subject:"When will a computer pass the Turing Test\?"

On 9/3/2013 3:43 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
By the way the brain produces high fidelity illusions for us most of our waking lives.
For example the way we perceive our sight is very different from the intermittent stream
of neural signals that begin their journey from our retinas. Did you know that every
time you shift your eyes from one focus point to another that during the period of time
the eyeball is in movement from one focus to the next no visual signals are being sent
down the optic nerve. That if the brain was not producing an illusion for us the world
we see should vanish each time we move our eyes (or blink them) Does the world disappear
each time you blink or move your eyes? Of course it doesn't. Your mind maintains a
steady and beautifully rendered illusion of the world in your mind that is seamlessly
stitched into the new stream of optic signals as they arrive. There is no discontinuity.

That seems to look at it the wrong way around. Our model of the world is one in which
objects are persistent even when we don't look at them. That's a better model than one in
which they only exist when we look at them. So our brain is creating the better model
instead of the worse. I see no reason to call that an "illusion".

Brent

When you turn your head from one side to the other does the world spin? -- the world
around you is instead held in a majestic stability that is not real, because it should
be instead spinning as your head spins. Instead in our perception the world stays stable
and it is our "perspective" -- our inner view -- that shifts. This makes sense from the
point of view of the inner observer, but the mind needs to do a lot of work to build the
illusion.
Our brains are, grand masters of illusion and we live in illusion (a reification of
sensorial reality) all our waking lives.
The perfection of our visual illusion is a masterpiece of interpretive processing where
the raw signals we get are stitched together into a field of view and a focus within
that field of view that -- though it clearly is reflective of our sensorial reality is
also quite different; the "world" we see is very different than the world as it is
recorded on our eyeballs (even to the extent of smoothly persisting without the barest
hint of any interruption even as our eyes are not seeing a single thing at all.

Cheers,
-Chris

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

By the way the brain produces high fidelity illusions for us most of our waking 
lives. For example the way we perceive our sight is very different from the 
intermittent stream of neural signals that begin their journey from our 
retinas. Did you know that every time you shift your eyes from one focus point 
to another that during the period of time the eyeball is in movement from one 
focus to the next no visual signals are being sent down the optic nerve. That 
if the brain was not producing an illusion for us the world we see should 
vanish each time we move our eyes (or blink them) Does the world disappear each 
time you blink or move your eyes? Of course it doesn't. Your mind maintains a 
steady and beautifully rendered illusion of the world in your mind that is 
seamlessly stitched into the new stream of optic signals as they arrive. There 
is no discontinuity. 

When you turn your head from one side to the other does the world spin?  -- the 
world around you is instead held in a majestic stability that is not real, 
because it should be instead spinning as your head spins. Instead in our 
perception the world stays stable and it is our "perspective" -- our inner view 
-- that shifts. This makes sense from the point of view of the inner observer, 
but the mind needs to do a lot of work to build the illusion.
Our brains are, grand masters of illusion and we live in illusion (a 
reification of sensorial reality) all our waking lives. 

The perfection of our visual illusion is a masterpiece of interpretive 
processing where the raw signals we get are stitched together into a field of 
view and a focus within that field of view that -- though it clearly is 
reflective of our sensorial reality is also quite different; the "world" we see 
is very different than the world as it is recorded on our eyeballs (even to the 
extent of smoothly persisting without the barest hint of any interruption even 
as our eyes are not seeing a single thing at all.

Cheers,
-Chris

 From: Dennis Ochei 
To: "everything-list@googlegroups.com"  
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

>>Of course it didn't.  In order to avoid the impression of "free will" 
>>evolution would have had to provide us with conscious perception of the 
>>working of our brain.  This would not only have been expensive in biological 
>>resources and totally unnecessary to our survival, 

I want to add that this would also be impossible to do in full fidelity. The 
appearance of  free will and qualia make sense given this limitation

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

On 9/3/2013 10:54 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> 
>  
>>
>> 
>>From: meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
>>To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
>>Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
>>  
>>
>>
>> 
>>On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>>  
>>Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy our 
>>species expends on creating this sensation within ourselves – whether it is 
>>actually real or an elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation) to 
>>carefully create this deeply layered and highly convincing illusion of free 
>>will within us – for no reason at all. 
>>
>>>>Of course it didn't.  In order to avoid the impression of "free will" 
>>>>evolution would have had to provide us with conscious perception of the 
>>>>working of our brain.  This would not only have been expensive in 
>>>>biological resources and totally unnecessary to our survival, it would have 
>>>>posed the danger of entering do-loops. 
>> 
>>I do not see how that follows. The brain could have simply worked, supplying 
>>us with answers that we acted on robot like without questioning or 
>>contemplating how it arrived in the first instance. Why couldn't we exist as 
>>intelligent automata, behaving intelligently -- in any given generalized 
>>problem space --  without any inner life at all. Why would evolution be 
>>required to provide us with a conscious perception of the inner workings by 
>>which the brain arrived at whatever intelligent decision it arrived at; which 
>>is what I think you are stating; please correct me if I am off the mark.  
>> 
>
You are assuming that the brain has to *do something extra* to provide your 
inner life.  I'm saying probably not.  If I constructed a robot that could act 
and learn just as a human does, it would probably having similar feelings and 
"inner life". I think what you refer to as "inner life" is the

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?


 


 From: Dennis Ochei 
To: "everything-list@googlegroups.com"  
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 12:38 PM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
  


>>Of course it didn't.  In order to avoid the impression of "free will" 
>>evolution would have had to provide us with conscious perception of the 
>>working of our brain.  This would not only have been expensive in biological 
>>resources and totally unnecessary to our survival, 

I want to add that this would also be impossible to do in full fidelity. The 
appearance of  free will and qualia make sense given this limitation



On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

On 9/3/2013 10:54 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
> 
>  
>>
>> 
>>From: meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
>>To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
>>Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
>>Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
>>  
>>
>>
>> 
>>On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>>  
>>Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy our 
>>species expends on creating this sensation within ourselves – whether it is 
>>actually real or an elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation) to 
>>carefully create this deeply layered and highly convincing illusion of free 
>>will within us – for no reason at all. 
>>
>>>>Of course it didn't.  In order to avoid the impression of "free will" 
>>>>evolution would have had to provide us with conscious perception of the 
>>>>working of our brain.  This would not only have been expensive in 
>>>>biological resources and totally unnecessary to our survival, it would have 
>>>>posed the danger of entering do-loops. 
>> 
>>I do not see how that follows. The brain could have simply worked, supplying 
>>us with answers that we acted on robot like without questioning or 
>>contemplating how it arrived in the first instance. Why couldn't we exist as 
>>intelligent automata, behaving intelligently -- in any given generalized 
>>problem space --  without any inner life at all. Why would evolution be 
>>required to provide us with a conscious perception of the inner workings by 
>>which the brain arrived at whatever intelligent decision it arrived at; which 
>>is what I think you are stating; please correct me if I am off the mark.  
>> 
>
>>>You are assuming that the brain has to *do something extra* to provide your 
>>>inner life.  I'm saying probably not.  If I constructed a robot that could 
>>>act and learn just as a human does, it would probably having similar 
>>>feelings and "inner life". I think what you refer to as "inner life" is the 
>>>inner narration as your brain formulates its story of what's happened so 
>>>that it can be compared to what you expected. If it's unexpected you can 
>>>learn from it.  If not it can safely be forgotten.  My robot might use a 
>>>similar strategy for learning and so feel a similar "inner life".
>
>I do follow you and to some degree perhaps just the reification of sensorial 
>reality that the mind engages in  would be enough to generate this inner 
>sensation of being an observer of the self. There is a logical flow to your 
>argument; however I am still not convinced. 
>
>If self-awareness proceeds from the having sufficient reasoning capacity for 
>intelligence to take root then how does that account for the evolution of 
>mirror neurons, which seem central to the experience of self-awareness.  It 
>seems, instead that evolution went through quite a bit of trouble to make sure 
>that we could experience self awareness and that it is not just a side effect 
>of having sufficient brain power to be able to form complex thoughts.
>
>-Chris
>
>Brent
>
>
>
>
>>Brent
>>
-- 
>>You received this message because you are subscribed to
the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
>>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails
from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
>>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
>>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>> 
>>
>>
>>No virus found in this message.
>>Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com/
>>Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6634 - Release Date:
09/03/13
>>-- 
>>You received th

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?


On 9/3/2013 10:54 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:


*From:* meekerdb 
*To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
*Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
*Subject:* Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy our species 
expends on creating this sensation within ourselves – whether it is actually real or an 
elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation) to carefully create this deeply 
layered and highly convincing illusion of free will within us – for no reason at all.


>>Of course it didn't.  In order to avoid the impression of "free will" evolution would 
have had to provide us with conscious perception of the working of our brain.  This 
would not only have been expensive in biological resources and totally unnecessary to 
our survival, it would have posed the danger of entering do-loops.
I do not see how that follows. The brain could have simply worked, supplying us with 
answers that we acted on robot like without questioning or contemplating how it arrived 
in the first instance. Why couldn't we exist as intelligent automata, behaving 
intelligently -- in any given generalized problem space --  without any inner life at 
all. Why would evolution be required to provide us with a conscious perception of the 
inner workings by which the brain arrived at whatever intelligent decision it arrived 
at; which is what I think you are stating; please correct me if I am off the mark.


You are assuming that the brain has to *do something extra* to provide your inner life.  
I'm saying probably not.  If I constructed a robot that could act and learn just as a 
human does, it would probably having similar feelings and "inner life". I think what you 
refer to as "inner life" is the inner narration as your brain formulates its story of 
what's happened so that it can be compared to what you expected. If it's unexpected you 
can learn from it.  If not it can safely be forgotten.  My robot might use a similar 
strategy for learning and so feel a similar "inner life".


Brent




Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything 
List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6634 - Release Date: 09/03/13

--
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/groups/opt_out.


--
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-09-03 Thread Dennis Ochei

>
> >>Of course it didn't.  In order to avoid the impression of "free will"
> evolution would have had to provide us with conscious perception of the
> working of our brain.  This would not only have been expensive in
> biological resources and totally unnecessary to our survival,
>
>
I want to add that this would also be impossible to do in full fidelity.
The appearance of  free will and qualia make sense given this limitation


On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 1:01 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>  On 9/3/2013 10:54 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
>
>
>*From:* meekerdb  
> *To:* everything-list@googlegroups.com
> *Sent:* Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
> *Subject:* Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
>
>   On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
>
> Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy
> our species expends on creating this sensation within ourselves – whether
> it is actually real or an elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation)
> to carefully create this deeply layered and highly convincing illusion of
> free will within us – for no reason at all.
>
>
> >>Of course it didn't.  In order to avoid the impression of "free will"
> evolution would have had to provide us with conscious perception of the
> working of our brain.  This would not only have been expensive in
> biological resources and totally unnecessary to our survival, it would
> have posed the danger of entering do-loops.
>  I do not see how that follows. The brain could have simply worked,
> supplying us with answers that we acted on robot like without questioning
> or contemplating how it arrived in the first instance. Why couldn't we
> exist as intelligent automata, behaving intelligently -- in any given
> generalized problem space --  without any inner life at all. Why would
> evolution be required to provide us with a conscious perception of the
> inner workings by which the brain arrived at whatever intelligent decision
> it arrived at; which is what I think you are stating; please correct me if
> I am off the mark.
>
>
> You are assuming that the brain has to *do something extra* to provide
> your inner life.  I'm saying probably not.  If I constructed a robot that
> could act and learn just as a human does, it would probably having similar
> feelings and "inner life". I think what you refer to as "inner life" is the
> inner narration as your brain formulates its story of what's happened so
> that it can be compared to what you expected. If it's unexpected you can
> learn from it.  If not it can safely be forgotten.  My robot might use a
> similar strategy for learning and so feel a similar "inner life".
>
> Brent
>
>
>
> Brent
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>   No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2013.0.3392 / Virus Database: 3222/6634 - Release Date: 09/03/13
> --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>
>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "Everything List" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/everything-list/jtxyZmemH64/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, 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/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

 From: John Clark 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Chris de Morsella  
wrote:

I think your position is ridiculous. Evolution has clearly invested a lot of 
energy into “free will” 
>>Can not comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.

You are merely being argumentative here. You certainly do have a very clear 
idea of the sensations you experience within your brain that we describe as 
experiencing "free will" -- to state that the only meaning this has to you is 
as a series of ASCII symbols strung together is hiding behind the skirt of 
semantics/

> “self-awareness”, and other qualia that characterize conscious existence. 
>>Well, I have self awareness and other qualia, so I know that Evolution did it 
>>at least once, and maybe I'm not the only one, maybe it did it billions of 
>>times. But I also know that all Evolution can see is behavior and it can't 
>>see those qualities any better than we can see self awareness in others. 
>>Therefore I conclude that self awareness and other qualia MUST BE a byproduct 
>>of intelligent behavior.

So I take it therefore that you accept that we have "self awareness".. a clear 
sense of "self", but that "free will" is just ASCII characters strung together? 
Not very consistent of you.

Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy our 
species expends on creating this sensation within ourselves – whether it is 
actually real or an elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation) to 
carefully create this deeply layered and highly convincing illusion of free 
will within us – for no reason at all.  
>>If free will were a illusion I would have no problem with it whatsoever! 
>>Illusions are a perfectly a legitimate phenomena worthy of study, but "free 
>>will" is not nearly as interesting because "free will" is just a noise made 
>>by the mouth.   

So if "free will" is an illusion it is therefore necessarily mere noise in your 
estimation of things; a position that you have left unsupported by any evidence 
that the brain would go through all the trouble of producing the illusion just 
to make noise.. and that the evolutionary cost of maintaining this elaborate 
ruse is essentially non-existent. That it is a free by product of something 
else that is going on that is necessary. I assume that this is what you will 
say, but you give no evidence to justify this position. Evolution is economical 
and seeks to maximize fitness; which means you need to convincingly show how 
free will necessarily arises as a by-product of some other necessary brain 
function or that it costs the brain -- and the individual now burdened with 
"free will" -- nothing in terms of evolutionary fitness.

> The brain consumes a lot of energy  >>And apparently Evolution decided that 
> the increased energy usage was worth it because the resulting intelligent 
> behavior brought more genes into the next generation than a brain that used 
> less energy and was therefore less intelligent. And consciousness just went 
> along for the ride.  

I take it that your position is that free will and self awareness are necessary 
by-products of intelligence which have no meaning or function and should be 
considered to be noise? But you cannot show how these are necessary by products 
of intelligence or that they do not impose any extra evolutionary expense on 
the individuals in which they manifest.

You do not answer the questions why? or how?

I do not think that these experiences we all experience -- including yourself  
even if you like to state that free will is just  a string of ASCII characters 
to you -- can be generated within our brains at no extra cost -- both the 
direct costs of all the brain activity required in order to generate it and all 
the ancillary costs for the survival of the individuals who have it and who now 
must wrestle with "self awareness", "personal death -- i.e. our own mortality", 
and "free will"

You have failed to demonstrate how all these qualia arise in the brain at no 
extra cost -- as you assert -- and that they impose no direct and ancillary 
evolutionary costs on the individual. I doubt you can demonstrate this; just as 
I doubt your position is correct. But I would like to see you demonstrate how 
the experience of "self awareness" and "free will" are by-products of the 
evolution of intelligence and how they impose zero evolutionary expense (you 
state that they provide zero benefits -- so therefore you burden yourself with 
showing how they impose zero evolutionary cost)

-Chris

  John K Clark

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?


On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:
Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy our species 
expends on creating this sensation within ourselves -- whether it is actually real or an 
elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation) to carefully create this deeply layered 
and highly convincing illusion of free will within us -- for no reason at all.


Of course it didn't. In order to avoid the impression of "free will" evolution would have 
had to provide us with conscious perception of the working of our brain.  This would not 
only have been expensive in biological resources and totally unnecessary to our survival, 
it would have posed the danger of entering do-loops.


Brent

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

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

 From: meekerdb 
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com 
Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 10:43 AM
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

On 9/3/2013 9:27 AM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy our 
species expends on creating this sensation within ourselves – whether it is 
actually real or an elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation) to 
carefully create this deeply layered and highly convincing illusion of free 
will within us – for no reason at all.

>>Of course it didn't.  In order to avoid the impression of "free will" 
>>evolution would have had to provide us with conscious perception of the 
>>working of our brain.  This would not only have been expensive in biological 
>>resources and totally unnecessary to our survival, it would have posed the 
>>danger of entering do-loops. 

I do not see how that follows. The brain could have simply worked, supplying us 
with answers that we acted on robot like without questioning or contemplating 
how it arrived in the first instance. Why couldn't we exist as intelligent 
automata, behaving intelligently -- in any given generalized problem space --  
without any inner life at all. Why would evolution be required to provide us 
with a conscious perception of the inner workings by which the brain arrived at 
whatever intelligent decision it arrived at; which is what I think you are 
stating; please correct me if I am off the mark.

Brent

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

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

Hi Chris - I also do not "KNOW" whether or not I really do have "free will".
But if I do not have "free will" evolution has seen fit to evolve a very
expensive - in evolutionary terms - illusion of "free will" in me (it must
consume a lot of neural activity in order to develop the illusion in the
first instance and then to maintain it)

Even if it is an illusion it must be a very important one for our
evolutionary fitness; otherwise it would have been selected against. The
sensation of having "free will" must provide us with some advantage - even
if it is an illusion in reality (which no one has established - as far as I
can tell - though some certainly believe they have established it).

To argue that "free will", "self-awareness" etc. are just noise, of no real
value or consequence goes against evolution. Evolution doesn't work like
that. Unless it can be clearly shown that these qualia are inevitable
by-products of some other evolutionarily vital brain function - which begs
the question why? - then the reductionists amongst us are left having to
explain why evolution went through so much trouble to provide us with this
most perfect illusion?

Cheers,

-Chris D

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 8:12 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

Hi Chris

>> if in the end it is an infinitely regressing hall of mirrors, a cosmic
illusion - why the elaborate and evolutionarily expensive (multiple levels
of adaption) masquerade ball in which we all participate?

As far as I can tell there is no cosmic illusion of free will. I'm my
opinion whether we have free will or not is under-determined by what we see
and experience, in a similar way that the way the world looks
under-determines a heliocentric or geocentric astronomy. How would it look
if the sun orbited the earth? The sun would move across the sky just as it
would if the earth orbited the sun. How would it feel if the
determinists/indeterminists were right and we didn't have free will. Exactly
as things actually feel. The case is under-determined.

However, free will is a pillar of western culture and theology. It underpins
our justice system because it is believed that responsibility depends upon
actions being undertaken freely. It underpins our theology, freewill being
at the basis of the Fall in Genesis; not to mention underpinning the idea of
sin. So from the get go people , even those who are not that religious,
grow up absorbing the idea of free will. This is where the strong
unwillingness to abandon it comes from. It isn't a cosmic illusion, it is an
artifact of cultural history.

Not all cultures are underpinned by the idea of free will. Buddhist
societies will to varying degrees find the concept very alien. I very much
doubt that people who have grown up in those cultures are possessed of this
'cosmic illusion', yet their day to day phenomenology will be more or less
the same as yours or mine.

All the best

  _____  

From: cdemorse...@yahoo.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2013 12:37:48 -0700

Exactly - do you think I am trying to pretend that I am deterministic within
my own self? I accept that my experience of consciousness is  a post facto
artifact of my mind, which has already produced and rendered the experience
I am just experiencing in perhaps its entirety. And all my decisions and
free will could be the result of a grand illusion, but even if this is so
one has to - if one is curious about the nature of things - ask why the
elaborate charade? Why has evolution invested so much energy in erecting
such a perfect rendition of this facsimile of free will that is the common
sense experience that we all experience within ourselves?

Seems like a lot of effort for nothing; which is why I question your
reductionist view of this - even if in the end it is an infinitely
regressing hall of mirrors, a cosmic illusion - why the elaborate and
evolutionarily expensive (multiple levels of adaption) masquerade ball in
which we all participate?

Seems a bit much for nothing.

-Chris

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Friday, August 30, 2013 12:17 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 1:32 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

> What happens to a universal Turing machine, if the tape itself is being
written by some other process

The same thing that happens to you when you get pushed around by the
external environment.

  John K Clark

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List&q

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Chris de Morsella wrote:

> I think your position is ridiculous. Evolution has clearly invested a lot
> of energy into “free will”
>
Can not comment, don't know what ASCII sequence "free will" means.

> > “self-awareness”, and other qualia that characterize conscious existence.
>
Well, I have self awareness and other qualia, so I know that Evolution did
it at least once, and maybe I'm not the only one, maybe it did it billions
of times. But I also know that all Evolution can see is behavior and it
can't see those qualities any better than we can see self awareness in
others. Therefore I conclude that self awareness and other qualia MUST BE a
byproduct of intelligent behavior.

> Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy
> our species expends on creating this sensation within ourselves – whether
> it is actually real or an elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation)
> to carefully create this deeply layered and highly convincing illusion of
> free will within us – for no reason at all.
>
If free will were a illusion I would have no problem with it whatsoever!
Illusions are a perfectly a legitimate phenomena worthy of study, but "free
will" is not nearly as interesting because "free will" is just a noise made
by the mouth.

> > The brain consumes a lot of energy
>
And apparently Evolution decided that the increased energy usage was worth
it because the resulting intelligent behavior brought more genes into the
next generation than a brain that used less energy and was therefore less
intelligent. And consciousness just went along for the ride.

  John K Clark

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

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 2:31 PM, meekerdb  wrote:

>
> >>>  Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very
>> powerful computer precisely predict my
>> future behaviour?
>
>
>  >> Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it predicted
> beforehand, because then the computer's actions would effect my actions;
> and the computer can predict my actions but it can't predict its own.
>
> > I don't see that the computer predicting your action at t1 and telling
> you the prediction at t0 its own actions.
>

My behavior is effected by my environment and what the computer says to me
is a part of my environment, and probably a very important part. So if the
computer insists on telling me his prediction and he wants to know what I'm
going to do he first has to figure out what he's going to say to me.

> Suppose the computer predicts, "In a few seconds you're going to run from
> this room
>

Ok, and suppose also that I am of a argumentative nature and was determined
to do the exact opposite of what the demon predicted. Because the demon's
action influences my actions the demon must forecast his own behavior, but
he will have no better luck in this regard than humans do and for the same
reasons. What we would need in a situation like this is a mega-demon able
to look into the demon's head; then the mega-demon could predict what I
would do provided he didn't tell the demon what the prediction was, if he
did tell then a mega-mega demon could make accurate predictions about my
behavior provided he didn't tell the ..

> > And in many cases a computer can predict its own actions (assuming no
> randomness or external inputs).  Godel only said it can't always predict
> its action.
>

It's Turing who said that, and obviously sometimes you can make correct
predictions, but what Turing proved is that sometimes you can't, not even
if the laws of physics were 100% deterministic (they aren't) and you knew
the initial conditions with 100% accuracy (you can't).

  John K Clark

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

RE: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

I think your position is ridiculous. Evolution has clearly invested a lot of
energy into "free will", "self-awareness", and other qualia that
characterize conscious existence. There is evidence of analogous inner
mental existence in some other more advanced species on earth - am referring
to other species that pass the mirror test. Clearly there is some kind of
evolutionary motivation for all of this investment in what you reduce to
""free will" is just a noise  that some bipeds like to make with their
mouth.  Cows make a different noise, cows say "Moo". "

Evolution did not go through all the trouble and to expend all the energy
our species expends on creating this sensation within ourselves - whether it
is actually real or an elaborate (and evolutionarily costly adaptation) to
carefully create this deeply layered and highly convincing illusion of free
will within us - for no reason at all. And, if it is an illusion it does not
come for free. the energy required in order to maintain and to create this
illusion in the first instance must be considerable (think how much neural
activity must be consumed just in order to be able to develop the sensation
and to make it photo-realistic within ourselves - nothing comes for free).
The brain consumes a lot of energy and it did not evolve in us as it did if
it did not provide some real benefit - and this also includes "free will". 

It is NOT free! Even if it does not really exist it takes considerable
biochemical energy - energy that is therefore unavailable for other brain
activities --  in order to generate the perfect illusion. For you to say
that there is no reason at all and that it is just "noise" would make no
evolutionary sense and evolution would never have wasted so much energy on
something that did not confer an important evolutionary advantage.

Now - if you just comeback and re-iterate that you consider it to be noise
and you do not show how this hypothesis can square with the high
evolutionary cost that this illusion imposes on the species in which it
arises you will merely be repeating a position without adding anything to
sup[port it. 

You need to show why the evolutionary cost associated with the expenditure
of vital and limited energy in order to maintain and to generate this
splendidly rendered and very high fidelity illusion (for if it is an
illusion it is a very good one) is justified for the species involved; or
you need to provide some convincing physical (not semantic) evidence for why
it costs the brain nothing to create this illusion of free will and
self-awareness or how this is a necessary by-product of some other vital
neural activity.

-Chris

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Saturday, August 31, 2013 8:37 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

On Fri, Aug 30, 2013 at 3:37 PM, Chris de Morsella 
wrote:

>  do you think I am trying to pretend that I am deterministic within my own
self?

I think you believe you are not deterministic and also not not
deterministic, which is equivalent to saying I think you believe in
gibberish.  

> all my decisions and free will could be the result of a grand illusion

Free Will is not an illusion. An illusion is a well defined perfectly
respectable subjective phenomenon, but "free will" is not like that at all,
"free will" is just a noise  that some bipeds like to make with their mouth.
Cows make a different noise, cows say "Moo".  

> Why has evolution invested so much energy in erecting such a perfect
rendition of this facsimile of free will that is the common sense experience
that we all experience within ourselves?

I cannot answer that question because I don't know what the ASCII sequence
"free will" means.

  John K Clark 

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

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Bruno Marchal  wrote:

> indeed "free" does not add much to the will, except to emphasize a local
> freedom degrees spectrum.
>

It doesn't even do that. "Will" is the set of things I want to do, but some
of those things may not be physically possible, and some of my wishes may
not even be logically consistent with each other, but I want them all the
same.

> If you are imprisoned, you can keep the will, but have the free-will
> quite constrained
>

I'm not imprisoned, however I very much want the cardinality of the Real
Numbers to be the same as that of the integers, but my wish remains
unfulfilled.

  John K Clark












> We might use free-will as just will + freedom. It presupposes some stable
> deterministic realities, at some level.
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/
>
>
>
>  --
> 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/groups/opt_out.
>

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

2013-09-03 Thread Bruno Marchal

On 02 Sep 2013, at 17:24, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Sep 1, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:

> Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very  
powerful computer precisely predict my

future behaviour?

Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it predicted  
beforehand, because then the computer's actions would effect my  
actions; and the computer can predict my actions but it can't  
predict its own.

> And if not,

If not then my actions could not be predicted because they happened  
for no reason, they were random.

> is there an "I" that has ultimate control over my decisions?

If something ("I" or anything else) controlled my decisions then my  
decisions were deterministic. And if "I" pushed decisions down path  
X rather than path Y for a reason then "I" too is deterministic, and  
if "I" pushed decisions down path X rather than path Y for NO reason  
then "I" is random.

> In that case, what is this "I"?

"I" is a set of memories modulated by a imperfect logical processor  
that works better in some directions than others; and perhaps most  
important, "I" is a particular set of likes and dislikes that in the  
English language is called "will". "Will" is not the problem, it's  
"free will" that's gibberish.

OK. In Jammer's book I see Einstein used that definition of free-will,  
and that it is gibberish. We agree on this.

But I think that for Einstein it is the very idea of indeterminacy  
which is gibberish. A physical event without a cause does not make  
sense to Einstein. This makes me tend to believe that Einstein,  
eventually would have assessed Everett theory, which reduce the  
apparent indeterminacy in the realm of the average first person  
reports in self-superposition or self-multiplication.

And then, indeed "free" does not add much to the will, except to  
emphasize a local freedom degrees spectrum.

If you are imprisoned, you can keep the will, but have the free-will  
quite constrained. Free-will, in that sense, gives the way to  
actualize the will or the intention. We might use free-will as just  
will + freedom. It presupposes some stable deterministic realities, at  
some level.

Bruno

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

--
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/groups/opt_out.

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?

On Tue, Sep 3, 2013  Telmo Menezes  wrote:

>> If not then my actions could not be predicted because they happened for
>> no reason, they were random.
>>
>
> > Or because of the halting problem,

The halting problem involves predictability not determinism; a Turing
Machine is 100% deterministic but it is not always predictable.

> since you assume that if your mind is not random then it supervenes on a
> computation (and thus accept
> comp).
>

OK I won't argue with that, not because I agree with it but because I have
concluded that if Bruno's homemade term "comp" means anything at all, which
is doubtful, it is something very dull.

 > is there a subset of the universe that contains your mind, that is
> deterministic but that you can draw a "free will" border around?

I don't know what that means.

> That is to say, its actions ultimately depend on the internal behaviour
> of this subsystem?

But I do know that whatever it means 2 things are certainly true:

1) If its actions depend on the internal behavior of this "subsystem" (or
depends on anything else for that matter) then it is deterministic and it
may or may not be predictable depending on the particular circumstances.

2) If its actions DO NOT depend on the internal behavior of this
"subsystem" (or depend on anything else) then it is NOT deterministic and
is not predictable under any circumstances.

   John K Clark

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

Re: When will a computer pass the Turing Test?