Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015  Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

​>
>> ​> ​
>> How Aristotle could have disproved that, you fool?
>
>
​If Aristotle, the so called master of logic, didn't want to use logic to
disprove it he could have disproved it the same way
Galileo
​ did, with experiments using a inclined plane. Galileo used no technology
that was unavailable to Aristotle.

  John K Clark​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

[Alberto G. Corona]

if you were capable of thinking a little bit you would know that Galileo
did not demonstrated that.  It is is one of many myths of science. There is
no way to demonstrate it  in the earth except in a large vacuum tube and
with high precision photography
 Galileo demonstrated that bodies accelerate constantly. All that shit is a
post-hoc construction like many absurd histories that unworty universitary
fools circulate around.

2015-09-01 19:00 GMT+02:00 John Clark :

>
> On Tue, Sep 1, 2015  Alberto G. Corona  wrote:
>
> ​>
>>> ​> ​
>>> How Aristotle could have disproved that, you fool?
>>
>>
> ​If Aristotle, the so called master of logic, didn't want to use logic to
> disprove it he could have disproved it the same way
> Galileo
> ​ did, with experiments using a inclined plane. Galileo used no technology
> that was unavailable to Aristotle.
>
>   John K Clark​
>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

[John Clark]

On Tue, Sep 1, 2015  Alberto G. Corona  wrote:

​> ​
> if you were capable of thinking a little bit you would know that Galileo
> did not demonstrated that.  It is is one of many myths of science. There is
> no way to demonstrate it  in the earth except in a large vacuum tube and
> with high precision photography
> ​ ​
>

​Don't be ridiculous! The entire point of using an inclined plane rather
than a straight drop is that things accelerate more slowly so Galileo
didn't need high speed photography, and a large
vacuum tube
​is not necessary to observe that a light wooden cylinder rolls down an
inclined plane just as fast as a heavy bronze cylinder does. Galileo
observed it and Aristotle had all the technological resources to observe it
too but he did not because Aristotle never bothered to look.


> ​> ​
> Galileo demonstrated that bodies accelerate constantly.
>

​Yes exactly, Galileo demonstrated that gravity makes things accelerate at
a constant rate regardless of their weight or composition. He discovered ​
​the law of odd numbers, he found that regardless of its weight or
composition if an object falls a distance of ​one unit in the first second
then in the next second it will fall 3 units and in the second after that
will fall 5 units a
nd in the second after that it
​will ​
fall
​7​
 units
​etc.​ T
here is no way
​​
​the law of odd numbers could be true​
 if heavy things fell faster than light things.   ​

Galileo
​also demonstrated that the period of a pendulum was unaffected by its
weight and depended only on its length, there is no way that could happen
if heavy things fell faster than light things.

Aristotle should have known all this but
​he ​
did not because the jackass never bothered to perform a few simple
experiments
​,​
 and he never used pure logic to realize his heavy things fall faster idea
was just silly.  ​




> ​> ​
> All that shit is a post-hoc construction like many absurd histories that
> unworty universitary fools circulate around.
>

​What is unworthy is the absurd ancestor worship of the ancient Greeks that
many on this list engage in.


​ John K Clark​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

[Bruno Marchal]

On 31 Aug 2015, at 21:54, Jason Resch wrote:




On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 12:39 PM, Bruno Marchal   
wrote:


On 31 Aug 2015, at 12:14, Russell Standish wrote:

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:19:00AM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:

On 31 Aug 2015, at 00:42, Russell Standish wrote:

On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 12:34:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:


I guess that you remember that I am not yet convinced by your
argument that ants are not conscious, as it relies on anthropic use
of the Absolute Self-Sampling Assumption (ASSA) which I prefer to
avoid because the domain of  its statistic is not clear to me. (I am
not impressed by the doomsday argument for the same reason).


Yes, I've heard that a lot. "I'm not impressed" = "It sounds like a
crock of shit, but I can't put my finger on why".

Probably the best way forward is to put forward a toy model showing
the anthropic argument failing, and then the mechanism is clear.

It does not fail. It can explain some of the geography by bayesian
reasoning, but it can't explain the difference between physical
laws, and local physical/geographical fact. For the lwas, we have to
find something which does not depend on anything particular above
being Turing universal or Löbian.


I'm in agreement with your comments here, however I fail to see the
connection with the doomsday argument, or my anthropic ants argument,
as these are fundamentally about geography (in one case about how long
humans might be here on Earth, and the other about the consciousness
of certain Earthling creatures).

The problem for me is in the use of a "probability to be a human",  
or "probability to be an ant" without some relative conditional.


Is it necessarily even an exclusive?



In the frame of Russell's argument that Ant are not conscious, using  
bayesianenly the fact that we are human and that Ant are more  
numerous. (Like in Leslie Carter Doomsday argument). The use of Bays  
is correct, but the result assumes an absolute self-sampling  
assumption on which I am agnostic.




It feels like it is, but that might just be an illusion.


But reality is a sum on all the illusions. From inside we can already  
prove that if the sum converge, then we can't prove that the sum  
converge (that's why "God" or "Reality" requires faith or some  
optimisme of some sort).


You might say, in the WM-duplication, that the guy is both the W-guy  
and the M-guy, but the probability needed to get the physical still  
requires the fact that, illusion or not, the first person experience  
are exclusive, even if only *relatively* exclusive.






Can we not be both an ant and a human,


Assuming that ants are conscious, which was the point Russell's  
argument try to refute.


I have no first person objection to your point, identify myself with  
any animals and plants.


Then computer science protect this from trivialization by associating  
a non trivial notion of person to any self-referentially platonist  
correct universal machine. Platonist means that the machine believes,  
for all arithmetical sentences A, the proposition A v ~A.


So the universal machine defines a universal person.

That universal person can make sense being the same person looking  
through the Ant eyes and the Human eyes, but can the ant and the human  
do that experience without remembering being the universal person?


That some creature can do that is quite plausibly in its own G* - G  
proper theology, a protagorean virtue which can taught by exemplar  
behavior but go only without saying.








but be relatively unaware of it


That's the terrestrial condition, but by "demolishing" your brain so  
that for a moment it is close to the brain of an ant" might help to  
conceive this or make some sense.


What is the probability to have a continuation (when dying, or not) in  
which you do awake from both the Ant "dream" and the "Human "dream".


I have awaken from "parallel dreams" about 5 times, and Louis Jouvet  
(the french onirophysiologists) describes similar occurences, and  
explains them by an inhibition (or a lowering of activity) in the  
corpus callosum. So I think it can make sense on recognizing yourself  
in different creature experiences, and integrating them as "personal  
souvenir". Technologically, in some future(s) such merging can be  
"artificially" sustained in the relative stable "terrestrial "way.




such that we can't comment on the knowledge of being an ant from the  
human organism's point of view, nor can the ant react to its human  
sensations from the ant organism's view.


And the question is, could an ant experience merges with a human  
experience in the infinite universal person mind. The UD, and thus  
elementary arithmetic emulates such experiences, but the non trivial  
problem is what is the probability of global merging of all experiences?


With CT + "yes doctor", such questions can be translated into  
(complex) arithmetical (terrestrial) and analytical (divine)  

Re: Uploaded Worm Mind

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Tuesday, September 1, 2015, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

>
> On 31 Aug 2015, at 14:56, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, August 31, 2015, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
>
>>
>> On 31 Aug 2015, at 00:42, Russell Standish wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 12:34:18PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>>

 On 30 Aug 2015, at 03:08, Russell Standish wrote:

 Well as people probably know, I don't believe C. elegans can be
> conscious in any sense of the word. Hell - I have strong doubts about
> ants, and they're massively more complex creatures.
>

 I think personally that C. Elegans, and Planaria (!), even amoeba,
 are conscious, although very plausibly not self-conscious.

 I tend to think since 2008 that even RA is already conscious, even
 maximally so, and that PA is already as much self-conscious than a
 human (when in some dissociative state).

 But I don't know if PA is more or less conscious than RA. That
 depends of the role of the higher part of the brain consists in
 filtering consciousness or enacting it.


> But it probably won't be long before we simulate a mouse brain in toto
> - about 2 decades is my guess, maybe even less given enough dollars -
> then we're definitely in grey philosophical territory :).
>

 I am slightly less optimistic than you. It will take one of two
 decades before we simulate the hippocampus of a rat, but probably
 more time will be needed for the rest of their brain. And the result
 can be a conscious creature, with a quite different consciousness
 that a rat, as I find plausible that pain are related to the glial
 cells and their metabolism, which are not  taken into account by the
 current "copies".

>>>
>>> What is blocking us is not the computing power - already whole "rat
>>> brain" simulations have been done is something like 1/1 of real
>>> time - so all we need is about a decade of performane improvement
>>> through Moores law.
>>>
>>> What development is needed is ways of determining the neural
>>> circuitry. There have been leaps and bounds in the process of slicing
>>> frozen brains, and imaging the slices with electron microscopes, but
>>> clearly it is still far too slow.
>>>
>>> As for the hypothesis that glial cells have something to do with it,
>>> well that can be tested via the sort of whole rat brain simulation
>>> I've been talking about. Run the simulation in a robotic rat, and
>>> compare the behaviour with a real rat. Basically what the open worm
>>> guys a doing, but scaled up to a rat. If the simulation is way
>>> different from the real rat, then we know something else is required.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I can imagine that the rat will have a "normal behavior", but as he
>> cannot talk to us, we might fail to appreciate some internal change or even
>> some anosognosia. The rat would not be a zombie rat, but still be in a
>> quite different conscious state (perhaps better, as it seems the glial cell
>> might have some role in the chronic pain.
>>
>
> In general, if there is a difference in consciousness then there should be
> a difference in behaviour. If the difference in consciousness is impossible
> to detect then arguably it is no difference.
>
>
>
> How would you detect that the rat has a slight headache?
>

It should be detectable under ideal circumstances, or it should be
detectable statistically by sampling a large number of rats.


> Some drugs change *only* the "volume" of consciousness (notably alcool on
> high dose, but this one change also the behavior). It is quite unpleasant,
> like listening to music with a the sound made too much high, but you can
> behave in your normal way, and unless somebody ask, there is no noticeable
> difference in behavior.
>

The point is, it is detectable. If a subjective difference makes no
objective difference under any circumstances then arguably there is no
subjective difference.


> First order experiences are usually wider than anything we can communicate
> in a third person way, so it is natural that difference in consciousness
> does not necessarily entail a difference in behavior, especially for a
> finite time.
>
> The problem of inverse-spectrum for the qualia of color illustrates also
> that a difference of consciousness might not lead to a difference in
> behavior.
>

If the colours I see change every five minutes but I don't notice, then I
would say there is no subjective change.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For 

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

[Alberto G. Corona]

​>>
Aristotle
​ believed that heavy objects fell more quickly than light ones, *something
that could have been easily disproved* *even on his own day *but he
understood it so well, or thought he did, that he didn't bother to make any
observations on the matter.


How Aristotle could have disproved that, you fool?

2015-09-01 10:55 GMT+02:00 Alberto G. Corona :

> What most astonishes me of this modern world is how plain stupid nonsense
> can become common sense by repetition if that serve the purpose to
> denigrate the past.
>
>
> ​>>
> Aristotle
> ​ believed that heavy objects fell more quickly than light ones, *something
> that could have been easily disproved* *even on his own day *but he
> understood it so well, or thought he did, that he didn't bother to make any
> observations on the matter.
>
>
>
>
> 2015-09-01 5:14 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :
>
>> On 8/31/2015 3:19 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:14 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>>  ​
>>>
>>>
 ​ >>
 Aristotle
 ​ believed that heavy objects fell more quickly than light ones,
 something that could have been easily disproved even on his own day but he
 understood it so well, or thought he did, that he didn't bother to make any
 observations on the matter.

>>>
>>> ​ > ​
>>> But he did observe that a rock fell faster than a leaf. He also believed
>>> that an active force was necessary to sustain motion because he observed
>>> that if you stopped pulling a wagon it came to a halt.
>>>
>>
>> ​
>> Pure logic can't prove that a physical theory is correct but it can prove
>> that it's wrong i
>> ​ f​
>> it's self contradictory and Aristotle's theory was.
>> ​ ​
>> If you take a heavy rock and tie it to a slightly lighter rock with some
>> string that has some slack in it and drop them then both rocks would fall
>> slower than the big rock alone because the slower moving lighter rock would
>> bog it down, but the tied together object
>> ​
>> would fall faster than the heavy rock because the new object is heavier
>> than the heavy rock alone.
>>
>>
>> Suppose he'd done this with a leaf and a rock.  He'd have found it
>> depended on whether they were just tethered together or tightly bound.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "Everything List" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Alberto.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

[Alberto G. Corona]

What most astonishes me of this modern world is how plain stupid nonsense
can become common sense by repetition if that serve the purpose to
denigrate the past.


​>>
Aristotle
​ believed that heavy objects fell more quickly than light ones, *something
that could have been easily disproved* *even on his own day *but he
understood it so well, or thought he did, that he didn't bother to make any
observations on the matter.




2015-09-01 5:14 GMT+02:00 meekerdb :

> On 8/31/2015 3:19 PM, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 30, 2015 at 2:14 PM, meekerdb  wrote:
>  ​
>>
>>
>>> ​ >>
>>> Aristotle
>>> ​ believed that heavy objects fell more quickly than light ones,
>>> something that could have been easily disproved even on his own day but he
>>> understood it so well, or thought he did, that he didn't bother to make any
>>> observations on the matter.
>>>
>>
>> ​ > ​
>> But he did observe that a rock fell faster than a leaf. He also believed
>> that an active force was necessary to sustain motion because he observed
>> that if you stopped pulling a wagon it came to a halt.
>>
>
> ​
> Pure logic can't prove that a physical theory is correct but it can prove
> that it's wrong i
> ​ f​
> it's self contradictory and Aristotle's theory was.
> ​ ​
> If you take a heavy rock and tie it to a slightly lighter rock with some
> string that has some slack in it and drop them then both rocks would fall
> slower than the big rock alone because the slower moving lighter rock would
> bog it down, but the tied together object
> ​
> would fall faster than the heavy rock because the new object is heavier
> than the heavy rock alone.
>
>
> Suppose he'd done this with a leaf and a rock.  He'd have found it
> depended on whether they were just tethered together or tightly bound.
>
> Brent
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Alberto.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: If the universe is computational, what is the computing platform? What are the options?

[John Clark]

On Mon, Aug 31, 2015 at 11:14 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

​>>​
>> Pure logic can't prove that a physical theory is correct but it can prove
>> that it's wrong i
>> f​
>> it's self contradictory and Aristotle's theory was.
>> ​ ​
>> If you take a heavy rock and tie it to a slightly lighter rock with some
>> string that has some slack in it and drop them then both rocks would fall
>> slower than the big rock alone because the slower moving lighter rock would
>> bog it down, but the tied together object
>> ​
>> would fall faster than the heavy rock because the new object is heavier
>> than the heavy rock alone.
>
>

​> ​
> Suppose he'd done this with a leaf and a rock.
>

​It wouldn't change the fact that if it was done between a heavy rock and a
slightly lighter rock a logical contradiction is produced, and that
shouldn't happen under any circumstances, therefore his theory that ​heavy
things fall faster than light ones can not be correct. And if he'd actually
done the experiment with a light leaf and a heavy rock he might have
started to wonder what exactly made a leaf move on a windy day and why the
wind didn't move heavy rocks. But of course Aristotle never did any
experiments, he just sat on his ass and thought, and he didn't even do that
very well.

​  John K Clark​

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.