social evaluation) even though some of them are
 selected by cultural evolution.

 I would ask Alberto how he defines morals and ethics.  Are they
 rules?  feelings?  opinions?  what?

 The point is not to separate them, in the sense of eliminating overlap,
 but to recognize that ethics and morals are not coextensive and it is often
 useful to distinguish them.  Many people believe it is immoral not to
 worship God in church on Sunday - and as an evaluation of their own
 behavoir that's fine.  But that doesn't mean it is unethical to think
 differently or that public policy should force or encourage church
 attendance (as it did in earlier times).

 Brent



  So let´s call moral what is: moral.

 2012/8/30 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be


  On 29 Aug 2012, at 22:30, meekerdb wrote:

  From experience I know people tend not to adopt it, but let me
 recommend a distinction.  Moral is what I expect of

Re: No Chinese Room Necessary