Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On 2/14/2012 2:47 PM, meekerdb wrote: My understanding is that the properties of the physical world are inferred from our subjective experiences that have a consistency (which Vic Stenger calls point-of-view-invariance) which allows us to model them as being "out there", i.e. objective. Brun

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On 2/14/2012 2:38 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2012/2/14 Stephen P. King > On 2/14/2012 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence of the very thing that is claims cannot exist.

Re: The free will function

On 2/14/2012 2:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Feb 2012, at 18:53, 1Z wrote: On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: Digital substitution is not a local symmetry. hence flight simulators do not fly. That's very funny, Peter. That reminds us of a quite good typical comp exercise

Re: The free will function

On 2/14/2012 1:35 PM, John Clark wrote: On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 Stephen P. King > wrote: > To actually implement digital substitution, we would have to not only match the functionally of the module internally but also match the interactions of that module

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z wrote: > > You seem to be runnign off a theory of concept-formation > > whereby concepts are only ever recongnitions of percerived > > realities. > > Not perceived realities, but ontological possibilities. We can't > imagine a

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 10:01 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 14, 10:37 am, 1Z wrote: > > > On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do > > > anything else than what you already do. > > > Then no AI is fully dumb, since all are ada

Re: The free will function

On 2/14/2012 1:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: How could any belief be possible under determinism? Belief implies a voluntary epistemological investment. To be a believer is to choose to believe. Is it? Can you choose believe you are floating in the air? Can you believe you're not reading this?

Re: COMP theology

On 14 February 2012 20:00, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>  The reductio demolishes the possibility of this >> being true "qua materia", because the relevant physical components >> have, in effect, been rendered impotent. > > Gosh? Why? > Bruno, I think we must be at cross-purposes. I thought that the

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 9:47 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > > > > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > > > > of interest. > > > > That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously. > > > Why would your subjective concerns matter to me? I tak

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 6:48 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012  1Z wrote: > > > Free Will is defined as "the power or ability to rationally choose > > If its rational then there is a reason for it and thus it's deterministic. False, because causes need not be reasons, and reasons need not be cau

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 6:35 pm, John Clark wrote: > Silicon does not have the same chemical properties as the element germanium > either (although they are in the same column in the periodic table as is > carbon) and yet you can make transistors out of both and in fact the first > transistors were germaniu

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 3:41 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > All computers are as dumb as anything could be. Any computer will > > run >

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 2:21 pm, Bruno Marchal wrote: > The comp answer is "yes you can be made wet by a virtual typhoon, but > you have to virtualize yourself, or more precisely you need only to > virtualize your skin-interfaces with the virtual typhoon. > > Stephen, do you agree with this? Do you agree that

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 10:37 am, 1Z wrote: > On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > That's what being dumb is - not being able to figure out how to do > > anything else than what you already do. > > Then no AI is fully dumb, since all are adaptive to some extent. It doesn't adapt intentionally, it

Re: The free will function

On 2/14/2012 1:47 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote: We can conceive of non-existence because things can cease to exist. If there were no light, then nothing could be imagined to be lacking light. It would be no more possible than it is for us to conceive of Non-Gromwalschedness in our universe. So you

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 9:58 am, 1Z wrote: > > > > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > > > of interest. > > > That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously. > > Why would your subjective concerns matter to me? I take *my* > subjectivity as seriously as anything! You don't

Re: The free will function

On 14 Feb 2012, at 20:39, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: 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 be

Re: COMP theology

On 14 Feb 2012, at 17:52, David Nyman wrote: On 14 February 2012 12:56, Bruno Marchal wrote: David, Tell me is I have succeed to clarify this. The initial postulate is that the either MG set-up, or Maudlin's machine, instantiates an episode of consciousness in virtue of its computational

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:31 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote: > > [SPK] >> >> The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence >> of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts >> that it cannot exist.

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On 2/14/2012 11:31 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote: [SPK] The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts that it cannot exist. How? By s

Re: The free will function

On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > >>> 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

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

2012/2/14 Stephen P. King > On 2/14/2012 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > >> The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence >> of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts >> that it cannot exist. How? By supposedly proving that the p

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

2012/2/14 Stephen P. King > On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote: > > [SPK] >> >> The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence >> of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts >> that it cannot exist. How? By supposedly proving th

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On 2/14/2012 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts that it cannot exist. How? By supposedly proving that the physical world does not e

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On 2/14/2012 10:25 AM, Joseph Knight wrote: [SPK] The flaw is the entire structure of UDA+MGA, it assumes the existence of the very thing that is claims cannot exist. It is a theory that predicts that it cannot exist. How? By supposedly proving that the physical world doe

Re: The free will function

On 2/14/2012 10:48 AM, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 1Z mailto:peterdjo...@yahoo.com>> wrote: > Free Will is defined as "the power or ability to rationally choose If its rational then there is a reason for it and thus it's deterministic. Except that game theory shows that th

Re: The free will function

On 14 Feb 2012, at 18:53, 1Z wrote: On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: Digital substitution is not a local symmetry. hence flight simulators do not fly. That's very funny, Peter. That reminds us of a quite good typical comp exercise: can a virtual typhoon makes you wet? Rel

Re: 1p & 3p comparison

On Feb 14, 7:56 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > On 12 Feb 2012, at 18:54, Craig Weinberg wrote: > > > > > I'm assuming the observations of quantum mechanics, but not the > > interpretations. > > So you assume QM? I assume the observations, but not the interpretations. For example: I assume that the do

Re: The free will function

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 1Z wrote: > Free Will is defined as "the power or ability to rationally choose If its rational then there is a reason for it and thus it's deterministic. > > and consciously perform actions, at least some of which are not brought > about necessarily and inevitably by ext

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On 2/14/2012 7:49 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux > wrote: 2012/2/14 Stephen P. King mailto:stephe...@charter.net>> On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P.

Re: The free will function

On Mon, Feb 13, 2012 Stephen P. King wrote: > To actually implement digital substitution, we would have to not only > match the functionally of the module internally but also match the > interactions of that module with the environment. > No, you'd only have to match he interactions with the e

Re: The free will function

On Feb 9, 4:43 pm, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Feb 8, 2012 1Z wrote: > > It [being free] means your actions are not determined by external forces > > So a external force like light that has reflected off a wall does not > effect your actions and you crash into the wall. If that's what being fre

Re: The free will function

On Feb 13, 5:17 pm, "Stephen P. King" wrote: > Digital substitution > is not a local symmetry. hence flight simulators do not fly. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-list@google

Re: COMP theology

On 14 February 2012 12:56, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > David, Tell me is I have succeed to clarify this. > The initial postulate is that the either MG set-up, or Maudlin's machine, instantiates an episode of consciousness in virtue of its computational states. The reductio demolishes the possibili

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

Hi Stephen, On 14 Feb 2012, at 15:53, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote: The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of talking about this same kind of optimization problem without

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > 2012/2/14 Stephen P. King > > On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote: >> >> >> >> The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of >> talking about

Re: The free will function

On Feb 12, 2:22 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > 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 y

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

2012/2/14 Stephen P. King > On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote: > > > > The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of > talking about this same kind of optimization problem without tipping his > hand that it

Re: Non-Standard Arithmetic

On 14 Feb 2012, at 14:53, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/14/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:54, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, What limits are there on what can constitute the "constant" that defines a particular model of a non-standard Arithmetic? Infinity.

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 8:53 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: > On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote: > > > > The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of > talking about this same kind of optimization problem witho

Re: The free will function

On Feb 9, 2:45 pm, Craig Weinberg wrote: > On Feb 8, 10:14 pm, 1Z wrote: > > > Whatever. If you subjectivise it completely. it is no longer > > of interest. > > That's because you aren't taking subjectivity seriously. Why would your subjective concerns matter to me? I take *my* subjectivity as

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On 2/14/2012 8:39 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote: The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of talking about this same kind of optimization problem without tipping his hand that it implicitly requires a computation to be

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On 14 Feb 2012, at 06:57, Stephen P. King wrote: acw: Yet the problem is decidable in finite amount of steps, even if that amount may be very large indeed. It would be unfeasible for someone with bounded resources, but not a problem for any abstract TM or a physical system (are they one an

Re: The Anthropic Trilemma - Less Wrong

On 14 Feb 2012, at 04:00, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/13/2012 5:54 PM, acw wrote: On 2/12/2012 17:29, Stephen P. King wrote: 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_trilemm

Re: Non-Standard Arithmetic

On 2/14/2012 7:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:54, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, What limits are there on what can constitute the "constant" that defines a particular model of a non-standard Arithmetic? Infinity. Non standard integers are infinite objects. Bruno

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On 2/14/2012 5:13 AM, acw wrote: How does the existence on an entity determine its properties? Please answer this question. What do "soundness" and "consistency" even mean when there does not exist an unassailable way of defining what they are? Look carefully at what is required for a proof, don

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On 14 Feb 2012, at 03:55, Stephen P. King wrote: The idea of a measure that Bruno talks about is just another way of talking about this same kind of optimization problem without tipping his hand that it implicitly requires a computation to be performed to "find" it. Because UDA+MGA

Re: COMP, MGA and Time

On 13 Feb 2012, at 18:47, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/13/2012 12:11 PM, Joseph Knight wrote: I think you should probably read Maudlin's paper for specifics. I don't think thermodynamics will have much to do with the conclusions, whatever they may be (and I don't think it's obvious what

Re: The free will function

On 12 Feb 2012, at 15:22, Craig Weinberg wrote: 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 prog

Re: 1p & 3p comparison

On 12 Feb 2012, at 18:54, Craig Weinberg wrote: I'm assuming the observations of quantum mechanics, but not the interpretations. So you assume QM? I think that what we measure at that level is literally the most 'common sense' of matter, and not an independent phenomena. It is the

Re: COMP theology

On 12 Feb 2012, at 18:14, 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: [JK] Yet ""COMP is true" AND "COMP is fals

Re: COMP, MGA and Time

On 13 Feb 2012, at 14:21, Stephen P. King wrote: Hi Folks, I have been mulling over my conversations with Bruno, Joseph and ACW in the EVERYTHING list and have a question. In SANE04 we read the following: "For any given precise running computation associated to some inner experi

Re: COMP theology

On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:24, David Nyman wrote: On 13 February 2012 01:18, Joseph Knight wrote: Yes it is, with the Movie Graph Argument. The MGA shows that assuming COMP, consciousness cannot be explained by appealing to any physical system. Not even a little. Whereas I would concur wi

Re: Free Floating entities

On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:26, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/13/2012 9:44 AM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/13/2012 9:16 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote: RDR: Not sure if this is helpful, but a possible hypothetical communications model is the 3D 10^90 per cc set Calabi-Yau Compact Manifolds of string

Re: Non-Standard Arithmetic

On 13 Feb 2012, at 16:54, Stephen P. King wrote: Dear Bruno, What limits are there on what can constitute the "constant" that defines a particular model of a non-standard Arithmetic? Infinity. Non standard integers are infinite objects. Bruno http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/ -- Y

Re: On Pre-existing Fields

On 2/14/2012 05:57, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/13/2012 11:18 PM, acw wrote: On 2/14/2012 02:55, Stephen P. King wrote: On 2/13/2012 5:27 PM, acw wrote: [SPK] There is a problem with this though b/c it assumes that the field is pre-existing; it is the same as the "block universe" idea that An