Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

"Matter" is just an idea in consciousness.

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

esoteric = "intended for or likely to be understood by only a small number 
of people with a specialized knowledge or interest." According to this 
definition, I'm not making self-reference esoteric. On the contrary, since 
I devote a whole book to it, the intention is to make self-reference to be 
understood by everyone. Probably you want to mean something else by 
esoteric, something like "out-of-this-world". But this again is not the 
case, because self-reference is the source of the entire existence, so it 
is pretty much part of the world.

Also, your example with the Mars Rover is faulty, because the rover doesn't 
know anything. Knowledge is something that exists in consciousness. Only 
consciousnesses know things. And things indeed are formal entities, but the 
process of knowing itself is not. Actually, knowledge can be formal 
precisely because the processes of knowing is unformalizable.

On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 04:44:22 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> You seem to make self-reference into something esoteric.   Every Mars 
> Rover knows where it is, the state of its batteries, its instruments, its 
> communications link, what time it is, what its mission plan is.Whether 
> it is "formalizable" or not would seem to depend on choosing the right 
> formalization to describe what engineers already create.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Yes, no need to apply. They are using the concept of self-reference in a 
misleading way. The true meaning of self-reference is an entity that refers 
to itself. There are several problems with the way in which they are using 
the concept. First problem is that "machine" is not an entity. "Machine" is 
just an idea in consciousness, it doesn't have an independent existence, it 
doesn't have any ontological status, it doesn't exist as an entity. And 
since it doesn't exist, it cannot refer to itself, or for that matter it 
cannot do anything. Only consciousness (and its forms of manifestation: 
qualia) has ontological status.

The second issue is that the way self-reference refers to itself is to 
incorporate itself in the very act of referring. Basically, the observer, 
the observed, and the act of observation are all one and the same thing. 
I'm pretty much you cannot think of a machine in these terms. So a 
"self-referential machine" is just words-play. It doesn't have anything in 
common whatsoever with the true characteristics of the true self-reference.

On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 09:24:46 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
> So, no need to apply? :)
>
>
> *Seeking Research Fellows in Type Theory and Machine Self-Reference*
>
>

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

My new paper "The Quale of Time" published on MDPI Philosophies

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

My new paper "The Quale of Time" has been published on MDPI Philosophies:

https://www.mdpi.com/2409-9287/4/2/16 


The paper is based on my ideas about emergence and shows how time itself is 
one of the emergent levels of consciousness that follows the same 
properties of emergence like any other qualia, among which: qualities 
inheritance, top-down influence in levels received from above, top-down 
influence in levels impressed on below.

For those interested in my entire philosophical system about the emergent 
structure of consciousness, you can find it in my book "I Am":

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1092284397

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

1) What does "third-person" self-reference mean ? To me, this would be 
equivalent to "third-person color red", which clearly is not the case for 
red to be third-person, since red only exists in an ontological subjective 
manner.

2) What "machine" ? What "self of the machine" ? "Machine" is just a 
concept in human consciousness. It doesn't exist beyond merely a concept.

3) Phenomenological is the only type of existence. Everything else is 
merely an extrapolation starting from phenomenological existence. i.e. I 
see an unicorn in my subjective first person existence, and then I 
extrapolate and say that that unicorn somehow has an independent existence 
from it being just a quale in my consciousness, which clearly is false.

4) You can set yourself all kinds of goals as you want. But this doesn't 
mean that reality is the way you want it to be. You can wish for red to be 
agreed upon by everyone, but a blind person will not agree.

5) There is only 1 notion of the Self: "I Am". But I would be interested to 
find out the 8 types of Self that you mention.

6) You can look at the emergent phenomenology. For example, in the visual 
domain you have: black-and-white -> shades-of-gray -> colors -> shapes -> 
objects -> full visual scene. All these levels have the properties that 
each level inherits the qualities of the previous levels, while also 
bringing into existence its own quality. For example, the reason why a 
color can variate from lighter to darker is because it inherits in itself 
the quality of shades-of-gray. And if you think carefully about this, this 
is possible because of the properties of self-reference that I just 
mentioned, x=x (color is itself), xx (color is more than the shades-of-gray). And all these happen 
at the same time, because the same consciousness is the one that experience 
the evolution in levels. When you learn something new, that new knowledge 
emerges on top of previously held knowledge, but this doesn't create a new 
consciousness to experience the new knowledge, but the same consciousness 
is maintained. And this is possible because the same consciousness (x=x) 
includes the previous consciousness that it was (xx).

On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 15:17:36 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> 1) With mechanism, third-person self-reference is formalisable
>
> 2) That is good insight, well recovered by the machine about its first 
> person self. 
>
 
>
3)
>
 
>
In other words, the very definition of the concept of "existence" is the 
>> looking-back-at-itself of self-reference. 
>>
>  
>
That type of existence is phenomenological. 
>
> 4)
>
> So, existence can only be subjective, so all that can exists is 
> consciousness.
>
>
> I see this as a critics of your theory. It is almost self-defeating. My 
> goal was to understand matter and consciousness from proposition on which 
> (almost) everybody agree, and with mechanism, elementary arithmetic is 
> enough.
>
> 5)
> OK. (Except the tiny formula which does not make much sense to me, and 
> seem to assume a lot of things). But with mechanism we get 8 notion of 
> self, and transcendance is indeed derived from them.
>
> 6)
>
> And all these apparently contradictory properties are happening all at the 
> same time. So, x=x, xx all at the same time.
>
>
> Without giving a theory or at least a realm, it is hard to figure out what 
> you mean.
>
> But there is no actual contradiction here, because self-reference is 
> unformalizable. The reason why I get to such weird conclusions is explored 
> throughout the book where a phenomenological analysis of consciousness is 
> done and it is shown how it is structured on an emergent holarchy of 
> levels, a holarchy meaning that a higher level includes the lower levels, 
> and I conclude that this can only happen if there is an entity called 
> "self-reference" which has the above mentioned properties. So as you can 
> see, there pretty much cannot be a mathematics of self-reference.
>
>
> But such theories exist. Even the fact that the first person 
> self-reference is not formalisable is provable in a meta-theory. 
>
> Self-reference is where mathematical logic has got many surprising 
> results, and with mechanism, they are somehow directly usable. To not use 
> them needs some non-mechanist hypothesis, for which there are no evidences, 
> and it looks like bringing complexity to not solve a (scientific) problem.
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

This clearly I must do. And I admit that at this point I am not able to do 
that. But this doesn't mean that phenomenology is not a science in itself. 
Actually, as I see it in the future, physics would be the one derived from 
consciousness, not the other way around.

On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 15:19:34 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  You need to derive the physical laws from your theory for consciousness, 
> and so you can test your theory by comparing it to the physics inferred 
> from the observations. 
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Because Rover is just a bunch of atoms. Is nothing more than the sum of 
atoms. But in the case of self-reference/emergence, each new level is more 
than the sum of the previous levels. 

I don't know how you can trick yourself so badly into believing that if you 
put some rocks together, the rocks become alive. Maybe because you think 
that the brain is just a bunch of atoms. No, it is now. If you were to 
measure what the electrons are doing in the brain, you would see that they 
are not moving according to known physics, but they are being moved by 
consciousness. And this doesn't happen in a machine. In a machine, 
electrons move according to known physics.

On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 15:25:40 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> How can you argue that Rover has no knowledge, when you say that knowledge 
> is not formalisable?
>
> Introducing some fuzziness to claim a negative thing about a relation of 
> the type consciousness/machine is a bit frightening. It reminds the 
> catholic older sophisticated “reasoning” to assert that Indians have no 
> soul.
>
> Bruno
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

There are no electrons and no neurons. "Electrons" and "neurons" are just 
ideas in consciousness, are projections in the idea of "physical world" of 
processes that happen in consciousness. And since in places where there is 
consciousness, consciousness has certain effects, it is normal for those 
effects to look different than in places where there is no conscious 
activity. Is like for example watching a recording of World of Warcraft on 
youtube vs. watching someone playing World of Warcraft live. In the 
recording the same things will happen over and over again, and they will be 
called "laws of physics", while watching someone playing live, different 
things will happen every time. As you can see, the image is the same: an 
elf running through the forest. But the effect are different. In the first 
case God decided the rules at the beginning, but there is no God anymore 
moving the electrons, they just repeat over and over again the initial 
trigger, while other electrons are actively influenced by currently 
existing consciousnesses. As you can see, the causal power doesn't lie in 
the electrons, but in the consciousnesses behind the curtains.

On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 21:35:50 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> How do you know this?  Why can a bunch of neurons be conscious, but a 
> bunch of electronics can't?
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

It's actually the other way around: biology is realized by certain 
processes happening in consciousness. Biology is just an external 
appearance of internal processes happening in consciousness.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 02:29:24 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> What makes them "biological"?  Do they have to be made of amino acids?  
> nuclei acids?  do they have to be powered by a phosphate cycle?  What 
> makes one bunch of biological molecules conscious and another very 
> similar bunch dead, or anesthesized? 
>
> The only coherent answer is that consciousness is realized by certain 
> information processing...independent of the molecules instantiating the 
> process. 
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

1) Well... It might be a very specific arrangement of atoms, but they are 
still governed by Newton's Laws. Is not like if you put them in certain 
order magic happens and new things start to appear. It  has no memory, no 
purpose and no ability to act, since memory, purpose and ability to act are 
properties of consciousness.

2) Try removing yourself from the house in the middle of the winter. You 
will stop experience warmth, but this doesn't mean that the quale of warmth 
is generated by the house.

3) I have done the thinking. I don't have to do the experiment to know it 
is true.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 03:00:14 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> 1)
> First, that's false.  The Rover is a very specific arrangement of atoms 
> interacting with a specific environment.  It has memory, purpose, and the 
> ability to act.
>
> 2)
>
 

> Try removing the phosphate atoms from your brain and see what you 
> believe...if anything.
>
> Maybe because you think that the brain is just a bunch of atoms. No, it is 
> now. If you were to measure what the electrons are doing in the brain, you 
> would see that they are not moving according to known physics, but they are 
> being moved by consciousness. 
>
> 3)
>
 
>
And have you done this observation?  A Nobel prize awaits.  
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

1) Oh, I'm clearly not making that mistake. When I talk about emergence, I 
talk about ontological emergence, not the hand-waving epistemic kind that 
people usually talk about. The emergence that I'm talking about is the 
emergence of new qualia on top of previously existing qualia. This is what 
my book is about. So it's the real deal. Alternatively, have a look at my 
presentation from the Science & Nonduality conference where I talk about 
The Emergent Structure of Consciousness, where I talk about ontological 
emergence and I specifically mention to the audience that the epistemic 
emergence is false: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jMAy6ft-ZQ 
And what realizes the ontological emergence is self-reference through its 
property of looking-back-at-itself, with looking-back becoming more than 
itself, like in the cover of the book.

2) Consciousness is not mysterious. And this is exactly what my book is 
doing: demystifying consciousness. If you decide to read my book, you will 
gain at the end of it a clarity of thinking through these issues that all 
people should have such that they will stop making the confusions that 
robots are alive.

3) No, they are not extraordinarily claims. They are quite trivial. And 
they start from the trivial realization that the brain does not exist. The 
"brain" is just an idea in consciousness.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 03:06:45 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 16, 2019, at 18:42, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> Because Rover is just a bunch of atoms. Is nothing more than the sum of 
> atoms. But in the case of self-reference/emergence, each new level is more 
> than the sum of the previous levels. 
>
> 1)
>
 

> I disagree. My position on this is that people are tricked into thinking 
> that emergence has some ontological status, when if fact it is just an 
> epistemological tool. We need to think in higher-order structures to 
> simplify things (organisms, organs, mean-fields, cells, ant colonies, 
> societies, markets, etc), but a Jupiter-brain could keep track of every 
> entity separately and apprehend the entire thing at the same time. 
> Emergence is a mental shortcut.
>
> Self-reference is another matter (pun was accidental).
>
>
> I don't know how you can trick yourself so badly into believing that if 
> you put some rocks together, the rocks become alive. Maybe because you 
> think that the brain is just a bunch of atoms. No, it is now. If you were 
> to measure what the electrons are doing in the brain, you would see that 
> they are not moving according to known physics, but they are being moved by 
> consciousness.
>
> 2)
>
 
>
For me, this is yet another version of "God did it". There is no point in 
> attempting to explain some complex behavior if the explanation is even more 
> complex and mysterious.
>
 
>
And this doesn't happen in a machine. In a machine, electrons move 
>> according to known physics.
>>
>  
>
3)
>
 
>
These are fairly extraordinary claims. Do you have any empirical data to 
> support them?
>
> Telmo.
>
>
> On Tuesday, 16 April 2019 15:25:40 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> How can you argue that Rover has no knowledge, when you say that knowledge 
> is not formalisable?
>
> Introducing some fuzziness to claim a negative thing about a relation of 
> the type consciousness/machine is a bit frightening. It reminds the 
> catholic older sophisticated “reasoning” to assert that Indians have no 
> soul.
>
> Bruno
>
>
> --
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

1) They are just ideas. Like the idea of "planet Vulcan" that disappeared 
when the set of ideas that gave birth to it have been replaced with other 
set of ideas. In the future, the idea of "dark matter" will also disappear 
when the set of ideas "General Relativity" will be replaced by other set of 
ideas. What remains constant in all these changes is the consciousnesses 
that have the ideas.
Maybe you are referring to the fact that we have no absolute free will. And 
this is certainly true. We don't know what makes us experience certain 
qualia and not others. I don't have the ability to choose to imagine a new 
color. And this is indeed a problem that needs to be solved.

2) Learning is a property of consciousness. So no, robots don't learn 
anything, in the same way that if I step in the mud, mud doesn't "learn" 
the shape of my foot.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 03:14:49 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/16/2019 12:43 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> There are no electrons and no neurons. "Electrons" and "neurons" are just 
> ideas in consciousness, are projections in the idea of "physical world" of 
> processes that happen in consciousness. 
>
> 1)
>
 
>
I agree they are ideas of consciousness.  But to say they are "just" ideas 
> of consciousness, implies that they do not evolve according to their own 
> laws.  And I notice you said that consciousness moves them in ways 
> inconsistent with physics; so you are biting the bullet on that point; 
> which is testable.
>
> And since in places where there is consciousness, consciousness has 
> certain effects, it is normal for those effects to look different than in 
> places where there is no conscious activity. Is like for example watching a 
> recording of World of Warcraft on youtube vs. watching someone playing 
> World of Warcraft live. In the recording the same things will happen over 
> and over again, and they will be called "laws of physics", while watching 
> someone playing live, different things will happen every time. As you can 
> see, the image is the same: an elf running through the forest. But the 
> effect are different. In the first case God decided the rules at the 
> beginning, but there is no God anymore moving the electrons, they just 
> repeat over and over again the initial trigger, while other electrons are 
> actively influenced by currently existing consciousnesses. As you can see, 
> the causal power doesn't lie in the electrons, but in the consciousnesses 
> behind the curtains.
>
> 2)
>
 
>
But a Mars Rover can also learn to play World of Warcraft..and probably do 
> it better than you and me.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

1) Rover doesn't know anything, since knowing is a property of 
consciousness. Rover doesn't have a model of the world, since having a 
model of the world means being aware of a world, and awareness is a 
property of consciousness. What does "Rover is represented by itself" even 
mean ? I think what you're doing now is to talk about properties that you, 
as a consciousness, have them, and carelessly starting to attribute those 
properties to lifeless objects. I would suggest a more rigorous thinking 
process. Don't haste in applying concepts where they don't belong.

2) Is it you that don't understand the meaning of self-reference, that's 
why you fail to understand its usage. Self-reference is not "a ghost in the 
machine", but is an eternal logical structure that is the source of all 
existence. By employing its eternal property of looking-back-at-itself, 
self-reference finds objects in itself and gives birth to all the 
consciousnesses in the world.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 06:03:34 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> 1)
>
 
>
I take your point.  But I think the difference is only one of degree.  In 
> my example the Rover knows where it is, lat and long and topology.   That 
> entails having a model of the world, admittedly simple, in which the Rover 
> is represented by itself.  
>
> 2)
>
 
>
I would also say that I think far too much importance is attached to 
> self-reference.  It's just a part of intelligence to run "simulations" in 
> trying to foresee the consequences of potential actions.  The simulation 
> must generally include the actor at some level.  It's not some mysterious 
> property raising up a ghost in the machine.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Also putting you some blind glasses will make your visual qualia go away. 
This doesn't mean that the glasses are what generates qualia.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 06:13:21 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> We know enough about matter that adding a little alcohol to your 
> bloodstream or a small blow to the head (but not the foot) will make you 
> qualia go away.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

But it has predictions. Is just that it depends what you understand by 
"predictions" at this point. If you understand something like predicting 
the masses of particles from physics, then it doesn't make such a 
prediction. But neither does physics. But on the other hand, it makes 
predictions like the fact that it explains the retentional passage of time. 
Husserl described the fact that time has a retentional structure, but he 
didn't explain why it is like this. In my theory, this is explained. The 
way it is explained is through the fact that time inherits the quality of 
self-reference from the Self and the quality of memory from Memory, so each 
present moment that goes into the past is pushed back into itself as 
present, therefore obtaining the retentional structure of time as described 
by Husserl. This is a big thing!

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 18:36:07 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> Yes, I understand your ToE is like ideal monism.  But it is one thing to 
> assert it.  It is another to derive some predictions from it.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I think that you are making the classical confusion that a lot of 
materialists are doing, namely to not have a proper understanding of 
precise philosophical concepts, such as: meaning, purpose, free will, etc., 
and because of this lack of understanding, you randomly apply these 
concepts where they don't belong. Basically what you are doing is to 
personify objects. You basically say: "look, that puppet looks like a 
human, so it must be a human". Therefore, I would ask from you and other 
people that make such hastily use of these precise philosophical concepts, 
to do some reading before engaging in such conversations, because otherwise 
you will think that you say profound things, when in fact you only 
demonstrate a shallow understanding of serious concepts, which is a pity, 
because you lower the level of the discussion.

So:

1) Rover doesn't have purpose, since purpose is represented by a thinking 
that a consciousness is doing through which it bring thoughts in his mind 
and uses free will to choose between those possibilities. Also, the very 
concept of "artificial intelligence" is highly flawed, because intelligence 
(the natural one, the only one that exists) presupposes bringing new qualia 
into existence that never existed before in the whole universe. A 
deterministic system cannot do that. Rover doesn't have the ability to act, 
since act means a consciousness that through free will imposes its causal 
powers upon the world. Rover doesn't communicate, because communication 
means to exchange meaning, and meaning is something that exists in 
consciousness. Sending 0s and 1s is not communication. Rover has no memory 
because memory means re-experiencing a previously experienced quale. Rover 
doesn't learn, because learning means the ability to re-act certain qualia 
that have been experienced before, and improve upon them.

2) You only make that assertion from your position of lack of knowledge. 
You have no knowledge of a whole field of study, and because you lack this 
knowledge, you assume that other people are lacking it as well.

As you can see, you are trying to engage in a discussion in which you have 
total lack of knowledge of basic concepts. With all due respect, I would 
suggest you first do some serious readings before engaging any further in 
these issues. You can start with my book. It is a very good starting place.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 18:43:20 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/16/2019 11:23 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> 1) Well... It might be a very specific arrangement of atoms, but they are 
> still governed by Newton's Laws. Is not like if you put them in certain 
> order magic happens and new things start to appear. It  has no memory, no 
> purpose and no ability to act, since memory, purpose and ability to act are 
> properties of consciousness.
>
> 1)
>
 
>
But a Mars Rover with artificial intelligence does have purpose, to collect 
> and analyze various data.  It has the ability to act, to travel, to take 
> samples, to communicate.  It has memory of its purpose, where it's been, 
> and for an AI system, even the ability to learn.  Yes, no magic happens.  
> But new things start to appear just as certain arrangements of atoms are 
> your computer that can transform and display these symbols but in another 
> arrangement would be just a lump of metal and plastic.
>
>
> 2) Try removing yourself from the house in the middle of the winter. You 
> will stop experience warmth, but this doesn't mean that the quale of warmth 
> is generated by the house.
>
>
> True.  But something is different about inside and outside the house that 
> is not ONLY in your consciousness, because others agree about it and 
> measure it...it's called temperature.
>
>
> 3) I have done the thinking. I don't have to do the experiment to know it 
> is true.
>
> 2)
>
 
>
That's what all the scholastics thought.
>
> Brent
>
>
> On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 03:00:14 UTC+3, Brent wrote: 
>>
>> 1)
>> First, that's false.  The Rover is a very specific arrangement of atoms 
>> interacting with a specific environment.  It has memory, purpose, and the 
>> ability to act.
>>
>> 2)
>>
>  
>
>> Try removing the phosphate atoms from your brain and see what you 
>> believe...if anything.
>>
>> Maybe because you think that the brain is just a bunch of atoms. No, it 
>> is now. If you were to measure what the electrons are doing in the brain, 
>> you would see that they are not moving according to known physics, but they 
>> are being moved by consciousness. 
>>
>> 3)
>>
>  
>>
> And have you done this observation?  A Nobel prize awaits.  
>&g

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I'm not the only consciousness. There are other consciousnesses as well. 
But that's all that exists: consciousnesses and their interactions. 
Everything else are external appearances of the internal interactions that 
take place between consciousnesses.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 18:47:06 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> Sometimes you say there is no magic involved in your theory.  But then 
> you insist that only you are conscious.  Nothing that is not shaped like 
> Visan, perhaps nothing else at all, can be conscious. Why?  Magic. 
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Before going deeper into analyzing your claims, I would like to know if 
your concept of machine has free will. Because this is a very important 
concept for consciousness. If you machine doesn't have free will, then you 
are not talking about consciousness.

On Wednesday, 17 April 2019 19:08:40 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> machine
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What does "self model" even mean ? Notice that any material attempt to 
implement "self model" leads to infinite regress. Because let's say that a 
machine has the parts A B C. To have a "self model" would mean to have 
another part (A B C) which would contain the "self model". But this would 
be an extra part of the "self" which would be needed to be included in the 
"self model" in order to actually have a "self model", so you would need 
another part (A B C (A B C)). But then again you would need to include this 
part as well in the "self model". So you will get to infinite regress. 
Therefore, you need a special kind of entity to obtained the desired effect 
without getting into infinite regress. And that's precisely why the 
self-reference that I'm talking about in the book is unformalizable. And as 
you say, being unformalizable, allows for bootstrapping consciousness into 
existence. You cannot simulate self-reference just by playing around with 
atoms. Self-reference just is. It just is the source of the entire 
existence. Is not up to anyone to simulate the source of existence. You can 
never obtain the properties of consciousness (meaning, purpose, free will, 
memory, intelligence, learning, acting, etc.) just by playing around with a 
bunch of atoms. All these properties of consciousness are having their 
source in the unformalizable self-reference.

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 04:00:31 UTC+3, Russell Standish wrote:
>
> each consciousness bootstraps its own 
> meaning from self-reference. Unless the mars rover has a self model in 
> its code (and I don't think it was constructed that way), then I would 
> extremely doubt it has any sort of consciousness.
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

The only downside being that... the robot does not exist. People are 
tricking themselves too easily into personifying objects. There is no robot 
there, there are just a bunch of atoms that bang into each others. You can 
move those atoms around all day long as you want. You will not create 
self-reference or "self models" or "imaginations of itself". These are just 
concepts that exist in the mind of the "researchers" and the "researchers" 
not getting outside of the lab too often, start to believe their own 
fantasies.
 
On Thursday, 18 April 2019 10:11:09 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> *Columbia engineers create a robot that can imagine itself*
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

1) The qualia of black-and-white is not on the same level with the qualia 
of colors. The qualia of colors include the qualia of black-and-white. You 
cannot see a color if that color is not emergent upon black-and-white (or 
more specifically shades-of-gray). You cannot experience music if music is 
not emergent upon sounds. You cannot taste chocolate if chocolate is not 
emergent upon sweet. You cannot understand Pythagoras Theorem if the 
understanding of Pythagoras Theorem doesn't emerge upon the understandings 
of triangles, angles, lengths, etc. And this is real emergence, because you 
really get new existent entities that never existed before in the history 
of existence. God himself never experienced these qualia. 

I don't understand your second part of the question regarding our 
"cognitive processes". Are you referring to our specific form of human 
consciousness ? I don't think this is only restricted to our human 
consciousness, for the reason that it happens to all qualia that we have. 
All qualia domains are structured in an emergent way.

2) The main ideas in my book are the emergent structure of consciousness 
and the self-reference which gives birth to the emergent structure. The 
ideas about self-reference that I have are rooted in phenomenology. First I 
observe that consciousness is structured in an emergent way, and then I 
conclude that the reason it is like this is because there is an entity 
called "self-reference" that looks-back-at-itself and in this process 
includes the previously existing self and brings a new transcendent self 
into existence, like in the case of colors emerging on top of 
black-and-white.

3) The difference is that in an emergent system you have top-down influence 
in levels. Electrons in simple systems like the ones in physical 
experiments have little input from any top level, so they behaving 
according to their own level and display certain laws. But when they are 
part of a greater holistic system, like in the brain (which is just an 
appearance of internal workings in consciousness) they receive top-down 
influence from the intentions in consciousness, and so they behave 
according to the will of consciousness. Is the same phenomenon when we 
speak, that I also gave in my presentation. When we speak, we act from the 
level of intending to transmit certain ideas. And this level exercises 
top-down influence in levels and the sentences, words and letters are 
coming out in accordance with the intention from the higher level.

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 16:22:18 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>
> Hi Cosmin,
>
> 1)
>
 
>
Ok, I saw your presentation. We agree on several things, but I don't quite 
> get your qualia emergence idea. The things you describe make sense, for 
> example the dissolution of meaning by repetition, but what makes you think 
> that this is anything more than an observation in the domain of the 
> cognitive sciences? Or, putting it another way, and observation / model on 
> how our cognitive processes work?
>
>
> 2) Consciousness is not mysterious. And this is exactly what my book is 
> doing: demystifying consciousness. If you decide to read my book, you will 
> gain at the end of it a clarity of thinking through these issues that all 
> people should have such that they will stop making the confusions that 
> robots are alive.
>
>
> I don't mean to discourage or attack you in anyway, but one in a while 
> someone with a book to promote shows up in this mailing list. No problem 
> with me, I have promoted some of my work sometimes. My problem is with "if 
> you read my book...". There are many books to read, please give the main 
> ideas. Then I might read it.
>
>
> 3) No, they are not extraordinarily claims. They are quite trivial. And 
> they start from the trivial realization that the brain does not exist. The 
> "brain" is just an idea in consciousness.
>
>
> I have no problem with "the brain is just an idea in consciousess". I am 
> not sure if this type of claim can be verified, or if it falls into the 
> category of things we cannot assert, as Bruno would say. I do tend to think 
> privately in those terms.
>
> So ok, the brain does not exist. It is just a bunch of qualia in 
> consciousness. But this is then true of every single thing! Again, no 
> problem with this, but also no reason to abandon science. The machine 
> doesn't exist either, but its elections (that don't exist either) follow a 
> certain pattern of behavior that we call the laws of physics. Why not the 
> electrons in the brain? What's the difference?
>
> Telmo.
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

It's still not clear to me what your concept of "machine" is. Is it just an 
abstract theory or is it some actually existing entity ? If it is actually 
existing, is it made out of atoms ? Because if it is made out of atoms, 
where does its free will come from ? In the case of humans free will comes 
from the fact that we are not made out of atoms, but we are 
consciousnesses, "atoms" being just ideas in us.

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 17:04:15 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> They have as much free will as human (direct consequence of the Mechanist 
> assumption).
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

It is a precise definition in the sense that if I see red, then I see red. 
You cannot come and tell me: "Well... maybe it wasn't red, maybe it was 
yellow.". No! It was red! And if you then say: "Oh, but also the robot sees 
red, because...", then you enter a realm of fantasy that has nothing to do 
whatsoever with rational thinking. We are not interested in fantasies, i.e. 
"operational definitions". We are interested in truth. And be saying the 
robot sees red, you are not doing anything in helping to understand truth, 
you are just playing word-games.

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 20:44:04 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> I see you are of the scholastic school of philosophers (I thought they 
> were all dead) who suppose that they can make things true by giving them 
> "precise definitions" in words.  You should study some science and learn 
> the importance of operational definitions in  connecting words to facts.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Then if it is not a complete description, why do you call it 
"self-reference" ? You should just call it: "a table of parameters". The 
true self-reference is complete: it is included in itself in its entirety. 
And is doing this without getting into infinite regress. The reason it can 
avoid infinite regress is that the true self-reference is an unformal 
entity. Or as I read some guy saying: self-reference neither is nor not-is, 
self-reference neither exists nor not-exists. It is a very special kind of 
entity.

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 20:56:08 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> No.  A "model" is not a complete description, it's a representation of 
> some specific aspects.  Your "self-reference" cannot refer to everything 
> about yourself...which according to you is a stream of consciousness.
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Of course there are no atoms. The point is that the robot follows the same 
behavior as the appearances of "atoms" in our consciousness. In other 
words, if you know the behavior of atoms (even though they are nothing more 
than appearances in consciousness), you know the behavior of the robot. 
There is no free will there, no act, no purpose, etc. But in the case of 
consciousnesses, the "atoms" in the "brain" are not enough to predict the 
behavior of a conscious being, because the "atoms" in the "brain" receive 
top-down influence in levels from the intentions of consciousnesses. 
Consciousnesses really have free will, really act, really have purposes. 
This has nothing to do with "scholastic philosophy". This is just rational 
thinking. If you you use your rationality you realize these things. If not, 
you start to believe in fantasies in which robots have souls.

On Thursday, 18 April 2019 23:54:04 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/18/2019 3:34 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> The only downside being that... the robot does not exist. People are 
> tricking themselves too easily into personifying objects. There is no robot 
> there, there are just a bunch of atoms 
>
>
> I thought you didn't believe in atoms.  I look forward to your 
> construction of atoms from consciousness of...what?  atoms?
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Vitalism is still true. Nobody knows how a being develops from embryo to 
its fully developed form. DNA is just a book. Nobody knows how it actually 
functions. It might well receive top-down influence in levels from higher 
order consciousness that guides the development of the biological entity.

Then Lob is just talking about other things. The true self-reference is not 
formalisable, since neither is nor not-is.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 02:27:31 UTC+3, Russell Standish wrote:
>
>
> The same argument was made in favour of vitalism - before the 
> structure and mechanics of DNA was discovered. 
>
> Self-reference is formalisable. See Löb's theorem. 
>
> -- 
>
>  
>
> Dr Russell StandishPhone 0425 253119 (mobile) 
> Principal, High Performance Coders 
> Visiting Senior Research Fellowhpc...@hpcoders.com.au 
>  
> Economics, Kingston University http://www.hpcoders.com.au 
>  
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Exactly. This is the whole point. In order to have self-reference, you need 
to have a self. And you don't just get a self by arranging atoms in certain 
positions. You don't get a self by bringing a bunch of atoms together and 
calling them "a robot", because calling them "a robot" is just something 
that you yourself do in your own consciousness. Only because you call that 
bunch of atoms "a robot" it doesn't mean that all of a sudden magic happens 
and that bunch of atoms really become "a robot", or a self. So you don't 
just get selves. Self is a rather specific entity. Self is exactly that 
entity that is included by default in the very notion of "self-reference". 
Self is that ontological entity that has as its very property the property 
of referring-back-to-itself. And automatically that kind of entity is 
unformalizable.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 10:44:39 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> The problematic part of "self-reference" is "self".
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

No, this cannot be done. The Self is eternal and it exists necessarily by 
the fact that it self-refers itself. All you can do is to give the Self 
different experiences and make him believe he is an individual 
consciousness. This is happening for example in biological reproduction. 
What biological reproduction is doing is to make the unique Self to believe 
he is an independent consciousness. But in order to make him believe that, 
you need to follow specific conditions as they are realized in biology. As 
of today, we have no idea what those conditions are that biology satisfy in 
order to make the Self believe he is an independent consciousness.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 11:09:36 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> Of course (as you know) I say one could bring a "bunch of atoms together" 
> to get something that is a conscious self.
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

And to add more regarding biology, take into account that reincarnation 
preserves memories from past lives. So biology is not merely "putting atoms 
in the right order". Is more than that. The conditions that biology 
satisfies in order to individuate the unique Self are going beyond mere 
arrangements of atoms.

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

1) You raise an interesting point. Can you give another example in that 
direction beside the qualia of good and bad ? Because you made me think 
about the case that you mentioned, and it seems to me that it only works 
for cases of good and bad. A similar example to yours would be: blue and 
green emerge on top of shades-of-gray, but I like blue and I don't like 
green, so where does the good and bad appear in my final experience of a 
quale ? So it might be the case that aesthetic components might be 
something special. That's why I would like to hear if you can come up with 
a similar example besides aesthetic components, to pinpoint more precisely 
where there might be a problem with my ideas about emergence.

2) This is interesting again. And I thought about it before writing my 
paper about emergence. And indeed I think that your proposal that it might 
just be something related to brain functioning cannot be discarded. The 
reason why I prefer to see it as something related directly to 
consciousness is simply because it can give me the possibility to further 
pursue the issue. If it is something related to brain, then it might be 
contingent, and I cannot see how the phenomenon can be understood any 
further. If it is something related to consciousness, then it is 
interesting because then it is related to fundamental problems regarding 
the nature of meaning and how meaning is generated, so deep thinking in 
these directions can further help us understand consciousness.

3) There is no ontological/epistemological confusion here. I state that 
even if you are to take into account the entire history that you mention, 
the electron would still not follow the same laws as in simple systems, 
because in the brain it will receive top-down influence from a higher 
consciousness. And the more complex the system, the more the consciousness 
is evolved and its intentions are beyond comprehension, so the ability to 
describe the movement of electrons using coherent laws vanishes. The 
electron will simply appear to not follow any law, because the intentions 
of consciousness would be more and more complex and diverse.

Btw, you can find my ideas also published for free in papers: 
https://philpeople.org/profiles/cosmin-visan So if you want to get more 
details about my ideas regarding emergence and self-reference, you can as 
well read the papers.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 15:09:54 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>
>
> 1)
>
> There is something here that still does not convince me. For example, you 
> say that the "chocolate taste" qualia emerges from simpler qualia, such as 
> "sweet". Can you really justify this hierarchical relation without 
> implicitly alluding to the quanti side? Consider the qualias of eating a 
> piece of chocolate, a spoonful of sugar and french fries. You can feel that 
> the first two have something in common that distinguishes them from the 
> third, and you can give it the label "sweet". At the same time, you could 
> say that the chocolate and french fries are pleasant to eat, while the 
> spoonful of sugar not so much. You can also label this abstraction with 
> some word. Without empirical grounding, nothing makes one distinction more 
> meaningful than another.
>
> What makes the "sweat" abstraction so special? Well, it's that we know 
> about sweet receptors in the tongue and we know it's one of the four(five?) 
> basic flavors because of that. I'm afraid you smuggle this knowledge into 
> the pure qualia world. Without it, there is no preferable hierarchical 
> relation and emergence becomes nonsensical again. There's just a field of 
> qualia.
>
>  
>
2) 
>
 
>
I was referring to your observation that things lose meaning by repetition, 
> like staring at yourself in the mirror for a long time. I to find this 
> interesting, but I can imagine prosaic explanations. For example, that our 
> brain requires a certain amount of variety in its inputs, otherwise it 
> tends to a simpler state were apprehension of meaning is no longer 
> possible. In other words, I am proposing a plumber-style explanation, and 
> asking you why/if you think it can be discarded?
>
>
> 3) The difference is that in an emergent system you have top-down 
> influence in levels. Electrons in simple systems like the ones in physical 
> experiments have little input from any top level, so they behaving 
> according to their own level and display certain laws. But when they are 
> part of a greater holistic system, like in the brain (which is just an 
> appearance of internal workings in consciousness) they receive top-down 
> influence from the intentions in consciousness, and so they behave 
> according to the will of consciousness. Is the same phenomenon when we 
> speak, that I also gave in my presentation. When we speak, we act from the 
> level of intending to transmit certain ideas. And this level exercises 
> top-down influence in levels and the sentences, words and letters are 
> coming out in accordance with 

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I like the questions. While I might not be able to give satisfactory 
answers to them, here's how I view the issues raised:

On Friday, 19 April 2019 23:41:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Hey Cosmin, 
>
> What is the mechanism by which consciousness acts in a top down manner on 
> and influences electrons and presumably other particles? How does that 
> causal link manifest?
>
> Notice that I specifically use the word "influence" and not "causation". 
This is because I believe there is no causation. Let's not talk about 
electrons, because electrons don't exist, they are just ideas in 
consciousness. Let's just talk about qualia. The idea is that when I see an 
image for example, I just see it. But that image comes with a whole 
emergent structure built into it: objects, shapes, colors, shades-of-gray, 
black-and-white. So in a way there is a top-down influence in levels from 
the level of the image to all its constituent levels. But it is not 
causation, because colors don't cause shades-of-gray, but influence them 
such as to conform with the highest level. Take the colored cube image:



The reason the squares are yellow and blue is because there is a top-down 
influence in levels from the level of the full visual scene to the level of 
colors. But there is no causation. Is just influence, and the influence is 
in the direction of the parts to contribute to the whole in a meaningful 
way. 

The same must happen when we move our body. Whatever is behind the 
appearances of "electrons", it acts as parts and take part in the greater 
holistic meaning of moving the body. But again, is not causation, is parts 
contributing to the whole in a meaningful way.

You can read the full account that I'm giving to how influence works, in 
the section "The idealist ontology" on Part II of my The Emergent Structure 
of Consciousness paper. (or in the book)

 

> Some other questions: 
>
> Given that electrons don't really exist by your account, what stops the 
> seemingly inevitably slide into solipsism? Why does our world seem 
> constrained? 
>
> Is not solipsism because I think it is a good assumption to allow the 
existence of other consciousnesses in the world. The world seem constrained 
because of the interactions between consciousnesses, each consciousness 
wanting to be in power, and you get an evolutionary game in which all 
consciousnesses adapt to all the other consciousnesses.

 

> Put another way, what is the principle that makes sense of your account of 
> consciousness such that it can influence some things, but not others?
>
>
I think this is because of evolution. Certain connections were established 
between certain consciousnesses in order to help them survive. It's similar 
to why we have the qualia that we have and not others: because they helped 
us at some point in our evolutionary history.

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You didn't read anything from what I wrote to you about meaning, purpose, 
free will, intelligence, learning, memory, etc, have you ? Because 
otherwise, you would have understood that AIs don't see any colors. And 
there is no brain.

On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:25:04 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> Of course if you built an AI to identify the color of objects the full 
> visual scene would have exactly the same "influence", except you would be 
> able to trace it back to a normalization of the colors in the AI...an 
> entirely causal process, and one that no doubt happens in the brain.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

How can it produce the "right answer" if you don't tell it specifically what 
the "right answer" should be ? Only because you make a computer display on the 
screen "***This is the right answer!***" it doesn't mean you replicated the 
workings of consciousness. It only means you made the computer to do what you 
want it. You can also make it display "I am Santa Claus.". So what ?

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:15:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without 
> causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means 
> to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it 
> otherwise would have. It *causes* it to change.
>

The thing is that time itself is a quale in consciousness. You can have 
temporal extended periods in consciousness that happen all at once. You can 
see it as a movie that already exists. If you attend-along to the movie it 
appears to you as if there are causal powers happening there. But the movie 
exists all at once, so causality is an illusion. I'm writing about this in 
"The Quale of Time". 

>
> 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing 
> consciousnesses, and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence. 
> What evolutionary dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to 
> flap my arms and fly. Why can't I?
>

Because there are other consciousness that don't want you to fly. And they 
are many and they win. Gravity is an external appearance of internal 
interactions that take place in other consciousnesses. Those 
consciousnesses are not necesseraily linked to biological bodies, so there 
is no easy way to pinpoint them. They are living in their internal worlds. 
And their interactions are as such that to us it appears that there is a 
thing that we call "gravity". 

>
> 3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no such 
> things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate constraint?  
> Why do people die?
>
> In my view, death is just a transition to another life. Since Self is 
eternal, it means that death is just a point in which the experiences of 
the Self are changing. Why exactly it turned out to be this way has to do 
again both with evolution and probably also to some inerent fact about the 
very nature of self-reference to need diversity to be able to exist.

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

Re: Dark Matter

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Maybe in those galaxies life didn't appear, so there is no consciousness to 
move the galaxies faster.

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Conscious AI = the fairy-tale of 21st century.

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Only if you never did some serious thinking you can consider AI can be 
conscious. Is not at all the same thing like other similar statements 
across history like "objects heavier than air can never fly". In that case 
you were only dealing with arrangements of atoms. But in the case of 
consciousness you are dealing with the nature of reality. And the nature of 
reality just is. You don't conjure it up just by arranging atoms, atoms 
which don't even exist, being themselves ideas in consciousness. Is like 
you are given a picture of a dead person and you try to revive that person 
by painting the picture pixel by pixel. You will not revive anything. You 
will just make a picture. That's all. If you are to make an "artificial 
brain" atom by atom, all that you will ever get will be a dead object that 
will not do anything.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 04:02:32 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> AI can't be conscious like me = the hubris of the 21st century. 
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I don't see where in your link it is given any definition of SI.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 08:04:50 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> But Conscious SI [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthetic_intelligence ] 
> may not be.
>
> - pt 
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Monday, 22 April 2019 07:41:14 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> 1) Causality can still exist even if time is an illusion. For example in 
> block-time, time is an indexical - all times can be said to exist at once - 
> but that in no way diminishes the role of causality in describing the 
> dynamics and interactions of the system as time 't' varies.
>
> No, it cannot. It is just the story of the movie. I guess that in dreams 
when a rock falls and hits the ground, you don't consider that the rock 
fell because it was causally attracted by the earth. It is just the story 
of the dream.
 

> 2) I don't even know how to make sense of this claim. The whims of 
> competing consciousnesses are what determine the laws of physics? To me 
> this is indistinguishable from "God did it". There's no way to reason about 
> it, no hope for making predictions or improving understanding. You'd have 
> to understand the minds of the consciousnesses whose competition creates 
> reality.
>

Yes, you cannot make predictions anymore, because it all depends on the 
thinking of each individual consciousness. Is like in society. You can only 
make vague general predictions, but you will never have exact predictions 
like in physics, because you are dealing with complex consciousnesses. The 
predictions in physics are more precise because you are dealing there with 
primitive consciousnesses and they act in simple manners. 

>
> 3) Also, other consciousnesses want me to die... right?
>
> They don't want you to die. What happens is that interaction is disrupted 
at some point, and your highly evolved consciousness falls apart. Is also 
similar to how society works. When the component consciousnesses don't 
interact anymore in the proper ways, society falls apart. 

>
> On Sun, Apr 21, 2019 at 4:41 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, 20 April 2019 02:15:40 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>>>
>>> 1) I'm not sure I can make sense of the term 'influence' without 
>>> causation. In every instance I can think of, to influence something means 
>>> to exert some kind of force on it such that it behaves differently then it 
>>> otherwise would have. It *causes* it to change.
>>>
>>
>> The thing is that time itself is a quale in consciousness. You can have 
>> temporal extended periods in consciousness that happen all at once. You can 
>> see it as a movie that already exists. If you attend-along to the movie it 
>> appears to you as if there are causal powers happening there. But the movie 
>> exists all at once, so causality is an illusion. I'm writing about this in 
>> "The Quale of Time". 
>>
>>>
>>> 2) I'm not following your evolutionary account of competing 
>>> consciousnesses, and how that leads to constraints that I cannot influence. 
>>> What evolutionary dynamic is responsible for gravity?  I'd sure like to 
>>> flap my arms and fly. Why can't I?
>>>
>>
>> Because there are other consciousness that don't want you to fly. And 
>> they are many and they win. Gravity is an external appearance of internal 
>> interactions that take place in other consciousnesses. Those 
>> consciousnesses are not necesseraily linked to biological bodies, so there 
>> is no easy way to pinpoint them. They are living in their internal worlds. 
>> And their interactions are as such that to us it appears that there is a 
>> thing that we call "gravity". 
>>
>>>
>>> 3) How do you account for death in your worldview?  If there are no such 
>>> things as electrons or brains, then what about the ultimate constraint?  
>>> Why do people die?
>>>
>>> In my view, death is just a transition to another life. Since Self is 
>> eternal, it means that death is just a point in which the experiences of 
>> the Self are changing. Why exactly it turned out to be this way has to do 
>> again both with evolution and probably also to some inerent fact about the 
>> very nature of self-reference to need diversity to be able to exist.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
>> .
>> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You can still continue to make science as you are doing it today, in order 
to increase the quality of life. The thing is that you never had causality, 
determinism, prediction, and any hope of understanding the universe to 
start with. What we gain is precisely this: the ability to understand 
existence. You can still make predicitons, but they will be prediciton of 
the kind: "If you put your hand into the fire, you will get burned. Don't 
you believe me ? Try it!", namely predictions by way of experience. First 
someone experiences something (without prediction what it will be, because 
you cannot predict something that you never experienced), and then by 
understanding the context that generated that specific meaning, you will 
invite other consciousness to put themselves into that precise context. God 
himself created the world in order to experience things. He couldn't have 
imagined by his own will new qualia, because he didn't have the proper 
contexts for those qualia to be brought into existence. So he forgot about 
himself and reincarnated in all the consciousness in the world, and those 
consciousness through their interactions establish contexts and contexts 
give birth to meaning/qualia. This way, God gets to know himself. Is the 
only way.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 15:48:32 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> So to summarize:
>
>- We lose: causality, determinism, prediction, and any hope of 
>understanding the universe without getting into the minds of competing 
>consciousnesses, some proportion of which don't inhabit biological bodies
>- We gain: 
>
> Can you help me out with that second line? Why should anyone take your 
> theory seriously when it means jettisoning science? What's the payoff? 
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Biology is not doing atoms arrangements, but is doing creation of conscious 
systems. Atoms are just ideas in consciousness. Is like looking on a 
computer screen and concluding: "Aha, so that's how the letters are 
displayed on the screen: pixels gets lighted!", when in fact the reason for 
letters appearing on the screen is that a consciousness is typing them from 
somewhere outside of the screen.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 20:28:59 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 4/22/2019 1:28 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> Only if you never did some serious thinking you can consider AI can be 
> conscious. Is not at all the same thing like other similar statements 
> across history like "objects heavier than air can never fly". In that case 
> you were only dealing with arrangements of atoms. But in the case of 
> consciousness you are dealing with the nature of reality. And the nature of 
> reality just is. You don't conjure it up just by arranging atoms, 
>
>
> But I did.  I conjured up four children by rearranging atoms.  You should 
> try some serious thinking before you spout off unsupported assertions.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

We have no choice in building such an ontology given the fact that we can 
never know anything outside consciousness. Sure, if we want just 
technology, then all kinds of science can do it. But if we want truth, we 
cannot search it outside consciousness.

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Are you aware of Donald Hoffman's work ? He too starts from interacting 
conscious agents and from there we deduces quantum mechanics. I don't agree 
with his theory, because he is not aware of the emergent nature of 
consciousness, but it's an interesting exercise of how physics can be 
derived from consciousness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oadgHhdgRkI

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What exactly is it that you print when you print a brain ? Is like saying 
that you print a picture of a rain and you expect to make you wet. Or like 
making a printscreen of your facebook chat and expect to receive new 
messages on the printscreen.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 21:46:27 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> Think of a brain bioprinter, a next generation of
>
>THE BIOLIFE4D BIOPRINTING PROCESS
>
> https://biolife4d.com/process/
>
> - pt
>
>  
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

A brain is not a heart. There are special relations in the brain through 
which consciousness can act upon the world. You cannot copy those 
relations, since they are not material. So if you "copy" a brain, you will 
only end up with a dead piece of flesh. And even if you somehow manage to 
open the doors for consciousness to act upon the brain, that consciousness 
will not have any memory, since memories are not stored in the brain, so 
you would only get a baby in the body of an adult.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:07:53 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> There is a video there of printing a heart.
>
> - pt
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

For every "Reality is X" statement, where X doesn't refer to an experience 
in consciousness, that statement is just a thought in consciousness, so it 
cannot be anything more than a fabricated theory.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:38:20 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> Of course we have a choice. The primacy of consciousness may entail 
> nothing more than an epistemological barrier - we may never be able to 
> experience reality directly, or know its true form, but that doesn't force 
> us to deny the possibility of an objective reality. 
>
> If nothing else it forces us to remain agnostic. We can be sure of the 
> primacy of consciousness - on this we agree - but we cannot be sure about 
> anything of the reality that pushes back on our consciousness. Your 
> certainty on this matter is a red flag for me.
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

And there are other reasons as well. The nature of self-reference is of 
such a kind that the very meaning of the word "existence" is "the 
looking-back-at-itself of self-reference", so existence can only be 
subjective.

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Is just an analogy to make you understand better the problems that will 
appear in case you want to "copy" the brain. The true reason is that the 
"brain" is just a very specific image that you see in your own 
consciousness of a much greater reality that you don't see. And you can 
only copy what you see. But copying only what you see will leave the 
reality behind not taken into account. So you will only end up with a 
picture that will not do anything, because you didn't copy what matters.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 22:51:37 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> This is just Dualism which says there is (material) Matter and there is 
> (immaterial) Mind, and Mind operates with brains, not hearts.
>
> If you were a *true* *consciousness-only ontologist*, then you would say 
> a brain could be bio-printed just like a heart could be bio-printed, 
> because bio-printing is just putting cells/molecules together, and in the 
> consciousness-only ontology. a cell/molecule is just an idea (of 
> consciousness) anyway!
>
> - pt
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

There is no Me-2 brain alive. Me-2 will be a soulless object.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 23:27:52 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> If my Me-1 brain were cellularly copied, there would be a Me-2 brain.
>
> Me-2 from that point on would have it's own experiences. It would be like 
> an identical twin brother's brain, but closer to identical than the 
> traditional kind where the brains separated in gestation.
>
> - pt
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Monday, 22 April 2019 23:34:13 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> What are they...exactly.
>

I cannot tell you what are they exactly, but is like the relation between a 
car and the driver. Only because you replicate the car, it doesn't mean 
that all of sudden it will start to work on its own. 

>
> How do you know that if you don't know the "special relations"?
>

Because there is no "brain". "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. 

>
> Then why are they eliminated by brain damage?
>

They are not eliminated. Memories are stored forever. The access to memory 
is eliminated. 

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Nobody knows how an embryo develops.

On Monday, 22 April 2019 23:48:16 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> Then how is it that a fertilized ovum knows what to copy?
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Is just an analogy to make you understand better the problems that will 
appear in case you want to "copy" the brain. The true reason is that the 
"brain" is just a very specific image that you see in your own 
consciousness of a much greater reality that you don't see. And you can 
only copy what you see. But copying only what you see will leave the 
reality behind not taken into account. So you will only end up with a 
picture that will not do anything, because you didn't copy what matters.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:05:13 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> "Souls" are entities of  body-soul Dualism: There needs to be a :soul to 
> enter a Me-2 body.
>
> Are you a consciousness monist or a dualist? It sounds like more the 
> latter than the former.
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:20:49 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> Actually it will work just like the car you replicated.  So why won't the 
> replicated driver work just like the driver?
>
> No, it won't. Because you need the driver to set it in motion. 

>
> That's not what you said.  You said  "There are special relations in the 
> brain through which consciousness can act upon the world. You cannot copy 
> those relations, since they are not material."  So  now you say there are 
> special relations in a brain that doesn't exist.  But you don't know what 
> they are.
>
> There is no brain. 

>
> So they are memories that can never be remembered.
>
> They can be remembered if the relations are re-established. Like these 
mice cured of Alzheimer that started to remember:

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-12-experimental-alzheimer-drug-memory-mice.html

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

They don't know what matters. They have no ideas how the embryo gets to its 
final form.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:23:27 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> They know a helluva a lot of it. 
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I think you don't understand what "X is just an idea in consciousness" 
means. You are adding an extra step to the meaning of this phrase, that 
shouldn't be there. That extra step that you add is that you first create 
the X, and then you put it in consciousness. The correct meaning of this 
phrase is to not create any X, but to let it be just an idea right from the 
start. When I say "Santa Claus comes for Christmas", I don't first create a 
Santa Claus and then put it in consciousness, but it exists right from the 
start only in consciousness. Similar, when I say: "The brain is brown", I 
don't first create a brain and then put it in consciousness, but it exists 
right from the start only as an imaginary object that I fantasize about. So 
wanting to "copy the brain" is like wanting to copy Santa Claus that you 
only invent in your own imagination. How are you going to do that if there 
is no Santa Claus whatsoever ?

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:24:25 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
> But the "what matters" part is the basis of dualism.
>
> If everything is consciousness, then the cells of the brain - and the 
> brain itself - are ideas in consciousness. So the brain copy would be 
> conscious according to consciousness monism!
>
> With dualism, you get what you said: Something is left behind in the copy.
>
> I'm pointing out that if you are a true consciousness monist, then the 
> brain copy would be conscious too.
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I think I am used to talk at a certain level and therefore I skip certain 
details. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness that stands for a system 
of interactions between consciousnesses. If you damage "the brain", you 
damage that system of interacting consciousnesses, so you would disrupt 
certain consciousnesses that represents memories.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:33:17 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> How can you assert that access is eliminated when the brain doesn't 
> exist?  In order for that to make sense, you're presupposing a role for the 
> brain in one's consciousness.
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Yes, to protect the system of interacting consciousnesses.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 00:57:57 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> Do you wear a helmet when riding your motorcycle?
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You apparently have the illusion that you know too much about embryology 
that you start to imagine answers where there are none.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 01:00:57 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> You apparently don't know much about embryology.  But that's to be 
> expected since you think all knowledge comes from introspection.
>
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I'm just using my reason. I'm not a shallow thinker. Have a look at this 
guy's blog to see countless arguments for why memories are not stored in 
the brain:

https://headtruth.blogspot.com/2019/02/brains-store-memories-dogma-versus.html

This is just one example, but you can explore more on his blog about 
memories.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 01:44:07 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> I just met you but it sounds like you're the type of guy who believes in 
> the invisible man in the sky theory.  I hope I'm wrong.  
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Link please.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 02:16:15 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> But damaged brains are being repaired today by implanting new (perhaps 
> synthetic, polymer-based) neurons, and full consciousness is restored.
>
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You first said that injuries "are being repaired" and then you give me 
links with maybes and coulds. Maybe Santa Claus will help us all in the 
end. Amen!

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 11:44:35 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
>
> *Artificial Neurons Could Replace Some Real Ones In Your Brain*
> A new way to fix neurological disorders
> - https://www.popsci.com/these-artificial-neurons-work-organic-ones
>
> *Scientists Have Built Artificial Neurons That Fully Mimic Human Brain 
> Cells*
> - 
> https://www.sciencealert.com/scientists-build-an-artificial-neuron-that-fully-mimics-a-human-brain-cell
>
> *Reprogramming the brain with synthetic neurobiology*
> - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30458406
>
> - pt
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Besides, "artificial neurons" that "fully mimic" is just a shocking amazing 
ZOMG news title, not a serious statement. Nobody knows how a neuron works, 
and they already mimic that behavior ? trololol

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Actually, this is precisely what existence is: that which is immediately 
knowable. I see red, thus red exists.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:21:10 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
>  I doubt that existence is immediately knowable, etc.
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

That's just a random definition that doesn't mean anything.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:27:18 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>  With mechanism, the observer is just a number/machine, relative to some 
> other numbers/machines.
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

So what does "computer science" has to do with consciousness ? It seems to 
me that you just make a random connection.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 13:12:03 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 19 Apr 2019, at 09:16, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> It's still not clear to me what your concept of "machine" is. Is it just 
> an abstract theory or is it some actually existing entity ? 
>
>
> It is a machine in the sense of computer science.
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Friday, 19 April 2019 13:27:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 18 Apr 2019, at 12:17, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>  recursion.
>
>
> That's precisely what self-reference is not. And I specifically point this 
in the book. 


> The universal machine (number, combinator, or physical) knows that they 
> have a soul (immaterial, immortal, and responsible for the illusion of the 
> physical universe and its lawfulness).
>
> You cannot simulate self-reference just by playing around with atoms. 
> Self-reference just is.
>
>
> Not OK. You can simulate the self-reference with atoms, and that enacts 
> the experience of the first person, which is distributed on the whole 
> arithmetic, and can be shown to be non formalisable, nor even definable.
>

It seems to me that you just say random things without any logic, probably 
because they sound "profound" to you.

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You are confusing the Self with the ego.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 15:50:16 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> With (panpsychic-experiential) materialism:
>
>  - the self is not eternal  :(   [ of course you could be frozen in the 
> hope for some future technology ])
>  - it is an independent consciousness (pretty much so, introducing outside 
> chemicals aside)
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

There is a special kind of "recognition of patterns in prior qualia". When 
I see a color, the color automatically includes in it various sub-levels: 
shades-of-gray, black-and-white, vividness, Self, etc. But this is not 
necessarily about prior qualia. It might be on an evolutionary context, in 
the sense that at some point some beings only saw shades-of-gray, and then 
a being started to see colors. But as far as my own individual 
consciousness is concerned, I always saw colors directly.

On Friday, 19 April 2019 23:04:06 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
>
> If your fundamental ontology is qualia, a kind of incorrigble knowledge, 
> then isn't everything going to epistemology?  The very idea of a mind 
> independent reality is a construct to explain the existence of patterns in 
> the qualia.  That's where the self-reference comes in: among the qualia are 
> some that are experience or recognition of patterns in prior qualia.  
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

This is like saying: If you replace part of the computer screen with 
drawings made on a piece of paper, what does this indicate ? Well... it 
indicates that on the part replaced with the piece of paper, nothing will 
happen anymore.

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 01:41:14 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>
>
> If we can replace part of the brain with an electronic component and the 
> person continues experiencing normal consciousness, what does this indicate?
>
>> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

For this you don't even need idealism. You can just take the brain as a 
black box ready to receive the proper input in order to generate the proper 
qualia. You will most likely not detect infrared light and others, simply 
because the black box is not made to detect them.

And there is another thing here: we are not detecting "air movement" or 
"electromagnetic oscillation", since this is not what qualia do. Qualia are 
all about meaning, we detect meaning. And that meaning serves evolutionary 
purposes. I talk about this in the first chapter of my book, where I do an 
analysis of sounds and colors and show how they are meaning, not something 
related to any "electromagnetic spectrum". The reason is simple: if they 
were related to "electromagnetic spectrum", then if you were to not know 
the order of the colors in the rainbow, then if I were to give you the 
colors, you would know to put them in order by frequency. But since you 
cannot do that, colors are not about "electromagnetic spectrum", but are 
about survival criteria, like red and green for finding fruits in trees and 
yellow and blue for finding the sun in the sky, etc.

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 22:19:32 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>
> Some people who were born deaf have been given cochlear implants, which 
> give them the ability to hear for the first time 
> . For them, this is new 
> qualia they've never experienced. But it's only possible because of a 
> technical device interfacing with their living nervous system. 
>
> How does your theory account for this, when brains, and cochlear implants, 
> don't really exist? When qualia cannot be understood in terms of neurology? 
> When purely technical devices don't contain that special something that 
> only conscious beings have?
>
> What can you say about "systems of consciousnesses" that would help 
> explain how a given person could suddenly be gifted with entirely new 
> qualia?  What would prevent us from gaining access to all sorts of new 
> qualia, by inventing neural prosthetics for detecting infrared light, 
> ultrasonic frequencies, the earth's magnetosphere, and so on?  
>
> Terren
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

So ultimately they are not "artificial", but natural, grown through 
biological processes, not assembled in a factory. Then they are natural and 
are not made of atoms, but are made by invisible natural processes that are 
also responsible for the workings of consciousness. I think this fact must 
be stated out clearly: biology is not made out of atoms! I think this is 
what confuses most people. People somehow take for granted that biology is 
just atoms, and thus they don't understand how consciousness can be 
immaterial if the brain is material. That's the whole point: the brain is 
NOT material. Neither biology generally. The development of a being is not 
lead by chemical reactions, but chemical reactions are lead by invisible 
forces such that they implement the shape of the being.

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 10:12:49 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> This is the whole point: 
>
> The neuronal cells being replaced in the brain can't be made of anything. 
> The replacements (synthetic neurons) have to be made of atoms/molecules 
> such that they that replicate the actual chemical processing abilities of 
> the cells they are replacing.
>
> - pt
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:46:09 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>
>> This is like saying: If you replace part of the computer screen with 
>> drawings made on a piece of paper, what does this indicate ? Well... it 
>> indicates that on the part replaced with the piece of paper, nothing will 
>> happen anymore.
>>
>> On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 01:41:14 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> If we can replace part of the brain with an electronic component and the 
>>> person continues experiencing normal consciousness, what does this indicate?
>>>
 -- 
>>> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I think that if we want to have any shot at understanding reality we need 
to be serious in our thinking. "Assembled in factories" sounds like you 
just take atom by atom and put them together, which clearly is not what 
happens. People start with already living cells and just modify them a 
little bit. This is clearly anything but "assembled in factories". Is like 
you take a picture of Mona Lisa, you modify 2 pixels in photoshop and you 
claim that you painted Mona Lisa from zero.

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 11:11:32 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>
>
>
> They ("synthetic neurons")  are assembled in laboratories/factories.
>
> New neuron-like cells allow investigation into synthesis of vital cellular 
> components
>
>  https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/01/180122164702.htm 
> 
>
>
> - pt
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 2:54:01 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:
>>
>> So ultimately they are not "artificial", but natural, grown through 
>> biological processes, not assembled in a factory. Then they are natural and 
>> are not made of atoms, but are made by invisible natural processes that are 
>> also responsible for the workings of consciousness. I think this fact must 
>> be stated out clearly: biology is not made out of atoms! I think this is 
>> what confuses most people. People somehow take for granted that biology is 
>> just atoms, and thus they don't understand how consciousness can be 
>> immaterial if the brain is material. That's the whole point: the brain is 
>> NOT material. Neither biology generally. The development of a being is not 
>> lead by chemical reactions, but chemical reactions are lead by invisible 
>> forces such that they implement the shape of the being.
>>
>> On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 10:12:49 UTC+3, Philip Thrift wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> This is the whole point: 
>>>
>>> The neuronal cells being replaced in the brain can't be made of 
>>> anything. The replacements (synthetic neurons) have to be made of 
>>> atoms/molecules such that they that replicate the actual chemical 
>>> processing abilities of the cells they are replacing.
>>>
>>> - pt
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2019 at 1:46:09 AM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote:

 This is like saying: If you replace part of the computer screen with 
 drawings made on a piece of paper, what does this indicate ? Well... it 
 indicates that on the part replaced with the piece of paper, nothing will 
 happen anymore.

 On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 01:41:14 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>
>
> If we can replace part of the brain with an electronic component and 
> the person continues experiencing normal consciousness, what does this 
> indicate?
>
>> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

There might be some room for wiggling, but ultimately red must be red. 

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 11:47:52 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>
>
> A piece of paper wouldn’t work as a computer screen replacement. Replacing 
> an LCD screen for an LED screen would work; replacing a spinning hard drive 
> for a solid state drive would be another example. The replacement component 
> is different from the original, but it is functionally equivalent. Do you 
> think it would be possible to replace any part of the central nervous 
> system with a part that is different but functionally equivalent?
>
>> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I don't know. These are problems to be solved. But notice that 
consciousness doesn't need "fruits" per se, but it needs whatever reality 
is behind the appearance of "fruits". Why it needs that I don't know.

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 11:10:06 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> All of which do not exists... why would consciousness need anything like 
> that as things like fruits, trees, electrons do not exists according to you 
> ?
>
> Also why do you use evolution ? why do things need to evolve at all ? 
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

This is not the reason why AI is not conscious. The reason is that AI 
doesn't even exist, is just an idea in consciousness. Consciousness which 
of course is not made out of atoms. We are not made out of atoms. "Atoms" 
are just ideas in consciousness.

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 15:50:12 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
>  Saying an AI can't be conscious because its brain is dry and hard and not 
> wet and squishy is as silly as saying another human can't be conscious if 
> his skin color is different from mine.
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I don't see why it would matter. If you obtain consciousness, that 
consciousness will have free will, so will take over the whatever 
subcomponents that you might use, so those subcomponents will stop obeying 
the "physical laws" that we know from simple systems.

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 13:43:58 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>
>
> But the point is, you could replace a spinning drive with a solid state 
> drive, a tape recorder with a digital recorder, a knee joint with an 
> artificial joint. These replacements are made of completely different 
> materials, yet are functionally similar. Is there anything to stop us 
> replacing neurons or subcomponents of neurons with physically different but 
> functionally similar parts?
>
>> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 16:46:33 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:08 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> > *This is not the reason why AI is not conscious.*
>>
>
> The "I" in AI stands for intelligence not consciousness, do you believe a 
> AI can be intelligent?  And by "intelligent" I mean whatever you meant 
> when, as I'm sure you've said at some point in your life about another 
> human, "that guy is really smart". 
>

Intelligence is the property of consciousness of bringing new qualia into 
existence that never existed before in the entire history of existence. 
Don't you think this is quite unlike the fantasy of AI ? 

>  
>
>> *> The reason is that AI doesn't even exist, is just an idea in 
>> consciousness. Consciousness which of course is not made out of atoms.*
>>
>
> Consciousness is made of processes, that's why John K Clark is not a noun 
> but an adjective, I am the way matter behaves when it is organized in a 
> johnkclarkian way.  A process needs something to process and that something 
> is atoms. That's why if I change the arrangement of  atoms in my brain my 
> consciousness changes and if my consciousness changes the arrangement of 
> atoms in my brain changes.
>

"Matter" doesn't exist. "Matter" is an idea in consciousness. 

>  
>
>> > *We are not made out of atoms. *
>>
>
> What's with this "we" business? I know for a fact I'm conscious but your 
> consciousness is an unproven hypothesis no different from assuming an AI is 
> conscious. 
>

Is not at all the same thing. Other consciousnesses are postulated based on 
our own consciousness, while AI is postulated based on poor understanding 
of reality. Postulating AI is like a child postulating Santa Claus because 
he has not serious understanding of the matters involved in the concept of 
"Santa Claus".

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

It's simple. You say: "Santa Claus has legs and arms like humans, therefore 
Santa Claus must exists."

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 18:50:03 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
>
> Could you share your *serious* thinking on our santa claus belief to us 
> unserious people ?
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

But it happens all the time. How do you think you move your body if not by 
top-down influence in levels from consciousness ?

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 20:06:07 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>
>
> Why has no-one ever observed the components of the brain breaking physical 
> laws? It should happen all the time and be easy to catch if you are right.
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Exactly. Those experiments are not valid. The "brain" does not exist. But I 
exist. I think you are making a category confusion. You equate by default 
brain with consciousness, and because brain doesn't exist, you conclude 
that consciousness doesn't exist. You are loosing yourself in abstract 
thinking instead of acknowledging the obvious in front of your eyes: You 
exist.

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 08:21:50 UTC+3, Brent wrote:
>
> Are you aware of the Grey Walter experiments that imply your brain thinks 
> of moving before your consciouness.?? Of course I know the brain and Grey 
> Walter and his experiment don't existand neither do you.
>
> Brent
>
> On 4/24/2019 9:42 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> But it happens all the time. How do you think you move your body if not by 
> top-down influence in levels from consciousness ?
>
> On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 20:06:07 UTC+3, stathisp wrote: 
>>
>>
>> Why has no-one ever observed the components of the brain breaking 
>> physical laws? It should happen all the time and be easy to catch if you 
>> are right.
>>
>> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You are randomly extrapolating. I think this is called "strawman logical 
error". Things are not random. There are reasons for why consciousness only 
exercises its powers in certain conditions. Evolution confined those powers 
to own body alone, though in some cases indeed you get connections between 
consciousnesses related to different bodies. But for those as well there 
are certain reasons for why they happen. 

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 09:18:44 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 2:42 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> But it happens all the time. How do you think you move your body if not 
>> by top-down influence in levels from consciousness ?
>>
>
> At the molecular level, if this were true, we would see miracles 
> happening, like a table levitating without any applied force. No such thing 
> has ever been observed. Neurons and muscle cells only fire according to the 
> laws of physics. If you documented an example of a miracle in the brain you 
> would overthrow science and be famous.
>
>> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

One interpretation might be that consciousness sends its influence from the 
future to the past.

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 09:37:53 UTC+3, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
>
> So you are saying that we are fooled when doing experiments showing 
> movement is seen before in brain motor function before the subject being 
> aware of it... and assert that is always the consciousness that initiates 
> movement despite experiments showing the contrary.. so we can't test 
> anything of your theory against the reality and as reality experiment 
> invalidate your position, your position is to say we are fooled and we have 
> to believe you ? Is that right ?
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 20:12:19 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 9:57 AM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> *> If you obtain consciousness, that consciousness will have free will, so* 
>> [...]
>
>
> Free Will?! In the entire history of philosophy or law nothing has 
> generated more fuzzy thinking than "free will", it's so bad it's not even 
> wrong. To be wrong an idea must first convey a thought, an erroneous 
> thought but a thought nevertheless, but like a burp "free will" conveys 
> nothing, it's just a sound made with the mouth.
>

I don't know. I feel free. Don't you ? 

>
> >>The "I" in AI stands for intelligence not consciousness, do you believe 
>>> a AI can be intelligent?  And by "intelligent" I mean whatever you meant 
>>> when, as I'm sure you've said at some point in your life about another 
>>> human, "that guy is really smart". 
>>>
>>
>> *> Intelligence is the property of consciousness of bringing new qualia 
>> into existence that never existed before in the entire history of 
>> existence.*
>>
>
> You have no way of directly detecting the qualia experience by other 
> people, assuming they experience qualia at all, all you can do is assume 
> without proof that when they behave in ways similar to you they experience 
> qualia similar to the qualia you experience. And the fact that a AI's brain 
> is dry and hard and not wet and squishy is no reason to treat them any 
> differently.  I judge entities, human or otherwise, by the content of their 
> ideas not the wetness of their brain.  
>

To think that an AI has "brain" is to have no understanding whatsoever of 
computer science and to believe that magic happens there. You don't even 
need to talk about the intelligence of other people. Is enough to look at 
how intelligence works in your case. And in your case, it works by bringing 
new qualia into existence. When you first saw a dog, you were able to see 
it because your consciousness brought into existence the quale of "dog" out 
of nothing. An AI cannot do that. If you don't specifically put in its 
database the information "dog", it will never identify dogs. This is 
because AI are deterministic systems, while consciousnesses are creative 
entities. 

>
> > 
>> *Don't you think this is quite unlike the fantasy of AI ? *
>>
>
> Nope. And if conscious AI's are a fantasy then all minds other than my own 
> are a fantasy including yours.
>

This is just twisted logic. I will let you figure it out where you are 
wrong and untie the nodes. 

>
> > "Matter" doesn't exist. 
>>
>
> OK, but then can you tell me how things would be different if matter DID 
> exist? If you can't then the existence or nonexistence of something is a 
> question of no importance whatsoever. And that road leads to madness. I can 
> tell you that if the atoms in your were to cease to exist and no record was 
> kept about how the atoms were arranged it  would have a rather important 
> effect on your consciousness. And I can also tell you that when atoms of 
> silicon are arranged in certain ways it can beat you at Chess and GO and 
> can solve partial differential equations that you can not. At one time that 
> was considered intelligent but some keep moving the goalpost so that now 
> intelligence is defined as anything that computers aren't good at, *YET*.  
>  
>

I will tell you how things would be different if matter did exist if you 
tell me how things would be different is Santa Claus existed.
Yes, the disappearance of "atoms" will have an impact upon my consciousness 
in the same way that the disappearance of facebook will have an impact upon 
my consciousness. This doesn't mean facebook generates my consciousness.
Also airplanes can fly better than birds. Does that mean that airplanes are 
alive ?
Nobody moves the goalpost of intelligence anywhere. Intelligence is what 
has always been: the ability to bring new qualia into existence out of 
nothing. And AI will never do that. So AI was never about intelligence to 
start with.

>  
>
> >> What's with this "we" business? I know for a fact I'm conscious but 
>>> your consciousness is an unproven hypothesis no different from assuming an 
>>> AI is conscious. 
>>>
>>
>> *> Is not at all the same thing.*
>>
>
> Tell me the difference! I am quite certain you don't consider your fellow 
> humans to be conscious all the time, not when they're sleeping or under 
> anesthesia or dead because they don't behave intelligently then. I can't 
> think why the same criteria should not be used for an AI. But as a 
> practical matter it will make little difference if you believe a AI is 
> conscious or not because in just a few years humanity will no longer be in 
> the driver's seat. So the important question is will the AI consider you to 
> be conscious or not. 
>

These are not the reasons. The reasons are as stated above: intelligence 
means bringing new qualia into existence out of nothing. 

>  
>
>> > *Othe

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

That's precisely what exists: experiences.

And there can be more said about existence. How I also detail in the book, 
existance is first the act of self-reference of looking-back-at-itself and 
thus creating the first object: "I am". Then because of emergence where you 
have qualities inheritance, the quality of "existence" of the first object 
is inherited in all the above objects. So when I see red, the logical 
structure of the state of seeing red is: "I am red."/"I exist as red". (of 
course, is more complicated, since it includes all the previous levels, so 
it is actually something like: "I am vividness, diversity, memory, time, 
black-and-white, shades-of-gray, red.")

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 09:48:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:52, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Actually, this is precisely what existence is: that which is immediately 
> knowable. I see red, thus red exists.
>
>
> I see red, so certainly the experience of seeing red exists. I can agree 
> with that. But it is not existence which I see, it is my own consciousness. 
>
> “Existence” has no meaning if we don’t say what exists, or it means, if 
> taken in your sense, that you define “existence” by consciousness, but that 
> is not the usual sense of existence. 
>
> What I mean, is that we say that existence is immediately knowable, people 
> will me mislead into believing that what we see exist. If I see something 
> red, “seing red” exists, but it does not mean that it exists a red thing, 
> only an experience of red can be said to exist. I might see a red unicorn, 
> for example, in some dream.
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Tuesday, 23 April 2019 09:52:14 UTC+3, telmo wrote:
>
> On Fri, Apr 19, 2019, at 21:35, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote:
>
> 1) You raise an interesting point. Can you give another example in that 
> direction beside the qualia of good and bad ? Because you made me think 
> about the case that you mentioned, and it seems to me that it only works 
> for cases of good and bad. A similar example to yours would be: blue and 
> green emerge on top of shades-of-gray, but I like blue and I don't like 
> green, so where does the good and bad appear in my final experience of a 
> quale ? So it might be the case that aesthetic components might be 
> something special. That's why I would like to hear if you can come up with 
> a similar example besides aesthetic components, to pinpoint more precisely 
> where there might be a problem with my ideas about emergence.
>
>
> People describe colors as "warm" and "cold", and alcoholic beverages as 
> "fiery". Another thing that occurs to me are the classical elements: water, 
> air, fire, earth. Also the fact that separate cultures believed at some 
> point in similar sets of elemental substances.
>

I think these cases (also the ones with good/bad) are about consciousnesses 
unifications. Is the same with our senses: we are 1 consciousness that both 
sees and hears. Probably what is happening is that "initially" there are 2 
individual consciousnesses: one that only sees, other that only hears, and 
then they are unified into 1 consciousness. This can also be explained by 
self-reference looking-back-at-itself and including in itself 2 of its 
previous manifestations. The same unification also probably happens in 
telepathies. Personally, I don't see telepathy as message exchange, but as 
unification of consciousnesses into one, having a common experience and 
then breaking apart again. Of course, the problem remains what controls 
these unifications.

>
>
> 3) There is no ontological/epistemological confusion here. I state that 
> even if you are to take into account the entire history that you mention, 
> the electron would still not follow the same laws as in simple systems, 
> because in the brain it will receive top-down influence from a higher 
> consciousness.
>
>
> My counter-argument is that the laws remain exactly the same, but they 
> become impossible to apply in practice because one would have to know the 
> value of too many variables, and with too much precision. Are you familiar 
> with chaos theory?
>
> I am familiar, but I really do think that is genuine novelty involved in 
consciousness. When you have a new experience, this is not just a result of 
"rearranging atoms", but is truly something new that never existed before. 
And from that new state of consciousness you will start to impact the world 
in different ways that are not understood by consciousnesses on lower 
levels. Imagine a blind person and a seeing person taking part in a race. 
Immediately when that race starts, the seeing person will get away rapidly 
from the blind person. The blind person can wonder all day long how can the 
seeing person move his body so rapidly without bumping into stuff. The 
reason is that the seeing person is on a higher level of consciousness that 
gives him new understandings of the world and enable him to act upon the 
world in ways that are totally beyond any comprehension of consciousnesses 
on lower levels. "Laws of physics" are just statistical behaviours of 
primitive "electrons" and "protons" that all that they know is to circle 
one another. But when those primitive consciousnesses are emerged upon in 
complex systems such as the brain, the electrons will start doing other 
things, like going in the muscles in specific places as to follow the will 
of the higher consciousness.

> And the more complex the system, the more the consciousness is evolved and 
> its intentions are beyond comprehension, so the ability to describe the 
> movement of electrons using coherent laws vanishes. The electron will 
> simply appear to not follow any law, because the intentions of 
> consciousness would be more and more complex and diverse.
>
>
> I follow several things that you say with no problem. My biggest point of 
> disagreement is with the type of statements like the one above, these ideas 
> of an "interactive consciousness" that I find reminiscent of the interface 
> problem: if consciousness is not matter, then how does it interact with 
> matter?
>
> I am more inclined towards explanations where consciousness is the stage 
> itself, not one of the actors.
>
>
But there is no interaction with matter. I give in the book a model of how 
interactions can take place, and th

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You forgot the last point where consciousness initiate the signal.

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

That's how existence is: miraculous. And we have evidence for it: just get 
out of the chair and move around the room and there's your evidence.

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 15:27:17 UTC+3, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 8:38 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> You forgot the last point where consciousness initiate the signal.
>
>
> That would mean, at some point in this causal chain, something miraculous 
> happening, like a bone moving without any muscle contracting. If this 
> happened, we would have evidence for it, since we consciously do things all 
> the time.
>
>> -- 
> 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 https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

I don't understand anything. Where is consciousness in all that you said ?

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:04:49 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 19:54, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> That's just a random definition that doesn't mean anything.
>
> On Friday, 19 April 2019 12:27:18 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>  With mechanism, the observer is just a number/machine, relative to some 
>> other numbers/machines.
>>
>
> You ignore that the notion of computation is a purely arithmetical notion.
>
> Fix one universal machinery (an enumeration of all programs in some Turing 
> universal formalism, like the recursive enumeration of the program (with 
> one natural number input) of the programs written in LISP, say, or take the 
> combinator (see the recent thread on them). I note phi_i the corresponding 
> functions (computes by those programs). We can identify the natural number 
> I with the program computing ph_i, then a universal number u is a program 
> such that phi_i() = phi_x(y). U emulates x on y, and is universal, as 
> it does that for all x.  is a fixed bijection between NxN and N.
>
> The number is the code that the digitalist surgeon might temporarily put 
> on some disk, and which will be emulated by Nature when you are 
> reconstituted, like after a Digital brain transplant (which is possible, as 
> I assume Mechanism).
>
> Note that the relation phi_x(y) = z is definable in pure arithmetic. No 
> need of any assumption in physics to define the notion of digital machine. 
>
> You might need to study some introduction to theoretical computer science, 
> like the very good book by N. Cutland 
>
>
> https://www.amazon.com/Computability-Introduction-Recursive-Function-Theory/dp/0521294657
>
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

What does "I survive a functional digital substitution at that level." mean 
?

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:13:58 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 23 Apr 2019, at 20:06, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> So what does "computer science" has to do with consciousness ? It seems to 
> me that you just make a random connection.
>
>
> I assume the indexical digital mechanist hypothesis, which assume that 
> there exists a level of description of myself such that I survive a 
> functional digital substitution at that level.
>
>

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 18:21:33 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> You forget the quote. I am not sure what is not self-reference, given that 
> I have given two definitions (third person self-reference and first person 
> self-reference, and I have explained the link between (G* proves that they 
> are equivalent, but that the machine cannot see this, making the first 
> person rather mysterious, yet necessarily so).
>

There is only 1 definition: the referring-back-at-itself that the Self does 
from its own internal first-person perspective. Everything else is just 
words-play. 

>
>
> No. It is after 30 years of work, and it has been defended as a PhD thesis 
> in mathematics/computer science in 1998.
>
> What does your number theory has to do for example with color red ?
 

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Thursday, 25 April 2019 19:56:17 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
>  And it would be perfectly correct to say I scratched my nose because I 
> wanted to, but it would be equally correct to say the nerves in my nose 
> triggered the nerves in my hand to move.  
>  
>
Except that this is not what happens. You stretch your nose because you 
want, not because nerves are triggered randomly from "physical laws".
 

>
> Sometimes I feel free but not always, sometimes I want to do something but 
> can't. And very often I don't know what I'm going to do until I do it, just 
> as a computer doesn't know what the answer to a calculation will be until 
> it's finished making the calculation.
>

Then you are free when you feel like and you are not free when you don't 
feel like. And computers don't know, because knowing is a property of 
consciousness and means having access to certain qualia. And computers 
don't get to any answers, they just activate certain pixels on the screen 
and you as a conscious being interpret those pixels as an answer. 

>
>
> How can you prove to me your wet squishy brain has some sort of magic that 
> a computer's dry hard brain does not? And I don't want to hear about qualia 
> unless you can prove to me you even have qualia.
>

There is no brain, so I don't know what you want me to prove. But I told 
you: consciousness is creative: it brings into existence qualia that never 
existed before. Besides the fact that a computer (besides the fact that it 
doesn't even exist, of course) it doesn't even have qualia, it cannot bring 
anything new into existence since it is deterministic. 

>
> > *You don't even need to talk about the intelligence of other people. Is 
>> enough to look at how intelligence works in your case.*
>>
>
> NO!! The fact is you DO have a method of judging the intelligence in other 
> people and you have made use of it every hour of your waking life from the 
> moment you were born. And that method certainly can't have anything to do 
> with the qualia that other people experience because you have no way of 
> determining that. 
>  
>
I'm not judging the intelligence of other people, I'm only looking at my 
own intelligence. And I see that it means bringing new qualia into 
existence out of nothing. And I use my reason to understand that this is a 
non-deterministic phenomenon, therefore a deterministic system cannot 
manifest it.
 

>
> So are you saying a computer could never pick out pictures of dogs from 
> pictures of other animals better than a human could, and if it could that 
> would prove your ideas are wrong? Are you brave enough to come right out 
> and say that?
>

Since you need to specifically put the word "dog" in the database, a 
computer will never identify dogs if you don't specifically put that 
information in the database. 

>
> Can you do better? If you had never seen a dog and had no information 
> about dogs how on earth could you identify a dog?
>
> The way you already did it, how else ? When you first saw a dog, did you 
have any prior information about it ? Of course not. You just did it. 
Because that's what consciousness does: creates new qualia. If you want to 
call it magic, then call it magic, but that's what consciousness does. How 
it does it: I have no idea.

A computer is not a deterministic system
>

Yeah, sure. Probably is magic. No wonder people start to believe in living 
objects when they have no understanding of basic computer science.

, that is to say if you want to know what it's going to do all you can do 
> is watch it and see. It would only take me a few minutes to write a 
> computer program to find the smallest even number that is not the sum of 2 
> prime numbers and then stop. Will my computer ever stop? Nobody knows, 
> nobody can determine that. Maybe it will stop in the next second, maybe it 
> will stop next year, maybe it will stop in a billion years, maybe it will 
> never stop and you will be waiting forever.
>  
>
 You have a bad understanding of determinism.

>
> 20 years ago Chess required creativity but no longer, 5 years ago GO 
> required creativity but suddenly that stopped being true too. I would 
> maintain if a computer can outsmart you at everything it doesn't matter if 
> it's "creative" (whatever that means) because regardless of how you try to 
> spin it the fact remains you've been outsmarted. 
>  
>
Chess and everything, every moment of our lives, is a moment of creativity. 
The fact that you made some objects behave in certain ways doesn't change 
the fact that consciousness is creative. I told you: your logic is upside 
down.
 

> >> if conscious AI's are a fantasy then all minds other than my own are a 
>>> fantasy including yours.
>>>
>>
>> *> This is just twisted logic. I will let you figure it out where you are 
>> wrong *
>>
>
> Translation from the original weaselspeak:  "*You got me, I have no way 
> to counter that argument *"
>
> Nope. I will still let you understand that your logic is ups

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Thanks for reminding me. I didn't see them.

On Wednesday, 24 April 2019 18:15:41 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 24, 2019 at 3:03 AM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>> For this you don't even need idealism. You can just take the brain as a 
>> black box ready to receive the proper input in order to generate the proper 
>> qualia. You will most likely not detect infrared light and others, simply 
>> because the black box is not made to detect them.
>>
>
> You don't get to say, in one context, that the brain doesn't exist, and 
> then in another, it's a black box that generates qualia. Not to mention, a 
> black box also has zero explanatory power. I'm asking you directly about 
> cochlear implants, which literally enable the generation of new qualia for 
> deaf people. How does that happen?
>

As usual, I'm very careful with the way in which I'm using words. The 
definition that I'm using for "existence" is the act of self-reference of 
looking-back-at-itself. Based on this definition, existence is only 
ontologically subjective, therefore no objects-independent-of-consciousness 
exist. So the "brain" regarded as an object-independent-of-consciousness 
doesn't exist. But a system of interacting consciousness can exist. 
Therefore we can call that system a "black box" and allow the black box to 
exist. In the black box, depending on how consciousnesses interact you can 
have certain qualia and not have others. Cochlear implants enable the 
generation of new qualia for deaf people in the same way that a bike enable 
the generation of new qualia for people that never rode a bike before. 

>
> I'm color blind. My eyes don't have as many photo-receptors that detect 
> frequencies corresponding to the color red. Because of that, my experience 
> of color is different from ordinary people, and this can be proven. 
> Photo-receptors detect electromagnetic oscillation of specific frequencies, 
> and this leads somehow to the experience of color. If photoreceptors don't 
> exist, how do you explain this?
>
> You have a system of interacting consciousnesses from which certain 
interactions are missing.
 

> I'm really looking for explanations I can sink my teeth into. Why am I 
> colorblind, but you're not?  And why does it seem to matter that 
> physiologically, you have photoreceptors that I do not have?  There are 
> objective facts about our nervous systems that have consequences for 
> subjective experience. We could go through a million examples, including 
> brain damage, drugs, brain tumors, Alzheimers, genetic defects. Should we 
> just throw all those explanatory mechanisms away?
>  
>
You can still do "science" even in dreams. Even in dreams you can see 
unicorns flying and conclude that if you jump on their backs, you will be 
able to fly. It turns out that even though the objects that appear in our 
consciousness exist only as qualia, they nevertheless obey certain rules. 
And we can use those rules to do technology. Some people call it "science", 
but my definition for "science" is the study of existence, and since 
existence is only ontologically subjective, science is only the study of 
consciousness.
 

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

Re: My book "I Am" published on amazon

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Consciousness. Red is red.

On Friday, 26 April 2019 10:03:26 UTC+3, cloud...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> But off of what?
>
> What specific ontological entity or entities of any science in 2019 does 
> one claim as* final* - i.e., *that *ontology is the "true" one? 
>
> If none, should we expect that in some future year we will find some final 
> ontology?
>
> Or: If it is a final ontology, we found it by "luck", and we don't know if 
> it's final even if it is.
>
> - pt
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Sorry, if I want to read fairy-tales I read Harry Potter. AI is a rather 
boring fairy-tale.

On Friday, 26 April 2019 12:30:13 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> If mechanism is true, a reasoning can show that even your laptop can be 
> said conscious, even maximally conscious,
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

You're just making a mess of concepts gathered from everywhere. A is like 
B, $@#$@ is like 423423, Hampty-Dampty is like Harry Potter. Sorry, there 
can be no dialogue with you.
 
On Friday, 26 April 2019 12:30:13 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> The “singularity” belongs to the past, it is just a matter of time before 
> the machine becomes as much “stupid” as the humans … 
>
> A brain, or a number, machine, … are filtering the consciousness of the 
> universal machine, a bit like as et of equation filters the varieties 
> obeying to the equation, or like the fact that when you add axioms to a 
> theory, you filter the models of the theory.
>
> The relation between mind and brain is like the relation between semantics 
> and theories, or between surfaces and equations. It is variant of Galois 
> connection. 
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Yeah, ok, you seem to know everything. Probably you are God or something. I 
cannot take seriously people that know everything.

On Friday, 26 April 2019 13:00:52 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 22 Apr 2019, at 22:57, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
> Nobody knows how an embryo develops.
>
>
> That is entirely solved by the second recursion theorem of Kleene.
>
>

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Consciousness exists.

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

Aeon: "AIs should have the same ethical protections as animals"

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

Also my plush rabbit toy should have the same rights. Freedom for all the 
objects in the world!

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

Re: for Cosmin

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Friday, 26 April 2019 16:14:07 UTC+3, Terren Suydam wrote:
>
>
>
> You really can't see the difference between the way a cochlear implant 
> creates new qualia, versus riding a bike?  If you want to be taken 
> seriously you'll have to do better than that.
>

What is the difference ? 

>  
>
>> You have a system of interacting consciousnesses from which certain 
>> interactions are missing.
>>
>
> That doesn't explain anything.
>

It depends to what level you want the explanation to be taken. For the 
level at which you asked the question, that is the answer. If you ask the 
question at a more deeper level, like how exactly the difference in light 
sensitive cells in the eyes ultimately determine the experienced qualia, 
then I don't know. And nobody does. 

>  
>
> If you're equating science done in dreams and science done in reality, 
> you're a solipsist.
>
> No. Because I allow for other consciousnesses to exist. 

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

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

['Cosmin Visan' via Everything List]

On Friday, 26 April 2019 01:52:19 UTC+3, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 25, 2019 at 1:49 PM 'Cosmin Visan'  <
> everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote:
>
>>
>  >>  it would be perfectly correct to say I scratched my nose because I 
>>> wanted to, but it would be equally correct to say the nerves in my nose 
>>> triggered the nerves in my hand to move.  
>>>
>>  
>> > 
>> *Except that this is not what happens. You stretch your nose because you 
>> want, *
>>
>
> If the "nonexistent" nerves in your "nonexistent" hand were not triggered 
> your "nonexistent" nose would not get scratched. And if the correct 
> "nonexistent" neurons in your "nonexistent" brain were not triggered you 
> wouldn't even want to.
>

I want to because I am a consciousness with free will. 

>
> > *not because nerves are triggered randomly from "physical laws".*
>
>
> Gibberish. If something happens because of physical law then obviously it 
> happens for a reason. and if something happens for a reason it can't be 
> random
>

Reason is a quale based on which a consciousness makes a choice. Billiard 
balls bumping into eachothers are not doing this for reason, since they 
don't make the bumping their choice.

>  
>
>> *> computers don't get to any answers, they just activate certain pixels 
>> on the screen and you as a conscious being interpret those pixels as an 
>> answer. *
>>
>
> College professors don't give any answers in their lectures, they just 
> activate certain sound waves and you as a conscious being interpret those 
> sound waves as an answer. 
>

Of course. And you might interpret them correctly or not. 

>
> >> How can you prove to me your wet squishy brain has some sort of magic 
>>> that a computer's dry hard brain does not? And I don't want to hear about 
>>> qualia unless you can prove to me you even have qualia.
>>>
>>
>> *> There is no brain, so I don't know what you want me to prove.*
>>
>
> I'd like you to prove you can engage in an interesting conversation and 
> can do more than just repeat that nothing exists.
>

Consciousness exists. And if you don't start from this fact, then 
conversations are meaningless anyway. 

>  
>
>> > a computer (besides the fact that it doesn't even exist, of course) it 
>> doesn't even have qualia,
>>
>
> Two can play this silly game: Qualia doesn't exist. So there!
>

I was sure that you will eventually bring this meaningless assertion to the 
table. Why ? Because you are not interested in having a meaningful 
conversation, you are only interested in preaching your religious belief in 
live objects.

>  
>
>> >> The fact is you DO have a method of judging the intelligence in other 
>>> people and you have made use of it every hour of your waking life from the 
>>> moment you were born. And that method certainly can't have anything to do 
>>> with the qualia that other people experience because you have no way of 
>>> determining that. 
>>>
>>  
>> *> I'm not judging the intelligence of other people, I'm only looking at 
>> my own intelligence.*
>>
>
> That is a disingenuous thing to say. Every human being who ever lived is 
> constantly judging the intelligence of the objects in its environment, 
> that's why we treat puppies differently than rocks.   
>

If you think that a rock is intelligent, then go ahead. I don't think that. 

>
> * > And I see that it means bringing new qualia into existence out of 
>> nothing. And I use my reason to understand** that *[...]
>>
>
> If you use reason then you did it for a reason, there was a cause, and the 
> qualia that you keep talking about came into existence through a 
> deterministic process.  
>

I don't know how qualia appear. Sometimes they appear at our own will, 
other times they appear by themselves. How they do that I don't know. 

>
> >> are you saying a computer could never pick out pictures of dogs from 
>>> pictures of other animals better than a human could, and if it could that 
>>> would prove your ideas are wrong? Are you brave enough to come right out 
>>> and say that?
>>>
>>
>> *> Since you need to specifically put the word "dog" in the database, a 
>> computer will never identify dogs if you don't specifically put that 
>> information in the database. *
>>
>
> How could you do it any differently if you've never heard the word "dog" 
> before?
>

The same way you do everything for the first time: by using the creation 
property of consciousness. How did you think you learn to speak in the 
first place ? Because consciousness has the ability to create new qualia 
out of nothing. 

>
> >> Can you do better? If you had never seen a dog and had no information 
>>> about dogs how on earth could you identify a dog?
>>>
>>
>> *> The way you already did it, how else ? When you first saw a dog, did 
>> you have any prior information about it ? Of course not. You just did it.*
>>
>
> Did what? The first time I saw a dog I knew no language and so would have 
> been unable to put a picture of a dog in the pile marked "dog", b