Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 8 Apr 2018, at 16:08, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:31:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 29 Mar 2018, at 19:05, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>> 
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM, > wrote:
>> 
>> ​​>> ​And a brain in a glass box​ ​would't be isolated either, it would be 
>> connected to the internet and ​a virtual body or a robot body or anything 
>> else it wanted to be connected to. And the connections would be far more 
>> information intensive than the meager connections brains now have. 
>> 
>> 
>> ​> ​"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
>> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
>> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG
>> 
>> ​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general 
>> categories:​ 
>> 
>> ​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to 
>> engineer now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.
>> 
>> 2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms 
>> Theory.
>> 
>> Your objection falls into the second category.
>> 
>> John K Clark
>> 
>> You don't like the atomic theory of matter, for which there is abundant 
>> empirical evidence,
> 
> 
> There is evidence for physical atoms, but there is no evidence that physics 
> describe the fundamental theory. That is just a metaphysical assumption which 
> has been recently debunked. It simply does not work, unless you evacuate 
> consciousness and first person from the picture.
> 
> Bruno
> 
> You mean we don't have a Theory of Everything? Haven't you heard? Physics is 
> a work in progress. AG


You are just defending here the theology of Aristotle. i.e. the belief that 
there is a primitive fundamental reality, and that it is at the origin of 
everything.

Study my papers, and you will see that this idea is incompatible with 
Mechanismthe idea that the brain or body (in some more general sense than 
usual, it can included a part of the environment) is Turing emulable. The proof 
is constructive and provides the complete description of the appearance of the 
physical laws, so Mechanism is testable, and indeed we do recover (up to now) 
the core of quantum mechanics. 

Bruno




> 
> 
> 
>> fairly recently revised by quantum theory?  What would you replace it with; 
>> a theory of information in the absence of atoms, molecules, etc.? What would 
>> the founders of information theory think about your presumed proposal? AG
>> 
>>  ​
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> 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-li...@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 
> .

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 8, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

*> There is evidence for physical atoms, but there is no evidence that
> physics describe the fundamental theory. *


We know for a fact that physics is not yet a fundamental theory because it
can’t explain what Dark Energy or Dark Matter is or why there is so much
more matter than antimatter or tell us whats going on at the singularity of
a Black Hole. Our Physics is the most fundamental theory we know of but we
don’t know if *THE* Fundamental Theory even exists, it might be like the
layers of a onion or an infinite Matryoshka doll and then will always be a
more fundamental theory to find.

> That is just a metaphysical assumption which has been recently debunked.

I'm tired of you saying that, stop tell me and show me!  But don’t show me
a textbook made of physical atoms and don’t send me a pulse of physical
electrons than my physical computer interprets as pixels on a physical
screen, show me a pure number and let me watch it while that pure number
performs a calculation, 2+2 would be good enough. Just do that and I will
concede the argument.

> >>  In that sense, numbers can count given that all partial computable
>> functions are representable in Robinson Arithmetic
>
>

* ​> ​Numbers can't count, but I can count numbers.*

So what, all computable functions are also representable on a blank sheet
of paper if a pencil is available. But paper can't count and Robinson
Arithmetic can’t count and a textbook on Robinson Arithmetic can count no
better than a rock can because the atoms in the textbook and the rock and
the blank paper are not arranged in a way that allows them to do so.
However if the same atoms that were in the Robinson textbook or the rock
were arranged differently, as for example in the form of a computer, then
those same atoms could count. Finding the proper way to arrange those atoms
took thousands of years to figure out (the ancient Greeks who you’re always
babbling about were completely clueless on how to do it) but we eventually
got the hang of it.

>> they are not arranged that way in a rock.
>
>

*> I agree with this. A rock cannot be said to think, because a rock does
> not implement a universal numbers.*


"Universal number” is yet another of your homemade slang terms. Perhaps
you’re saying the same thing I am just more opaquely, I say a rock or a
Robinson Arithmetic textbook cannot count or think because they don't
implement the atomic arrangement information that would allow them to do
so.

*> Or you mean that you have some magical soul which can count, *

I mean that generic atoms that obey the known laws of information can count
if they are arranged in the correct way, a way that can only be
characterized by information
​
*​> ​but then you are out of the Digital Indexical Mechanist thesis. *

​That's OK, I never knew I was even in "
the Digital Indexical Mechanist thesis
​".​

John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, April 8, 2018 at 1:31:34 PM UTC, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Mar 2018, at 19:05, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> ​
 ​>> ​
 And a brain in a glass box​
  
 ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and 
 ​a virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected 
 to. And the connections would be far more information intensive than the 
 meager connections brains now have. 

>>>
>>>
>>> ​> *​*
>>> *"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
>>> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
>>> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG*
>>>
>>
>> ​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general 
>> categories:​
>>  
>>
>> ​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to 
>> engineer now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.
>>
>> 2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms 
>> Theory.
>>
>> Your objection falls into the second category.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> *You don't like the atomic theory of matter, for which there is abundant 
> empirical evidence, *
>
>
>
> There is evidence for physical atoms, but there is no evidence that 
> physics describe the fundamental theory. That is just a metaphysical 
> assumption which has been recently debunked. It simply does not work, 
> unless you evacuate consciousness and first person from the picture.
>
> Bruno
>

*You mean we don't have a Theory of Everything? Haven't you heard? Physics 
is a work in progress. AG*

>
>
>
> *fairly recently revised by quantum theory?  What would you replace it 
> with; a theory of information in the absence of atoms, molecules, etc.? 
> What would the founders of information theory think about your presumed 
> proposal? AG*
>
>>
>>  ​
>>
>>  
>>
>>
> -- 
> 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-li...@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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 28 Mar 2018, at 17:37, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  > wrote:
> 
> ​>> ​So mind is what the brain does.
>  
> ​> ​Mind is what universal machine or number does. The physical brain is 
> among that.
> 
> ​Numbers can't count, but I can count numbers.


In that sense, numbers can count given that all partial computable functions 
are representable in Robinson Arithmetic (which leads easily to that 
conclusion). Or you mean that you have some magical soul which can count, but 
then you are out of the Digital Indexical Mechanist thesis.



> Rocks can't count but I can count rocks because the matter and energy in my 
> brain is arranged in such a way that it enables me to do so


It means the brain can emulate a Universal Number (by which I mean a number u 
such that u compute f_i(x) when given I and x.



> but they are not arranged that way in a rock.

I agree with this. A rock cannot be said to think, because a rock does not 
implement a universal numbers. Of course, there is quantum and 
digital-mechanist sense in which a rock, or even a vacuum can “think” as an 
emerging pattern of infinitely many computations, but that is not the usual 
meaning of computation.
Strictly speaking, a rock cannot think, because it is only an object of 
thinking emerging from all computations. In arithmetic or any chosen 
computational base. (Base in the sense of computer science, not in the sense of 
quantum physics, to be sure).



> The arrangement of matter and energy can be characterized as information and 
> that is why information is as close as you can get to the traditional concept 
> of the soul and still remain within the scientific method. 


Information, numbers, codes, combinators, finite expression, whatever the name 
is used, it makes sense only in some part of theoretical computer science. 

Bruno



> 
> ​ John K Clark​
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at 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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 29 Mar 2018, at 19:05, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
> 
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  wrote:
> 
> ​​>> ​And a brain in a glass box​ ​would't be isolated either, it would be 
> connected to the internet and ​a virtual body or a robot body or anything 
> else it wanted to be connected to. And the connections would be far more 
> information intensive than the meager connections brains now have. 
> 
> 
> ​> ​"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG
> 
> ​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general 
> categories:​ 
> 
> ​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to engineer 
> now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.
> 
> 2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms 
> Theory.
> 
> Your objection falls into the second category.
> 
> John K Clark
> 
> You don't like the atomic theory of matter, for which there is abundant 
> empirical evidence,


There is evidence for physical atoms, but there is no evidence that physics 
describe the fundamental theory. That is just a metaphysical assumption which 
has been recently debunked. It simply does not work, unless you evacuate 
consciousness and first person from the picture.

Bruno



> fairly recently revised by quantum theory?  What would you replace it with; a 
> theory of information in the absence of atoms, molecules, etc.? What would 
> the founders of information theory think about your presumed proposal? AG
> 
>  ​
> 
>  
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 
> .

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:05 PM,  
> wrote:
>
>  
>
>> *> What would the founders of information theory think about your 
>> presumed proposal? AG*
>
>
> ​I would bet money they'd like it better than your theory about flying 
> saucer ​
> men​ in Roswell New Mexico who are such incompetent engineers they can't 
> keep their spaceship in the air.
>
> John K Clark
>

*I think the reason you go out of your way to denigrate my conclusion of ET 
visitations -- which is based on credible witness testimony, among other 
things -- is because, deep down, for whatever reasons, you're afraid I 
might be right. AG *

>  
>

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 1:33:35 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:05 PM,  
> wrote:
>
>  
>
>> *> What would the founders of information theory think about your 
>> presumed proposal? AG*
>
>
> ​I would bet money they'd like it better than your theory about flying 
> saucer ​
> men​ in Roswell New Mexico who are such incompetent engineers they can't 
> keep their spaceship in the air.
>
> John K Clark
>
 

Best to be honest and answer my question. Can you do that without 
introducing an irrelevant topic to this discussion? Incidentally, they're 
not incompetent; just imperfect. AG 

>  
>

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 1:05:45 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> ​
 ​>> ​
 And a brain in a glass box​
  
 ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and 
 ​a virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected 
 to. And the connections would be far more information intensive than the 
 meager connections brains now have. 

>>>
>>>
>>> ​> *​*
>>> *"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
>>> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
>>> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG*
>>>
>>
>> ​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general 
>> categories:​
>>  
>>
>> ​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to 
>> engineer now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.
>>
>> 2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms 
>> Theory.
>>
>> Your objection falls into the second category.
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> *You don't like the atomic theory of matter, for which there is abundant 
> empirical evidence, fairly recently revised by quantum theory?  What would 
> you replace it with; a theory of information in the absence of atoms, 
> molecules, etc.? What would the founders of information theory think about 
> your presumed proposal? AG*
>

*Maybe you're fantasising a computer which stores information in the 
absence of micro circuits which store bits. Good luck with that. AG *

>
>>  ​
>>
>>  
>>
>>

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Thu, Mar 29, 2018 at 1:05 PM,  wrote:



> *> What would the founders of information theory think about your presumed
> proposal? AG*


​I would bet money they'd like it better than your theory about flying
saucer ​
men​ in Roswell New Mexico who are such incompetent engineers they can't
keep their spaceship in the air.

John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:16:58 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> ​
>>> ​>> ​
>>> And a brain in a glass box​
>>>  
>>> ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and 
>>> ​a virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected 
>>> to. And the connections would be far more information intensive than the 
>>> meager connections brains now have. 
>>>
>>
>>
>> ​> *​*
>> *"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
>> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
>> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG*
>>
>
> ​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general 
> categories:​
>  
>
> ​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to 
> engineer now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.
>
> 2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms 
> Theory.
>
> Your objection falls into the second category.
>
> John K Clark
>

*You don't like the atomic theory of matter, for which there is abundant 
empirical evidence, fairly recently revised by quantum theory?  What would 
you replace it with; a theory of information in the absence of atoms, 
molecules, etc.? What would the founders of information theory think about 
your presumed proposal? AG*

>
>  ​
>
>  
>
>

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Thursday, March 29, 2018 at 12:10:21 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:14 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> Human neurons evolved to accept input from a nervous system embedded in a 
>> human body.
>>
>
> ​Yes.
> ​
>  
>
>> ​> ​
>> Do you really think you can attach them to anything else, such as the 
>> Internet, and everything is good to go? AG 
>>
>
> ​Yes.
>

*And you believe this, why? Reduces your cognitive dissonance? AG *

>
> John K Clark​
>  
>
>  
>

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 6:58 PM,  wrote:

​
>> ​>> ​
>> And a brain in a glass box​
>>
>> ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and ​a
>> virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected to.
>> And the connections would be far more information intensive than the meager
>> connections brains now have.
>>
>
>
> ​> *​*
> *"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model
> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into
> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG*
>

​As I said before all objections to uploading fall into 2 general
categories:​


​1) Although it violates no laws of physics it would be vert hard to
engineer now and therefore it will always be very hard to engineer.

2) It does not conform to some variation of the very silly Sacred Atoms
Theory.

Your objection falls into the second category.

John K Clark

 ​

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 9:14 PM,  wrote:

​> ​
> Human neurons evolved to accept input from a nervous system embedded in a
> human body.
>

​Yes.
​


> ​> ​
> Do you really think you can attach them to anything else, such as the
> Internet, and everything is good to go? AG
>

​Yes.

John K Clark​

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:58:58 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:50 PM,  wrote:
>>
>> ​>> ​
 ​Why is a brain in a box made of bone fundamentally different from a 
 brain in a box made of glass?

>>>
>>> ​>* ​*
>>> *The difference is obvious; a brain encased in bone isn't isolated.*
>>>
>>
>> ​And a brain in a glass box​
>>  
>> ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and ​a 
>> virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected to. 
>> And the connections would be far more information intensive than the meager 
>> connections brains now have. 
>>
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> "It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
> passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
> being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG
>

Human neurons evolved to accept input from a nervous system embedded in a 
human body. Do you really think you can attach them to anything else, such 
as the Internet, and everything is good to go? AG 

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 6:15:16 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:50 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> ​>> ​
>>> ​Why is a brain in a box made of bone fundamentally different from a 
>>> brain in a box made of glass?
>>>
>>
>> ​>* ​*
>> *The difference is obvious; a brain encased in bone isn't isolated.*
>>
>
> ​And a brain in a glass box​
>  
> ​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and ​a 
> virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected to. 
> And the connections would be far more information intensive than the meager 
> connections brains now have. 
>
> John K Clark
>

"It" wanted? But without a body "it" wouldn't exist.  Before this model 
passes the smell test, you need a model that explains how "it" comes into 
being, and where; that is, how it is localized. AG

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:50 PM,  wrote:

​>> ​
>> ​Why is a brain in a box made of bone fundamentally different from a
>> brain in a box made of glass?
>>
>
> ​>* ​*
> *The difference is obvious; a brain encased in bone isn't isolated.*
>

​And a brain in a glass box​

​would't be isolated either, it would be connected to the internet and ​a
virtual body or a robot body or anything else it wanted to be connected to.
And the connections would be far more information intensive than the meager
connections brains now have.

John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 2:50:57 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 28, 2018 at 11:42:39 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:36 AM,  wrote:
>>
>> *​> ​The fatal flaw in Clark's model is that it's not all about the 
>>> brain. It's also about the body, which keeps sending signals to the brain. 
>>> A disembodied brain cannot model a human being. AG *
>>>
>>
>> ​Why is a brain in a box made of bone fundamentally different from a 
>> brain in a box made of glass?
>>
>>  John K Clark​
>>  
>>
>
> The difference is obvious; a brain encased in bone isn't isolated. It's 
> attached to a nervous system and body which continuously sends and receives 
> information. AG 
>

It's a mystery of course how all that incoming data supplied by the BODY 
results in the concept of SELF apparently focused in the head or brain. But 
to take the body out of the equation constitutes major error. . AG 

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 11:36 AM,  wrote:

*​> ​The fatal flaw in Clark's model is that it's not all about the brain.
> It's also about the body, which keeps sending signals to the brain. A
> disembodied brain cannot model a human being. AG *
>

​Why is a brain in a box made of bone fundamentally different from a brain
in a box made of glass?

 John K Clark​

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Wed, Mar 28, 2018 at 2:40 AM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

​>> ​
>> So mind is what the brain does.
>
>

*​> ​Mind is what universal machine or number does. The physical brain is
> among that.*
>

​Numbers can't count, but I can count numbers. Rocks can't count but I can
count rocks because the matter and energy in my brain is arranged in such a
way that it enables me to do so but they are not arranged that way in a
rock. The arrangement of matter and energy can be characterized as
information and that is why information is as close as you can get to the
traditional concept of the soul and still remain within the scientific
method.

​ John K Clark​

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 4:13:43 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 3:48:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/27/2018 8:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> *But what you can never do IMO, is determine whether either Rover, in any 
>> circumstance, has self knowledge or self perception, or can experience 
>> rudimentary or complex sensations.*
>>
>>
>> You could interview them, just as you judge whether another person is 
>> perceptive and self-aware or not.
>>
>> Brent
>>
>
> *The difference is that persons evaluated as self-aware were created in 
> the identical process as the human observer who is self referential. In the 
> case of a cleverly programmed computer, there would be no interview that 
> could prove anything. No way to pass the Turing Test (or fail, depending on 
> your definition of the test). ISTM that this is a case where we really 
> don't know, what we don't know. AG*
>

*The fatal flaw in Clark's model is that it's not all about the brain. It's 
also about the body, which keeps sending signals to the brain. A 
disembodied brain cannot model a human being. AG *

>  
>

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 27 Mar 2018, at 02:52, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 10:01:36 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
> 
>> On 26 Mar 2018, at 00:07, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote:
>> 
>> I am more interested in the graph theoretic issues with NP-completeness for 
>> other reasons than I am in this question of uploading minds into computers. 
>> The latter I think is largely science fiction.
> 
> It is an hypothesis in the cognitive science, and it comes from. Molecular 
> biology but also physics where the laws are computable. It is up to those who 
> assert the opposite thesis to show what is not Church-Turing computable in 
> the brain (or generalised brain: the portion of the physical reality needed 
> to enacted your consciousness).
> 
> Indexical Digital Mechanism is not compatible with physicalism. The physical 
> laws are the border of the Universal Mind associated with the universal 
> Person that incompleteness enforces on any self-referentially correct machine 
> with respect to its most plausible computations in arithmetic.
> 
> I am interest in the fundamental question. 
> 
> 
> 
>> I am more interested in questions of quantum information and the 
>> compatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
> 
> That too. And they origin, which with mechanism is mainly Number Theoretical, 
> although this includes intensional number theory which is computer science 
> (in the base of very elementary arithmetic).
> 
> There is only 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, …. And crazy truth, like 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, or 3^3 
> + 4^3 + 5^3  = 6^3, … And even crazier truth like “if I will never say f, 
> then I will never been able to justify why I will never say f. (With f your 
> favorite mathematical falsity, like 4^4 + 5^5 + 6^6 + 7^7 = 8^8.
> 
> 
> 
>> 
>> My reasoning for not doing this is not about being "deader," but in terms of 
>> money. To be honest this borders on sounding like a scam, and I can imagine 
>> that con-men have concocted this scheme to part people from their money. 
>> Sure it might be based on a bit of science and technology, but I could 
>> easily see this as being some sort of scam. The cryonics movement has 
>> produced nothing, but people continue to pay into it.
> 
> 
> It means that the pioneers of technological, which procrastinate Nirvana and 
> prolongate technologically the Samsara, will indeed prolongates the 
> suffering, but it is their choices, and it will be the one of everybody in 
> the next fews Millenia, and beyond.
> 
> I study only the mathematical consequences of an hypothesis, using the very 
> enlightening Plato vocabulary and definitions. At first it makes the 
> mind-body problem two times more difficult, as it requires not only the usual 
> explanation for the mind/consciousness, but it requires the complete 
> explanation of the physical “illusion” (to use a shorter word that 
> “phenomenology”).
> 
> The mechanist explanation appears to be at the antipode of 
> materialism/physicalism. There is a deeper explanation like the first person 
> differentiation on all relative computational histories (which exists in very 
> elementary arithmetic(*)).
> 
> By very elementary arithmetic I mean: classical logic +
> 
> 0 ≠ s(x)
> s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
> x+0 = x
> x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> x*0=0
> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
> 
> By elementary arithmetic, I mean the usual first order arithmetic which is 
> the very elementary one with some induction axioms, like Peano arithmetic or 
> consistent extensions of it.
> 
> I could use the combinators K, S, (K K), (K S), … (K (K S)) … ((K S) (S S)) … 
> instead, but most people find easier to believe in the absoluteness of 2 + 2 
> = 4 than ((K K) K) = K. (Which is true as a consequence of ((K x) y) = x).
> 
> But the two axioms:
> 
> ((K x) y) x
> 
> (((S x) y) z) = ((x z)(y z))
> 
> Together with few identity rules, are enough. (That is, even without 
> classical logic).
> 
> God made the Numbers, all the rest is Number’s science-fiction! (Grin).
> 
> Bruno
> 
> I guess in some ways this takes from Dedekind's statement. I tend to think we 
> have little idea of what the relationship between the physical world and 
> mathematics is. The two are clearly related in some ways; some people like 
> Tegmark have proposed an isomorphism of sorts.


Which simply does not work, although it get the mathematicalist position almost 
working. With computationalism, that Tegmark eventually considered (but 
misapplies), the physical is a Turing machine’s mind phenomenon. Physics 
becomes a branch of machine’s psychology or theology, which is itself a branch 
of self-reference logic, which is itself a branch of arithmetic.



> Hossenfelder does not think physics is that grounded in mathematics. I am 
> somewhere in between, with some thinking that mathematics is objective and it 
> is related to physics in some ways, say as syntax.

If we assume that the brain is Turing 

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Mar 2018, at 19:17, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> Brent Meeker Wrote"
> 
> > It seems to me there's something fishy about making behavior and conscious 
> > thought functionally equivalent so neither can change without a 
> > corresponding change in the other.  My intuition is that there is a lot of 
> > my thinking that doesn't show up as observable behavior.  No doubt it's 
> > observable at the micro-level in my brain; but not at the external level.
> The behavior of your neurons at the micro-level is what I’m talking about. A 
> change in the brain corresponds with a change in consciousness
> 

Correct.


> and a change in consciousness corresponds with a change in the brain.
> 
Locally correct. 



> So mind is what the brain does.
> 
Mind is what universal machine or number does. The physical brain is among that.



> So unless there is some mystical reason that carbon is conscious but silicon 
> is not a intelligent computer is also conscious.
> 
> 


So unless there is some mystical reason that carbon and silicon computer are 
intelligent/conscious and not their exact number theoretical counterpart are 
not, a non physical, arithmetical computer is also conscious.

But then all the universal machine implemented in arithmetic are also 
conscious, and we get infinitely bodies/representations there, making physics 
into a sum on all computations structured by self-reference, and this is 
confirmed empirically. 


Bruno

> John K Clark
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at 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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Dan Sonik]

Based on everything I have read of John K Clark's contributions to this 
list, I do solemnly hope he will be one of the first brains to be revived 
-- hope they give you the body of a mid- to late-eighties Van Damme, my 
friend! 

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 1:16:03 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> *> This further might connect with the whole idea of up-loading minds into 
>> computers. Brains and their states are not just localized states but 
>> networks, and it could well be that this is not tractable.*
>
>
> If the brain is a network it is a network with a finite number of vertices 
> and a finite number of lines connecting those vertices. For uploading 
> you’re not trying to optimize or do anything with the network except to 
> just list all the lines and vertices in a network that already exists. You 
> don’t need to find some exotic new algorithm that can solve NP complete 
> problems in polynomial time to do that, you just need a few trillion 
> nano-machines that can feel around inside a brain and report back on what 
> they’ve discovered. And as I said before, even if a general class of 
> problems has been proven to be difficult that just means some specific 
> examples of it are, it doesn’t mean all or even most are and in fact some 
> could be quite easy. In general factoring large numbers is hard and 2^1000 
> is huge but it would be remarkably easy to factor.
>
> There is another thing that confuses me, you seem to be implying nobody 
> should engage in Cryonics unless it has been proven with mathematical 
> certainty to work, and that doesn’t seem wise to me unless you know of a 
> reason that being frozen will make 
> ​me​
>  deader than being eaten by worms. 
>
> *> As a general rule once these threads gets past 100 I tend not to post 
>> any more. It becomes to annoying to find my way around them.*
>
>
> I can sympathize, I’ve been complaining about that for years, but the 
> problem really isn’t 100 posts its that most people refuse to trim anything 
> when they respond so you end up with a vast iterated sea of quotes of quote 
> of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes and its very 
> hard to tell who said what. Its frustrating to scroll down through page 
> after page of quotes only to be rewarded at the end with one cryptic new 
> line like “that’s not true”. 
>
>  John K Clark
>

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Tuesday, March 27, 2018 at 3:48:44 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/27/2018 8:34 AM, agrays...@gmail.com  wrote:
>
> *But what you can never do IMO, is determine whether either Rover, in any 
> circumstance, has self knowledge or self perception, or can experience 
> rudimentary or complex sensations.*
>
>
> You could interview them, just as you judge whether another person is 
> perceptive and self-aware or not.
>
> Brent
>

*The difference is that persons evaluated as self-aware were created in the 
identical process as the human observer who is self referential. In the 
case of a cleverly programmed computer, there would be no interview that 
could prove anything. No way to pass the Turing Test (or fail, depending on 
your definition of the test). ISTM that this is a case where we really 
don't know, what we don't know. AG*
 

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/27/2018 8:34 AM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
*But what you can never do IMO, is determine whether either Rover, in 
any circumstance, has self knowledge or self perception, or can 
experience rudimentary or complex sensations.*


You could interview them, just as you judge whether another person is 
perceptive and self-aware or not.


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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Stathis Papaioannou]

On Tue, 27 Mar 2018 at 8:08 am, John Clark  wrote:

> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Brent Meeker 
> wrote:
>
> ​>​
>>  does equal intelligence imply equivalent consciousness.
>>
>
> ​
> I don't know and never will. All I know for sure is my consciousness
> changes when my brain changes and when my brain changes my consciousness
> changes; after that all I can do is hope that my extrapolation that your
> brain is involved with consciousness too is valid.
>
>
>> ​> ​
>> how do I know that other people have consciousness like mine
>>
>
> ​You don't KNOW that but you have to assume that if you wish to function
> in the world.​
>
>
> * ​> ​except in that case one relies in part on knowing that other people
>> are constructed similarly.*
>
>
> Similar? That just begs the question, which differences are important and
> which ones are not? Is the color of your skin the most important thing that
> determines the quality of your consciousness, or is it your sex, or the
> fact that your brain is
> ​made ​
> mostly of carbon and not silicon? I have a strong hunch the most
> determination of consciousness is not what your brain is made of but how it
> handles information, but I will never be able to prove it.
>

I think it can be proved. If it is false then it leads to the situation
where, as Brent has said, your consciousness changes but you don’t notice
it. An imperceptible change in consciousness is, by definition, as good as
no change. If an MP3 file is imperceptibly different from the original
uncompressed audio file then, for the purpose of listening to music, it is
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:25:59 PM UTC-4, agrays...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/26/2018 10:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> Brent Meeker Wrote"
>>
>>> *> It seems to me there's something fishy about making behavior and 
>>> conscious thought functionally equivalent so neither can change without a 
>>> corresponding change in the other.  My intuition is that there is a lot of 
>>> my thinking that doesn't show up as observable behavior.  No doubt it's 
>>> observable at the micro-level in my brain; but not at the external level.*
>>
>>  The behavior of your neurons at the micro-level is what I’m talking 
> about. A change in the brain corresponds with a change inconsciousness and 
> a change in consciousness corresponds with a change in the brain. So mind 
> is what the brain does. So unless there is some mystical reason that carbon 
> is conscious but silicon is not a intelligent computer is also conscious.
>
>>
>> I don't doubt that.  But does equal intelligence imply equivalent 
>> consciousness. 
>>
>
>
> *IMO, the way you pose the question confuses the issue. You could have two 
> Rovers which do different tasks, and conclude they have different 
> intelligences based on some well defined definition. But how could you 
> ascertain whether either is conscious?  AFAICT, there is no understanding 
> of what "conscious" means. I suppose one can say it involves the perception 
> of sensation, pain, pleasure, etc. If you tore off a Rover's arm, it might 
> be programmed to complain or otherwise register the adverse modification of 
> its body. But if it did, wouldn't it be just simulating or mimicking a 
> human response without being "conscious"? What the hell are we talking 
> about? TIA, AG*
>

*You could program both Rovers to do arithmetic, but only one to do 
calculus. So you could say one is more intelligent than the other. Or you 
could program both to see in visible wave lengths, but only only to see in 
IR. So you could say one has superior vision than the other. But what you 
can never do IMO, is determine whether either Rover, in any circumstance, 
has self knowledge or self perception, or can experience rudimentary or 
complex sensations. So I don't think we're any closer to an explanation or 
understanding of consciousness than when we started, however long ago that 
was. AG*

>
>
> In other words could I design two Mars Rovers that behaved very similarly 
>> (as similar as two different humans) and yet, because of the way I 
>> implemented their memory or computers their consciousness was very 
>> different?  Of course this is related to the question of how do I know that 
>> other people have consciousness like mine; except in that case one relies 
>> in part on knowing that other people are constructed similarly.
>>
>> 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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 10:01:36 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 26 Mar 2018, at 00:07, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
>
> I am more interested in the graph theoretic issues with NP-completeness 
> for other reasons than I am in this question of uploading minds into 
> computers. The latter I think is largely science fiction.
>
>
> It is an hypothesis in the cognitive science, and it comes from. Molecular 
> biology but also physics where the laws are computable. It is up to those 
> who assert the opposite thesis to show what is not Church-Turing computable 
> in the brain (or generalised brain: the portion of the physical reality 
> needed to enacted your consciousness).
>
> Indexical Digital Mechanism is not compatible with physicalism. The 
> physical laws are the border of the Universal Mind associated with the 
> universal Person that incompleteness enforces on any self-referentially 
> correct machine with respect to its most plausible computations in 
> arithmetic.
>
> I am interest in the fundamental question. 
>
>
>
> I am more interested in questions of quantum information and the 
> compatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
>
>
> That too. And they origin, which with mechanism is mainly Number 
> Theoretical, although this includes intensional number theory which is 
> computer science (in the base of very elementary arithmetic).
>
> There is only 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, …. And crazy truth, like 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, or 
> 3^3 + 4^3 + 5^3  = 6^3, … And even crazier truth like “if I will never say 
> f, then I will never been able to justify why I will never say f. (With f 
> your favorite mathematical falsity, like 4^4 + 5^5 + 6^6 + 7^7 = 8^8.
>
>
>
>
> My reasoning for not doing this is not about being "deader," but in terms 
> of money. To be honest this borders on sounding like a scam, and I can 
> imagine that con-men have concocted this scheme to part people from their 
> money. Sure it might be based on a bit of science and technology, but I 
> could easily see this as being some sort of scam. The cryonics movement has 
> produced nothing, but people continue to pay into it.
>
>
>
> It means that the pioneers of technological, which procrastinate Nirvana 
> and prolongate technologically the Samsara, will indeed prolongates the 
> suffering, but it is their choices, and it will be the one of everybody in 
> the next fews Millenia, and beyond.
>
> I study only the mathematical consequences of an hypothesis, using the 
> very enlightening Plato vocabulary and definitions. At first it makes the 
> mind-body problem two times more difficult, as it requires not only the 
> usual explanation for the mind/consciousness, but it requires the complete 
> explanation of the physical “illusion” (to use a shorter word that 
> “phenomenology”).
>
> The mechanist explanation appears to be at the antipode of 
> materialism/physicalism. There is a deeper explanation like the first 
> person differentiation on all relative computational histories (which 
> exists in very elementary arithmetic(*)).
>
> By very elementary arithmetic I mean: classical logic +
>
> 0 ≠ s(x)
> s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
> x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
> x+0 = x
> x+s(y) = s(x+y)
> x*0=0
> x*s(y)=(x*y)+x
>
> By elementary arithmetic, I mean the usual first order arithmetic which is 
> the very elementary one with some induction axioms, like Peano arithmetic 
> or consistent extensions of it.
>
> I could use the combinators K, S, (K K), (K S), … (K (K S)) … ((K S) (S 
> S)) … instead, but most people find easier to believe in the absoluteness 
> of 2 + 2 = 4 than ((K K) K) = K. (Which is true as a consequence of ((K x) 
> y) = x).
>
> But the two axioms:
>
> ((K x) y) x
>
> (((S x) y) z) = ((x z)(y z))
>
> Together with few identity rules, are enough. (That is, even without 
> classical logic).
>
> God made the Numbers, all the rest is Number’s science-fiction! (Grin).
>
> Bruno
>

I guess in some ways this takes from Dedekind's statement. I tend to think 
we have little idea of what the relationship between the physical world and 
mathematics is. The two are clearly related in some ways; some people like 
Tegmark have proposed an isomorphism of sorts. Hossenfelder does not think 
physics is that grounded in mathematics. I am somewhere in between, with 
some thinking that mathematics is objective and it is related to physics in 
some ways, say as syntax.

LC

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 5:36:50 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:09 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> ​> ​
>> your incomplete knowledge is a Frankenstein.
>
>
>  Knowledge will always be incomplete, even God doesn't know how to make a 
> rock so heavy He can't lift it. And I've always been a fan of  Dr. 
> Frankenstein, even as a kid I thought the "there are some things man was 
> not meant to know" stuff was a load of crap.
> ​ 
>
> John K Clatk 
>

But your knowledge of consciousness is woefully incomplete. You don't know 
what it is, you can't rigorously define it; and you can't distinguish 
simulated from "real" consciousness, meaning the ability to experience 
sensation. So the chance of actually preserving human consciousness is nil. 
But what you will produce will be some unpredictable monstrosity. But your 
hubris will not inhibit the experiment. AG

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:09 PM,  wrote:

​> ​
> your incomplete knowledge is a Frankenstein.


 Knowledge will always be incomplete, even God doesn't know how to make a
rock so heavy He can't lift it. And I've always been a fan of  Dr.
Frankenstein, even as a kid I thought the "there are some things man was
not meant to know" stuff was a load of crap.
​

John K Clatk

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 4:20:02 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/26/2018 10:17 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> Brent Meeker Wrote"
>
>> *> It seems to me there's something fishy about making behavior and 
>> conscious thought functionally equivalent so neither can change without a 
>> corresponding change in the other.  My intuition is that there is a lot of 
>> my thinking that doesn't show up as observable behavior.  No doubt it's 
>> observable at the micro-level in my brain; but not at the external level.*
>
>  The behavior of your neurons at the micro-level is what I’m talking 
about. A change in the brain corresponds with a change inconsciousness and 
a change in consciousness corresponds with a change in the brain. So mind 
is what the brain does. So unless there is some mystical reason that carbon 
is conscious but silicon is not a intelligent computer is also conscious.

>
> I don't doubt that.  But does equal intelligence imply equivalent 
> consciousness. 
>


*IMO, the way you pose the question confuses the issue. You could have two 
Rovers which do different tasks, and conclude they have different 
intelligences based on some well defined definition. But how could you 
ascertain whether either is conscious?  AFAICT, there is no understanding 
of what "conscious" means. I suppose one can say it involves the perception 
of sensation, pain, pleasure, etc. If you tore off a Rover's arm, it might 
be programmed to complain or otherwise register the adverse modification of 
its body. But if it did, wouldn't it be just simulating or mimicking a 
human response without being "conscious"? What the hell are we talking 
about? TIA, AG*


In other words could I design two Mars Rovers that behaved very similarly 
> (as similar as two different humans) and yet, because of the way I 
> implemented their memory or computers their consciousness was very 
> different?  Of course this is related to the question of how do I know that 
> other people have consciousness like mine; except in that case one relies 
> in part on knowing that other people are constructed similarly.
>
> 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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Monday, March 26, 2018 at 12:36:17 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 9:09 PM,  
> wrote:
>
> *​ **> It might not be a scam; just extreme speculating. But what is, for 
>> sure, is hubris in evidence. AG*
>>
>
> Well yes, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.
>
> John K Clark
>

Generally it is. Hubris results in overestimating what we know. In this 
case, you think know what consciousness is, enough to preserve a human 
consciousness. In all likelihood all you can create with your incomplete 
knowledge is a Frankenstein. AG 

> ​
>  
>  
>

-- 
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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 4:19 PM, Brent Meeker  wrote:

​>​
>  does equal intelligence imply equivalent consciousness.
>

​
I don't know and never will. All I know for sure is my consciousness
changes when my brain changes and when my brain changes my consciousness
changes; after that all I can do is hope that my extrapolation that your
brain is involved with consciousness too is valid.


> ​> ​
> how do I know that other people have consciousness like mine
>

​You don't KNOW that but you have to assume that if you wish to function in
the world.​


* ​> ​except in that case one relies in part on knowing that other people
> are constructed similarly.*


Similar? That just begs the question, which differences are important and
which ones are not? Is the color of your skin the most important thing that
determines the quality of your consciousness, or is it your sex, or the
fact that your brain is
​made ​
mostly of carbon and not silicon? I have a strong hunch the most
determination of consciousness is not what your brain is made of but how it
handles information, but I will never be able to prove it.

​ ​
John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Brent Meeker]

On 3/26/2018 10:17 AM, John Clark wrote:


Brent Meeker Wrote"

/> It seems to me there's something fishy about making behavior
and conscious thought functionally equivalent so neither can
change without a corresponding change in the other.  My intuition
is that there is a lot of my thinking that doesn't show up as
observable behavior.  No doubt it's observable at the micro-level
in my brain; but not at the external level./

The behavior of your neurons at the micro-level is what I’m talking 
about. A change in the brain corresponds with a change in 
consciousness and a change in consciousness corresponds with a change 
in the brain. So mind is what the brain does. So unless there is some 
mystical reason that carbon is conscious but silicon is not a 
intelligent computer is also conscious.




I don't doubt that.  But does equal intelligence imply equivalent 
consciousness.  In other words could I design two Mars Rovers that 
behaved very similarly (as similar as two different humans) and yet, 
because of the way I implemented their memory or computers their 
consciousness was very different?  Of course this is related to the 
question of how do I know that other people have consciousness like 
mine; except in that case one relies in part on knowing that other 
people are constructed similarly.


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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

Brent Meeker Wrote"

> *> It seems to me there's something fishy about making behavior and
> conscious thought functionally equivalent so neither can change without a
> corresponding change in the other.  My intuition is that there is a lot of
> my thinking that doesn't show up as observable behavior.  No doubt it's
> observable at the micro-level in my brain; but not at the external level.*

The behavior of your neurons at the micro-level is what I’m talking about.
A change in the brain corresponds with a change in consciousness and a
change in consciousness corresponds with a change in the brain. So mind is
what the brain does. So unless there is some mystical reason that carbon is
conscious but silicon is not a intelligent computer is also conscious.

John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 9:09 PM,  wrote:

*​ **> It might not be a scam; just extreme speculating. But what is, for
> sure, is hubris in evidence. AG*
>

Well yes, but you almost make that sound like a bad thing.

John K Clark
​

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 10:50 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> Frankly, I think that is about all the time we have. We humans may not
> be around a whole lot longer. We seem to be in a time where not only are we
> doing things wrong, but we appear determined to do things as badly as
> possible. We humans are now on a path of double downing on putting the
> worst of our own into positions of power. This can only go on so long
> before at some point we are going to experience "peak environment" or the
> collapse of our bio-support system or life support on Earth.*

I don’t see any rational basis for such defeatism. Well OK I admit Trump is
a setback and he could end it all in just one temper tantrum, but the man
won’t be president forever (although he may be president for life, he was a
sore winner in 2016 so if he loses on November 3 2020 I’m not at all sure
he’s going to be a good sport about it on November 4 2020.)

People love to complain about how bad things are but there has never been a
time since the invention of fire when humans have killed other humans at a
lower rate than right now. And despite all the talk of environmental
degradation there has never been a time in human history when people have
been healthier or lived longer than right now. And people have never been
richer or been better educated or had more leisure time either. Sure there
are problems, there are always problems, but life will go on. Probably.

> *> I actually rather suspect civilization collapse will occur around
> mid-century.*

I think that’s a little early but I would only be moderately surprised if
the last person that we in 2018 would recognize as a biological human
disappeared around that time, but that doesn’t mean there would no longer
be intelligence or consciousness on planet Earth, far from it.

 John K Clark

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Mar 2018, at 03:56, John Clark  wrote:
> 
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Lawrence Crowell 
> > 
> wrote:
> 
> > >​  I am more interested in the graph theoretic issues with NP-completeness 
> > >for other reasons than I am in this question of uploading minds into 
> > >computers. The latter I think is largely science fiction.
> 
> Of course its science fiction, its fiction because because nobody has yet 
> come back from the world of liquid nitrogen and its scientific because you 
> have to go to the speculative interior of Black Holes to try to find a 
> fundamental physical reason it ​might​ not work. 
>  
> ​> I am more interested in questions of quantum information and the 
> compatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity.
> 
> Those are indeed interesting questions, but they are very deep and a​n​ 
> answer to them might not be available for a hundred years. wouldn't you like 
> a chance of knowing what those answers are?   
> 
> ​> ​My reasoning for not doing this is not about being "deader," but in terms 
> of money. To be honest this borders on sounding like a scam, and I can 
> imagine that con-men have concocted this scheme to part people from their 
> money. Sure it might be based on a bit of science and technology, but I could 
> easily see this as being some sort of scam.
> 
> If cryonics a scam its not a very good one because its been around for half a 
> century and nobody has gotten rich off it. Perhaps Alcor should stop saying 
> there are no guarantees and telling people ​that ​getting cryogenically 
> preserved is the second worst thing that could happen to you and instead do 
> what religion does and insist there is no way it could fail. If they didn't 
> care about honesty and did that from the first preservation back in the 1960s 
> Alcor might be bigger than Scientology by now, maybe even bigger than the 
> Vatican​.

That is a good point … for Alcor today. Yes.

Bruno


> 
> John K Clark​
> ​ 
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com 
> .
> Visit this group at 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: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Mar 2018, at 03:09, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 6:07:44 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
> I am more interested in the graph theoretic issues with NP-completeness for 
> other reasons than I am in this question of uploading minds into computers. 
> The latter I think is largely science fiction. I am more interested in 
> questions of quantum information and the compatibility of quantum mechanics 
> and general relativity.
> 
> My reasoning for not doing this is not about being "deader," but in terms of 
> money. To be honest this borders on sounding like a scam, and I can imagine 
> that con-men have concocted this scheme to part people from their money. Sure 
> it might be based on a bit of science and technology, but I could easily see 
> this as being some sort of scam. The cryonics movement has produced nothing, 
> but people continue to pay into it.
> 
> It might not be a scam; just extreme speculating. But what is, for sure, is 
> hubris in evidence. AG 


Given the evidences, in any rational metaphysics or theology, physicalism seems 
way far more speculative than Mechanism, which requires to believe only in very 
elementary arithmetic.

It is not because we were wrong (assuming digital mechanism of course) for 1500 
years that we cannot reason back in the field. 

Both the physical evidences and the theoretical evidences, when analysed 
closely with the less prejudices (and without taking seriously the wave packet 
reduction!)  confirms Mechanism’s immaterialism. It will make Primary Matter as 
the last phlogiston. The matter illusion begins with the arithmetic seen by the 
“observable” self-referential mode, and that gives indeed an arithmetical 
quantisation and a quantum logic.

We never localise a particle. We localise ourselves, in the many computations, 
relatively to the particles or the things we can distinguish and bet on.

Note that if the goal of cryonic is immortality, it is rather vain, as we have 
infinitely many continuations anyway, including “fusion”, it is very complex. 
But some day, people will accept part of artificial brains, bigger and bigger, 
not for immortality, but just fo survive. Some artificial circuitry in the 
cortex has already been (very partially) successful for case of 
blindness-from-birth. That technology will evolve. But the math and the 
philosophy does not depend if this take 4000 years or 400,000 years.

Bruno


> 
> LC
> 
> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 11:16:03 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Lawrence Crowell  <>> wrote:
> 
> > This further might connect with the whole idea of up-loading minds into 
> > computers. Brains and their states are not just localized states but 
> > networks, and it could well be that this is not tractable.
> 
> If the brain is a network it is a network with a finite number of vertices 
> and a finite number of lines connecting those vertices. For uploading you’re 
> not trying to optimize or do anything with the network except to just list 
> all the lines and vertices in a network that already exists. You don’t need 
> to find some exotic new algorithm that can solve NP complete problems in 
> polynomial time to do that, you just need a few trillion nano-machines that 
> can feel around inside a brain and report back on what they’ve discovered. 
> And as I said before, even if a general class of problems has been proven to 
> be difficult that just means some specific examples of it are, it doesn’t 
> mean all or even most are and in fact some could be quite easy. In general 
> factoring large numbers is hard and 2^1000 is huge but it would be remarkably 
> easy to factor.
> 
> There is another thing that confuses me, you seem to be implying nobody 
> should engage in Cryonics unless it has been proven with mathematical 
> certainty to work, and that doesn’t seem wise to me unless you know of a 
> reason that being frozen will make ​me​ deader than being eaten by worms. 
> 
> > As a general rule once these threads gets past 100 I tend not to post any 
> > more. It becomes to annoying to find my way around them.
> 
> I can sympathize, I’ve been complaining about that for years, but the problem 
> really isn’t 100 posts its that most people refuse to trim anything when they 
> respond so you end up with a vast iterated sea of quotes of quote of quotes 
> of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes and its very hard to tell 
> who said what. Its frustrating to scroll down through page after page of 
> quotes only to be rewarded at the end with one cryptic new line like “that’s 
> not true”. 
> 
>  John K Clark
> 
> -- 
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
> .
> To 

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Bruno Marchal]

> On 26 Mar 2018, at 00:07, Lawrence Crowell  
> wrote:
> 
> I am more interested in the graph theoretic issues with NP-completeness for 
> other reasons than I am in this question of uploading minds into computers. 
> The latter I think is largely science fiction.

It is an hypothesis in the cognitive science, and it comes from. Molecular 
biology but also physics where the laws are computable. It is up to those who 
assert the opposite thesis to show what is not Church-Turing computable in the 
brain (or generalised brain: the portion of the physical reality needed to 
enacted your consciousness).

Indexical Digital Mechanism is not compatible with physicalism. The physical 
laws are the border of the Universal Mind associated with the universal Person 
that incompleteness enforces on any self-referentially correct machine with 
respect to its most plausible computations in arithmetic.

I am interest in the fundamental question. 



> I am more interested in questions of quantum information and the 
> compatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity.

That too. And they origin, which with mechanism is mainly Number Theoretical, 
although this includes intensional number theory which is computer science (in 
the base of very elementary arithmetic).

There is only 0, 1, 2, 3, 4, …. And crazy truth, like 3^2 + 4^2 = 5^2, or 3^3 + 
4^3 + 5^3  = 6^3, … And even crazier truth like “if I will never say f, then I 
will never been able to justify why I will never say f. (With f your favorite 
mathematical falsity, like 4^4 + 5^5 + 6^6 + 7^7 = 8^8.



> 
> My reasoning for not doing this is not about being "deader," but in terms of 
> money. To be honest this borders on sounding like a scam, and I can imagine 
> that con-men have concocted this scheme to part people from their money. Sure 
> it might be based on a bit of science and technology, but I could easily see 
> this as being some sort of scam. The cryonics movement has produced nothing, 
> but people continue to pay into it.


It means that the pioneers of technological, which procrastinate Nirvana and 
prolongate technologically the Samsara, will indeed prolongates the suffering, 
but it is their choices, and it will be the one of everybody in the next fews 
Millenia, and beyond.

I study only the mathematical consequences of an hypothesis, using the very 
enlightening Plato vocabulary and definitions. At first it makes the mind-body 
problem two times more difficult, as it requires not only the usual explanation 
for the mind/consciousness, but it requires the complete explanation of the 
physical “illusion” (to use a shorter word that “phenomenology”).

The mechanist explanation appears to be at the antipode of 
materialism/physicalism. There is a deeper explanation like the first person 
differentiation on all relative computational histories (which exists in very 
elementary arithmetic(*)).

By very elementary arithmetic I mean: classical logic +

0 ≠ s(x)
s(x) = s(y) -> x = y
x = 0 v Ey(x = s(y))
x+0 = x
x+s(y) = s(x+y)
x*0=0
x*s(y)=(x*y)+x

By elementary arithmetic, I mean the usual first order arithmetic which is the 
very elementary one with some induction axioms, like Peano arithmetic or 
consistent extensions of it.

I could use the combinators K, S, (K K), (K S), … (K (K S)) … ((K S) (S S)) … 
instead, but most people find easier to believe in the absoluteness of 2 + 2 = 
4 than ((K K) K) = K. (Which is true as a consequence of ((K x) y) = x).

But the two axioms:

((K x) y) x

(((S x) y) z) = ((x z)(y z))

Together with few identity rules, are enough. (That is, even without classical 
logic).

God made the Numbers, all the rest is Number’s science-fiction! (Grin).

Bruno


> 
> LC
> 
> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 11:16:03 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Lawrence Crowell  > wrote:
> 
> > This further might connect with the whole idea of up-loading minds into 
> > computers. Brains and their states are not just localized states but 
> > networks, and it could well be that this is not tractable.
> 
> If the brain is a network it is a network with a finite number of vertices 
> and a finite number of lines connecting those vertices. For uploading you’re 
> not trying to optimize or do anything with the network except to just list 
> all the lines and vertices in a network that already exists. You don’t need 
> to find some exotic new algorithm that can solve NP complete problems in 
> polynomial time to do that, you just need a few trillion nano-machines that 
> can feel around inside a brain and report back on what they’ve discovered. 
> And as I said before, even if a general class of problems has been proven to 
> be difficult that just means some specific examples of it are, it doesn’t 
> mean all or even most are and in fact some could be quite easy. In general 
> factoring large numbers is hard and 2^1000 is huge but it would be 

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 8:56:55 PM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> > >
>> ​ 
>>  *I am more interested in the graph theoretic issues with 
>> NP-completeness for other reasons than I am in this question of uploading 
>> minds into computers. The latter I think is largely science fiction.*
>
>
> Of course its science fiction, its fiction because because nobody has yet 
> come back from the world of liquid nitrogen and its scientific because you 
> have to go to the speculative interior of Black Holes to try to find a 
> fundamental physical reason it 
> ​might​
>  not work. 
>  
>
>> ​>
>> * I am more interested in questions of quantum information and the 
>> compatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity.*
>>
>
> Those are indeed interesting questions, but they are very deep and a
> ​n​
> answer to them might not be available for a hundred years. wouldn't you 
> like a chance of knowing what those answers are?   
>

I think we may get some idea about this once LISA is collecting data. This 
is a spacebased gravitational wave interferometer that is slated for launch 
in 2034. I have a paper in review on how quantum hair on event horizons 
will appear in so called gravitational memory of gravitational radiation. 
This will give us a glimpse into this world of quantum gravitation and 
cosmology. 

Frankly, I think that is about all the time we have. We humans may not be 
around a whole lot longer. We seem to be in a time where not only are we 
doing things wrong, but we appear determined to do things as badly as 
possible. We humans are now on a path of double downing on putting the 
worst of our own into positions of power. This can only go on so long 
before at some point we are going to experience "peak environment" or the 
collapse of our bio-support system or life support on Earth. I actually 
rather suspect civilization collapse will occur around mid-century.

LC
 

>
>
> *​> ​My reasoning for not doing this is not about being "deader," but in 
>> terms of money. To be honest this borders on sounding like a scam, and I 
>> can imagine that con-men have concocted this scheme to part people from 
>> their money. Sure it might be based on a bit of science and technology, but 
>> I could easily see this as being some sort of scam.*
>
>
> If cryonics a scam its not a very good one because its been around for 
> half a century and nobody has gotten rich off it. Perhaps Alcor should stop 
> saying there are no guarantees and telling people 
> ​that ​
> getting cryogenically preserved is the second worst thing that could 
> happen to you and instead do what religion does and insist there is no way 
> it could fail. If they didn't care about honesty and did that from the 
> first preservation back in the 1960s Alcor might be bigger than Scientology 
> by now, maybe even bigger than the Vatican
> ​.
>
> John K Clark​
>
> ​ 
>

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 6:07 PM, Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> ​
>  *I am more interested in the graph theoretic issues with NP-completeness
> for other reasons than I am in this question of uploading minds into
> computers. The latter I think is largely science fiction.*


Of course its science fiction, its fiction because because nobody has yet
come back from the world of liquid nitrogen and its scientific because you
have to go to the speculative interior of Black Holes to try to find a
fundamental physical reason it
​might​
 not work.


> ​>
> * I am more interested in questions of quantum information and the
> compatibility of quantum mechanics and general relativity.*
>

Those are indeed interesting questions, but they are very deep and a
​n​
answer to them might not be available for a hundred years. wouldn't you
like a chance of knowing what those answers are?

*​> ​My reasoning for not doing this is not about being "deader," but in
> terms of money. To be honest this borders on sounding like a scam, and I
> can imagine that con-men have concocted this scheme to part people from
> their money. Sure it might be based on a bit of science and technology, but
> I could easily see this as being some sort of scam.*


If cryonics a scam its not a very good one because its been around for half
a century and nobody has gotten rich off it. Perhaps Alcor should stop
saying there are no guarantees and telling people
​that ​
getting cryogenically preserved is the second worst thing that could happen
to you and instead do what religion does and insist there is no way it
could fail. If they didn't care about honesty and did that from the first
preservation back in the 1960s Alcor might be bigger than Scientology by
now, maybe even bigger than the Vatican
​.

John K Clark​

​

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[agrayson2000]

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 6:07:44 PM UTC-4, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
> I am more interested in the graph theoretic issues with NP-completeness 
> for other reasons than I am in this question of uploading minds into 
> computers. The latter I think is largely science fiction. I am more 
> interested in questions of quantum information and the compatibility of 
> quantum mechanics and general relativity.
>
> My reasoning for not doing this is not about being "deader," but in terms 
> of money. To be honest this borders on sounding like a scam, and I can 
> imagine that con-men have concocted this scheme to part people from their 
> money. Sure it might be based on a bit of science and technology, but I 
> could easily see this as being some sort of scam. The cryonics movement has 
> produced nothing, but people continue to pay into it.
>

*It might not be a scam; just extreme speculating. But what is, for sure, 
is hubris in evidence. AG* 

>
> LC
>
> On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 11:16:03 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
>> goldenfield...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> *> This further might connect with the whole idea of up-loading minds 
>>> into computers. Brains and their states are not just localized states but 
>>> networks, and it could well be that this is not tractable.*
>>
>>
>> If the brain is a network it is a network with a finite number of 
>> vertices and a finite number of lines connecting those vertices. For 
>> uploading you’re not trying to optimize or do anything with the network 
>> except to just list all the lines and vertices in a network that already 
>> exists. You don’t need to find some exotic new algorithm that can solve NP 
>> complete problems in polynomial time to do that, you just need a few 
>> trillion nano-machines that can feel around inside a brain and report back 
>> on what they’ve discovered. And as I said before, even if a general class 
>> of problems has been proven to be difficult that just means some specific 
>> examples of it are, it doesn’t mean all or even most are and in fact some 
>> could be quite easy. In general factoring large numbers is hard and 2^1000 
>> is huge but it would be remarkably easy to factor.
>>
>> There is another thing that confuses me, you seem to be implying nobody 
>> should engage in Cryonics unless it has been proven with mathematical 
>> certainty to work, and that doesn’t seem wise to me unless you know of a 
>> reason that being frozen will make 
>> ​me​
>>  deader than being eaten by worms. 
>>
>> *> As a general rule once these threads gets past 100 I tend not to post 
>>> any more. It becomes to annoying to find my way around them.*
>>
>>
>> I can sympathize, I’ve been complaining about that for years, but the 
>> problem really isn’t 100 posts its that most people refuse to trim anything 
>> when they respond so you end up with a vast iterated sea of quotes of quote 
>> of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes and its very 
>> hard to tell who said what. Its frustrating to scroll down through page 
>> after page of quotes only to be rewarded at the end with one cryptic new 
>> line like “that’s not true”. 
>>
>>  John K Clark
>>
>

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

Re: Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[Lawrence Crowell]

I am more interested in the graph theoretic issues with NP-completeness for 
other reasons than I am in this question of uploading minds into computers. 
The latter I think is largely science fiction. I am more interested in 
questions of quantum information and the compatibility of quantum mechanics 
and general relativity.

My reasoning for not doing this is not about being "deader," but in terms 
of money. To be honest this borders on sounding like a scam, and I can 
imagine that con-men have concocted this scheme to part people from their 
money. Sure it might be based on a bit of science and technology, but I 
could easily see this as being some sort of scam. The cryonics movement has 
produced nothing, but people continue to pay into it.

LC

On Sunday, March 25, 2018 at 11:16:03 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote:
>
> *> This further might connect with the whole idea of up-loading minds into 
>> computers. Brains and their states are not just localized states but 
>> networks, and it could well be that this is not tractable.*
>
>
> If the brain is a network it is a network with a finite number of vertices 
> and a finite number of lines connecting those vertices. For uploading 
> you’re not trying to optimize or do anything with the network except to 
> just list all the lines and vertices in a network that already exists. You 
> don’t need to find some exotic new algorithm that can solve NP complete 
> problems in polynomial time to do that, you just need a few trillion 
> nano-machines that can feel around inside a brain and report back on what 
> they’ve discovered. And as I said before, even if a general class of 
> problems has been proven to be difficult that just means some specific 
> examples of it are, it doesn’t mean all or even most are and in fact some 
> could be quite easy. In general factoring large numbers is hard and 2^1000 
> is huge but it would be remarkably easy to factor.
>
> There is another thing that confuses me, you seem to be implying nobody 
> should engage in Cryonics unless it has been proven with mathematical 
> certainty to work, and that doesn’t seem wise to me unless you know of a 
> reason that being frozen will make 
> ​me​
>  deader than being eaten by worms. 
>
> *> As a general rule once these threads gets past 100 I tend not to post 
>> any more. It becomes to annoying to find my way around them.*
>
>
> I can sympathize, I’ve been complaining about that for years, but the 
> problem really isn’t 100 posts its that most people refuse to trim anything 
> when they respond so you end up with a vast iterated sea of quotes of quote 
> of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes and its very 
> hard to tell who said what. Its frustrating to scroll down through page 
> after page of quotes only to be rewarded at the end with one cryptic new 
> line like “that’s not true”. 
>
>  John K Clark
>

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

Mind Uploading and NP-completeness

[John Clark]

On Sun, Mar 25, 2018 at 11:34 AM, Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:

*> This further might connect with the whole idea of up-loading minds into
> computers. Brains and their states are not just localized states but
> networks, and it could well be that this is not tractable.*


If the brain is a network it is a network with a finite number of vertices
and a finite number of lines connecting those vertices. For uploading
you’re not trying to optimize or do anything with the network except to
just list all the lines and vertices in a network that already exists. You
don’t need to find some exotic new algorithm that can solve NP complete
problems in polynomial time to do that, you just need a few trillion
nano-machines that can feel around inside a brain and report back on what
they’ve discovered. And as I said before, even if a general class of
problems has been proven to be difficult that just means some specific
examples of it are, it doesn’t mean all or even most are and in fact some
could be quite easy. In general factoring large numbers is hard and 2^1000
is huge but it would be remarkably easy to factor.

There is another thing that confuses me, you seem to be implying nobody
should engage in Cryonics unless it has been proven with mathematical
certainty to work, and that doesn’t seem wise to me unless you know of a
reason that being frozen will make
​me​
 deader than being eaten by worms.

*> As a general rule once these threads gets past 100 I tend not to post
> any more. It becomes to annoying to find my way around them.*


I can sympathize, I’ve been complaining about that for years, but the
problem really isn’t 100 posts its that most people refuse to trim anything
when they respond so you end up with a vast iterated sea of quotes of quote
of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes of quotes and its very
hard to tell who said what. Its frustrating to scroll down through page
after page of quotes only to be rewarded at the end with one cryptic new
line like “that’s not true”.

 John K Clark

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