Re: Time and Concurrency Platonia?

On 11 Feb 2012, at 21:32, acw wrote: On 2/10/2012 13:54, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote: [SPK] I do not see how this deals effectively with the concurrency problem! :-( Using the Platonia idea is a cheat as it is explicitly unphysical. But physics by itself does not

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On 12 Feb 2012, at 06:50, L.W. Sterritt wrote: I don't really understand this thread - magical thinking? The neural network between our ears is who / what we are, and everything that we will experience. If that was the case, we would not survive with an artificial brain. Comp would be

Re: 1p & 3p comparison

On 12 Feb 2012, at 01:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 11, 3:51 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2012, at 15:56, Craig Weinberg wrote: Dennett's Comp: Human "1p" = 3p(3p(3p)) - What do you mean precisely by np(np) n = 1 or 3. ? I'm using 1p or 3p as names only, first person direct

Re: The free will function

On Feb 11, 8:33 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 11, 12:01 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 11, 1:24 am, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > I'm not trying to convince anyone that I'm brilliant, I'm explaining > > > why the popular ideas and conventional wisdom of the moment are > > > misguided. > > > Y

Re: The free will function

On Feb 11, 8:04 pm, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > 2012/2/11 Craig Weinberg > > > All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will run > > the same loop over and over forever if you program them to do that. > > It's not because you can program's them to being slavingly dumb to do a >

Re: The free will function

On Feb 12, 7:14 am, 1Z wrote: > And not of you don't.. We have made a little progress here. You think > computers are dumb because you think in terms of the hardware, > and not in terms of the software, despite the fact that the latter can > be of any degree of complexity. Complexity isn't intel

Re: Truth values as dynamics?

On 2/11/2012 5:15 PM, acw wrote: On 2/11/2012 05:49, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/9/2012 3:40 PM, acw wrote: I think the idea of Platonia is closer to the fact that if a sentence has a truth-value, it will have that truth value, regardless if you know it or not. Sure, but it is not just you t

Re: COMP theology

On 2/11/2012 5:09 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> wrote: On 2/11/2012 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 11 Feb 2012, at 07:32, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi ACW, Thank you for the time and effort to

The Anthropic Trilemma - Less Wrong

Hi Folks, I would like to bring the following to your attention. I think that we do need to revisit this problem. http://lesswrong.com/lw/19d/the_anthropic_trilemma/ The Anthropic Trilemma 21Eliezer_Yudkowsky

Re: 1p & 3p comparison

On Feb 12, 6:54 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 12 Feb 2012, at 01:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > Dennett's Comp: > > Human "1p" = 3p(3p(3p)) - > > What do you mean precisely by np(np) n = 1 or 3. ? > > >>> I'm using 1p or 3p as names only, first person direct > >>> phenomenology or

Re: The free will function

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > Apparently what's next is imagining that machines are people and people > are machines. I certainly hope so. In the last 3 or 4 centuries we have gradually (too gradually for my taste) gotten away from the idea that things happened because

Re: Intelligence and consciousness

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 2:13 AM, meekerdb wrote: Not only that, a computer implementing AI would be able to learn from it's > discussion. Even if it started with an astronomically large look-up table, > the look-up table would grow. > That is very true! John K Clark -- You received this

Re: COMP theology

On 11 Feb 2012, at 23:09, Joseph Knight wrote: On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote: The diagram is strictly 3p. It would be helpful if you wrote up an informal article on the octolism. It is very difficult to comprehend it from just your discussion of the h

Re: The free will function

On Feb 12, 12:55 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > Apparently what's next is imagining that machines are people and people > > are machines. > > I certainly hope so. In the last 3 or 4 centuries we have gradually (too > gradually for my taste) got

Re: The free will function

On 2/12/2012 7:56 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 12, 12:55 pm, John Clark wrote: On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:24 PM, Craig Weinbergwrote: Apparently what's next is imagining that machines are people and people are machines. I certainly hope so. In the last 3 or 4 centuries we have gradually (

Re: COMP theology

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 2/11/2012 5:09 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote: > >> On 2/11/2012 6:29 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 11 Feb 2012, at 07:32, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >> Hi ACW, >> >

Re: COMP theology

On Sun, Feb 12, 2012 at 1:07 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 11 Feb 2012, at 23:09, Joseph Knight wrote: > > > > On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 11:41 AM, Stephen P. King > wrote: > >> >> >> >> The diagram is strictly 3p. It would be helpful if you wrote up an >> informal article on the octolism.

Re: The free will function

Stephen, In my mind, autopoeitic cognitive systems (advanced enough to use symbols to do cognition) do not have a symbol grounding problem. In these organizationally-closed systems, symbols can only be grounded in internal patterns - patterns that emerge from the way the world perturbs its boundar