Re: Vehiculus automobilius
On Monday, March 10, 2014 5:48:42 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote: > > > > > On 7 March 2014 15:46, Craig Weinberg >wrote: > >> If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species >> with a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars >> have replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce >> in a different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like >> horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve >> into new styles over time. >> >> Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or >> Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. They do not >> whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their drivers >> careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a car does >> not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither does it >> need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very >> complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all >> practical purposes than a horse. >> >> Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We >> could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in >> the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each >> windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough >> artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether? >> >> I don't think you understand the essential idea of functionalism, which > is multiple realisability. > Multiple realisability is the problem. A digital file can be rendered to our visual sense as a graphic design or to our audio sense as music. It can also be copied, translated, or functionally manipulated in every way without being rendered at all. > You try to think of analogies to show that it's not obvious, but we know > it's not obvious. However, it's true. > It's even less obvious than you think. What you are thinking is not obvious is only halfway there. > You don't address the arguments showing it to be true. It's like focussing > on how we would fall off the earth if it were round but failing to explain > the photos from space. > What argument specifically are you saying that I don't address? Craig > > -- > Stathis Papaioannou > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Vehiculus automobilius
On 7 March 2014 15:46, Craig Weinberg wrote: > If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with > a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have > replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a > different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like > horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve > into new styles over time. > > Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or > Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. They do not > whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their drivers > careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a car does > not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither does it > need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very > complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all > practical purposes than a horse. > > Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We > could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in > the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each > windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough > artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether? > > I don't think you understand the essential idea of functionalism, which is multiple realisability. You try to think of analogies to show that it's not obvious, but we know it's not obvious. However, it's true. You don't address the arguments showing it to be true. It's like focussing on how we would fall off the earth if it were round but failing to explain the photos from space. -- Stathis Papaioannou -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Vehiculus automobilius
On Friday, March 7, 2014 7:14:15 AM UTC-5, telmo_menezes wrote: > > Hi Craig, > > > On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg > > > wrote: > >> If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species >> with a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars >> have replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce >> in a different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like >> horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve >> into new styles over time. >> > > But cars are an implementation of the very small subset of horseness that > humans care about. One single cell of a horse is orders of greatness more > complex than a car. Why would you expect such a kludge to evolve > structurally? > Exactly. Just as cars are based on a small subset of horseness that humans care about, the descriptions of consciousness that modal logic cares about are equally narrow. > >> >> Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or >> Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. >> > > A few have, at the social level. For example, cars evolved in > social-meme-space as a way to impress the ladies and as a sports activity. > That could be a property of any number of things though, not just horses in particular. > > >> They do not whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their >> drivers careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a >> car does not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither >> does it need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very >> complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all >> practical purposes than a horse. >> >> Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We >> could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in >> the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each >> windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough >> artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether? >> > > That's the entire point of technology -- but funnily enough most > technology fetishists don't realize it. Deep down they know that they > actually like the gadget for it's own sake, but they always talk of > "productivity". Productivity towards what? A question rarely asked in this > philosophy-starved society. We want our experiences to be richer and > richer, as god-like as possible. Function has nothing to do with it. > I agree. Function has no function. Craig > > Cheers > Telmo. > > >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Everything List" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to everything-li...@googlegroups.com . >> To post to this group, send email to everyth...@googlegroups.com >> . >> Visit this group at http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: Vehiculus automobilius
On Friday, March 7, 2014 3:06:54 AM UTC-5, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > > > *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto: > everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg > *Sent:* Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:46 PM > *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com > *Subject:* Vehiculus automobilius > > > > If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with > a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have > replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a > different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like > horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve > into new styles over time. > > Bees fly around like bats, but no one confuses bees for bats. The first > popular name for the automobile in fact was the horseless carriage, which > is the negation of the horse… a carriage sans horse. The carriage evolved > into the car, but the radical change was from the grass fed hooved external > motive force – i.e. the horse(s) – to the ICE engine… electric motors came > early as well… then later diesel and gas turbines. So what if both fill a > locomotive niche? > > One is not the other; that is a rather forced analogy – IMO. > It's an intentionally forced analogy. The horseless carriage name only emphasizes that the function which horses served for us was replaceable. Just as technology freed the buggy from the horse, so too might AI free the carriage of the mind (the power to store facts and to move them from one application to another appropriately) from the horse of human consciousness (the capacity to care, appreciate, and participate the journey). The change from grass to gas is analogous to the change from live neurons to electronic silicon (or whatever inorganic medium is used). >So what if both fill a locomotive niche? The 'so what' is that filling a locomotive niche is all that functionalism requires. If AI fills the behavioral niches of a person, then it is a success, as far as computationalism is concerned. > > Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or > Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. They do not > whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their drivers > careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a car does > not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither does it > need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very > complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all > practical purposes than a horse. > > Just for fun let me argue that they do.. in the abstract. A horse requires > fuel just as a car does; its fuel is hay & grass (maybe oats and a few > apples), but fuel never the less… the horse has an onboard chemical plant > to extract the useable energy content – including elaborate symbiotic > relationships with the microorganisms in its various stomachs and gut; it > has an intricate fuel distribution network delivering highly available > oxygen for catalyzed reaction with fuel to produce the energy to power the > muscles to move the hooves that move the horse that moves the carriage. A > car externalizes the refining process – but who knows maybe one day we will > develop hay munching cars (probably not too fast though) – but it also > clearly requires fuel. > > Both the horse and the car produce waste products as a result of > performing the useful work they are being used for. Both a horse and a car > increase entropy. > > There are legions of potential parallels that can be teased out between > horse and car. But to what end; in my current case a bit of idle fun > perhaps. > To the end of recognizing that functionalism is false. A particular quality of consciousness cannot be emulated by feeding a robot human food and programming it to say 'mmm'. Everything that you are saying about horses supports my point. There is nothing especially horse-like about its functions. The energy it uses and work it performs are not much different than a zooplankton. > As for your assertion of better.. that depends on a lot of factors. > Perhaps the Google self driving car might be better in a urban commute > situation – along urban freeway systems and arterial roadways. But what > about for a travers of the Andes mountain chain from south to the Panama > canal, which means of locomotion do you think has the better chance of ever > even making it from the cold of Tierra del Fuego (odd name for such a cold > dismal damp place) zig zagging along mighty Andean ranges, through deep > roadless canyons, jungle, desert, swamp and mountains. > > I don’t know about you, but in that case I am going for the horse. As > always, whenever one says the word “better”… well better depends doesn’t it. > Right, that's my point. Simulation is a brittle, superficial branch of the tree of existence/c
Re: Vehiculus automobilius
Hi Craig, On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 5:46 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with > a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have > replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a > different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like > horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve > into new styles over time. > But cars are an implementation of the very small subset of horseness that humans care about. One single cell of a horse is orders of greatness more complex than a car. Why would you expect such a kludge to evolve structurally? > > Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or > Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. > A few have, at the social level. For example, cars evolved in social-meme-space as a way to impress the ladies and as a sports activity. > They do not whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their > drivers careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a > car does not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither > does it need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very > complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all > practical purposes than a horse. > > Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We > could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in > the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each > windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough > artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether? > That's the entire point of technology -- but funnily enough most technology fetishists don't realize it. Deep down they know that they actually like the gadget for it's own sake, but they always talk of "productivity". Productivity towards what? A question rarely asked in this philosophy-starved society. We want our experiences to be richer and richer, as god-like as possible. Function has nothing to do with it. Cheers Telmo. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com. > Visit this group at http://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 http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
RE: Vehiculus automobilius
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Thursday, March 06, 2014 8:46 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Vehiculus automobilius If the doctor became more ambitious, and decided to replace a species with a simulation, we have a ready example of what it might be like. Cars have replaced the functionality of horses in human society. They reproduce in a different, more centralized way, but otherwise they move around like horses, carry people and their possessions like horses, they even evolve into new styles over time. Bees fly around like bats, but no one confuses bees for bats. The first popular name for the automobile in fact was the horseless carriage, which is the negation of the horse… a carriage sans horse. The carriage evolved into the car, but the radical change was from the grass fed hooved external motive force – i.e. the horse(s) – to the ICE engine… electric motors came early as well… then later diesel and gas turbines. So what if both fill a locomotive niche? One is not the other; that is a rather forced analogy – IMO. Notice, however, that despite our occasional use of a name like Pinto or Mustang, no horse-like properties have emerged from cars. They do not whinny or swat flies. They do not get spooked and send their drivers careening off of the road. They did not develop DNA. Certainly a car does not perform as many complex computations as a horse, but neither does it need to. The function of a horse really doesn't need to be very complicated. A Google self-driving car is a better horse for almost all practical purposes than a horse. Just for fun let me argue that they do.. in the abstract. A horse requires fuel just as a car does; its fuel is hay & grass (maybe oats and a few apples), but fuel never the less… the horse has an onboard chemical plant to extract the useable energy content – including elaborate symbiotic relationships with the microorganisms in its various stomachs and gut; it has an intricate fuel distribution network delivering highly available oxygen for catalyzed reaction with fuel to produce the energy to power the muscles to move the hooves that move the horse that moves the carriage. A car externalizes the refining process – but who knows maybe one day we will develop hay munching cars (probably not too fast though) – but it also clearly requires fuel. Both the horse and the car produce waste products as a result of performing the useful work they are being used for. Both a horse and a car increase entropy. There are legions of potential parallels that can be teased out between horse and car. But to what end; in my current case a bit of idle fun perhaps. As for your assertion of better.. that depends on a lot of factors. Perhaps the Google self driving car might be better in a urban commute situation – along urban freeway systems and arterial roadways. But what about for a travers of the Andes mountain chain from south to the Panama canal, which means of locomotion do you think has the better chance of ever even making it from the cold of Tierra del Fuego (odd name for such a cold dismal damp place) zig zagging along mighty Andean ranges, through deep roadless canyons, jungle, desert, swamp and mountains. I don’t know about you, but in that case I am going for the horse. As always, whenever one says the word “better”… well better depends doesn’t it. Chris Maybe the doctor can replace all species with a functional equivalent? We could even do without all of the moving around and just keep the cars in the factory in which they are built and include a simulation screen on each windshield that interacts with Google Maps. With a powerful enough artificial intelligence, why not replace function altogether? Have you ever entertained the thought that maybe you are not actually moving around, but rather what is really going on is that you are – to coin a word – informationing around. What if space and time, and hence moving, past, future are all emergent phenomena of our sensed reality. Consider how if the VR machine is deep enough – with layer upon layer of code operating on other code, which is built on code built on code – in an infinite regression of emergent complexity, of emergent nuance, of emergent whatever qualia you choose… all of it, reality and self in reality as well – emergent from an information manifold.. the multiverse Schrödinger equation. What seems impossible to synthesize, often can become synthesizable given more subtle tools. I understand your feelings on the matter of the soul being something that cannot arise from mere programs operating with numbers… there is no f(x) that produces the soul. But when the f(x) regresses and we begin to have deep enclosures as in: p(o(n(m(l(k(j(h(g(f(x)) when any one of the computational nodes can become self-referent (given some termination conditio
