Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer

On Sep 5, 2012, at 7:00 AM, "Roger Clough" wrote: Hi Craig Weinberg IMHO the burden to show that computers are alive and have intelligence lies on the scientists. I see no evidence of life or real intelligence in computers. Roger, What is the difference between something that is alive

Re: Can experiences be teleported ?

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 9:08 PM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > Eventually you will have to answer the question of what is teleportable. > I have no doubt that someday matter can be transported, even information. > Even energy. > > But the more important question to me is whether or not

Re: The poverty of computers

Brent, Thanks for your reply. On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 11:19 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 9/7/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > >> Platonism (or mathematical realism) is the majority viewpoint of modern >> mathematicians. >> > > In a survey of mathematicians I know it is an even division. Of course

Re: The poverty of computers

On 9/7/2012 8:43 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Platonism (or mathematical realism) is the majority viewpoint of modern mathematicians. In a survey of mathematicians I know it is an even division. Of course they are all methodological Platonists, but not necessarily philosophical ones. Computationa

Re: The poverty of computers

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 12:12 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7 2012, Roger Clough wrote: > > > machines, even computers, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or >> feeling facilities, are no more than dumb rocks. >> > > Computers may or may not have feelings but that is of no concern to us,

Computing with water droplets

An amusing example of computation --- http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/09/120907082027.htm Towards Computing With Water Droplets: Superhydrophobic Droplet Logic ScienceDaily (Sep. 7, 2012) ? Researchers in Aalto University have developed a new concept for computing, using water dropl

Re: Re: The All

On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:12 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Bruno Marchal > > IMHO computers cannot think, although they can appear to think. > If they could think, they should be able to > > > > b) construct a language that only another computer can understand. > > > In a sense, this is what happe

Re: prime numbers etc

Touche. But I don't believe (in?) it - I am agnostic. Nonbeliever. (SONG: I lost my turf in San Francisco) J On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 10:36 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On Fri, Sep 7, 2012 at 8:07 AM, John Mikes wrote: > > Stathis wrote (to Craig): > > > > "But you believe that the neurochemi

Re: The All

On 9/7/2012 2:03 PM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 07.09.2012 13:43 Stephen P. King said the following: On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following: On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency. What

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On 9/7/2012 4:10 PM, John Clark wrote: On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal > wrote: > I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling that atheists are the number one defender of the Christian's conception of God. OK I see the error of my w

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > I was addressing John Clark, who confirmed my feeling that atheists are > the number one defender of the Christian's conception of God. > OK I see the error of my ways and now believe that God exists. Incidentally when I went out to my car

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On Wed, Sep 5, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> when God asks Himself the question "Why have I always existed, why >> haven't I always not existed?" what answer in his omniscience does He come >> up with? >> > > > The neoplatonist conception of God does not allow It to ask such a > questi

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

On Tue, Sep 4, 2012 at 1:10 PM, William R. Buckley wrote: While at any moment the tape may be finite, that it can at need grow is the > fundamental notion of infinite. > No, the fundamental notion of the infinite is that you can make a one to one correspondence with a proper subset of itself. >

Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect

Brent, I believe there is a difference between (adj) 'fair' or 'unjust' and the (noun) 'fairness', or 'consciousness'. While the nouns (IMO) are not adequately identified the adverbs refer to the applied system of correspondence. E.g.: "Fair" to the unjust system. (I don't think we may use the opp

Re: The All

On 9/7/2012 1:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following: On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency. What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if reality is sometimes inconsistent? This

Re: The All

On 07.09.2012 13:43 Stephen P. King said the following: On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following: On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency. What if reality does not always obey the laws of

Re: The poverty of computers

On Fri, Sep 7 2012, Roger Clough wrote: > machines, even computers, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or > feeling facilities, are no more than dumb rocks. > Computers may or may not have feelings but that is of no concern to us, if they don't it's their problem not ours; however those "dumb

Re: Sane2004 Step One

On 9/7/2012 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Sep 2012, at 20:44, meekerdb wrote: On 9/6/2012 11:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Consciousness does not arise. It is not in space, nor in time. Its local content, obtained by differentiation, internally can refer to time and space, Even if it i

Re: The universe as a collection of an infinite number of pointscalledmonads

On 9/7/2012 10:43 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King As I see it, if there is an infinite collection of (monadic) points, all future things foreseen (as in "pre-established harmony") then nothing new can ever be created or destroyed, things (including thoughts and people) just blossom li

Re: The poverty of computers

Hi Roger, Brains some years ago had no "intellectual or feeling facilities" too. It came by evolution. Roberto Szabo 2012/9/7 Roger Clough > Hi Stephen P. King > > No, machines, even computers, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or > feeling > facilities, are no more than dumb rocks. So th

Re: Sane2004 Step One

On 9/7/2012 3:09 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal w

Re: There is no such thing as cause and effect

On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 Craig Weinberg wrote: > The pyramids made Egyptian civilization immortal. Do you know the names > of the Indus Valley rulers? Sumerians? Maybe, but they don't have quite the > ring of Tutankhamen, or Ramses II, eh? > The following short scholarly video eloquently defends you

Re: Re: The universe as a collection of an infinite number of pointscalledmonads

Hi Stephen P. King As I see it, if there is an infinite collection of (monadic) points, all future things foreseen (as in "pre-established harmony") then nothing new can ever be created or destroyed, things (including thoughts and people) just blossom like plants from seeds and eventually die,

Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?

On 9/7/2012 10:27 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King It does have some problems if you include non-euclidean geometry and all of that. But I equate necessary with rational (in that realm). You can simply answer Yes or No. Dear Roger, My questions cannot be captured in such crisp

Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer

Hi Stephen P. King Yes, that could be a killer problem. Certainly an interesting one. Admittedly I often confuse timeless and spaceless. Perhaps the confusion comes from the act of viewing Platonia. Haven't figured it all out, but the speeding car would take care of timeless. Spaceless would

Re: Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?

Hi Stephen P. King It does have some problems if you include non-euclidean geometry and all of that. But I equate necessary with rational (in that realm). You can simply answer Yes or No. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/7/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent

Re: The universe as a collection of an infinite number of pointscalled monads

On 9/7/2012 8:32 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I solved this problem my own way by simply asssuming that the universe from the beginning and before, as well as now and forever, exists as an infinite collection of points (monads). Hi Roger, I agree with this. So no problem

A Sherlock Holmes computer

There is a quote by Sherlock Holmes that suggests a way to possibly filter out solid truth from a comp (?) "List all of the possibilities or possible solutions. Then remove all from that list that are impossible (now or ever, I would add). Whatever is left over is the (rational or necesssary)

Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer

On 9/7/2012 8:26 AM, Roger Clough wrote: > Hi Stephen P. King > I think of the brain as a running sensor of the static platonic world. > Sort of like looking out of the car window as you speed along. > Hi Roger, How would this be different, from the point of view of the driver, if it is the Car th

Brains and time, subjectivity vs objectivity

Theres is some duplication in the propositions below which I have not bothered to clear up, sorry. 1) Mind, being inextended, is "outside" of the brain, which is extended. Mind (shared and the general, Platonia) is the subjective realm. Brain (personal, private, the particular, material

Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?

On 9/7/2012 7:21 AM, Roger Clough wrote: Hi Stephen P. King I believe that what is necessarily true (rationally true) had to be always true and thus a priori. Dear Roger, But this is just a matter of definition. It remains to be explained how the necessity is achived and how it is so in t

Re: Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?

Hi Bruno Marchal What is always either true or false cannot have been invented, only discovered. Necessary or rational truths are such. Contingent truths are not. Rational or necessary truths are therefore a prioi and can only be discovered. Contingent truths or facts are therefore a posterior

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Hi Bruno Marchal What is UD ? Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/7/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Bruno Marchal Receiver: everything-list Time: 2012-09-06, 15:56:55

Racism ? How's that implied ?

Hi Bruno Marchal Racism ? How's that implied ? But I do agree that perception and Cs are not understandable with materialistic concepts at least as they are commonly used. Instead they are what the mind can sense, as a sixth sense. The mind is similar to driving a car through Platoville and wa

Re: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Hi Bruno Marchal Any time I use the word God, I always mean IMHO God. I am actually thinking instead of Cosmic Intelligence or Cosmnic Mind. I try not to use that word (God) but sometimes forget. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/7/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to

This is a world only of facts.

Hi Brian Tenneson According to Leibniz, there are two kinds of logic, the logic of necessity or rational logic, and the logic of contingency or of facts. Reality is contingent, to use Leibniz's idea. Things may be true sometimes and at some places, but never everywhere, at all times. It's an a p

Re: Re: Leibniz on heaven, hell, and zombies (?)

Hi Stathis Papaioannou Thanks for the correction. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/7/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: Stathis Papaioannou Receiver: everything-list T

The poverty of computers

Hi Stephen P. King No, machines, even computers, IMHO in practice have no intellectual or feeling facilities, are no more than dumb rocks. So there is no more communication with God possible than there would be with an abacus. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/7/2012 Leibniz would say, "If t

Re: Re: The universe as a collection of an infinite number of pointscalled monads

Hi Stephen P. King I solved this problem my own way by simply asssuming that the universe from the beginning and before, as well as now and forever, exists as an infinite collection of points (monads). So no problem with the creation of new things. In principle they always were and simply grow

Re: Re: Why a bacterium has more intelligence than a computer

Hi Stephen P. King I think of the brain as a running sensor of the static platonic world. Sort of like looking out of the car window as you speed along. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/7/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function.

Leibniz's universes as perceived

Hi Stephen P. King There is only one physical world, but only the supreme monad (supremem in the mental world) sees all and sees all as it it is, clearly and wholly. The individual point of view of the phjysical world that each monad indirectly perceives is called the phenomenological world.

Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 06 Sep 2012, at 13:31, benjayk wrote: > >> Quantum effects beyond individual brains (suggested by psi) can't be >> computed as well: No matter what I compute in my brain, this doesn't >> entangle it with other brains since computation is classical. > > The UD emu

Re: Simple proof that our intelligence transcends that of computers

You always refer to studying some paper, even though the paper actually doesn't even begin to adress the question. How am I supposed to argue with that? There is no point of studying Gödel if we have a false assumption about what the proof even is about. It is never, at no point, about numbers as

The brain as the sixth sense

Hi meekerdb Could not the brain be the sixth sense ? It senses (and creates as well) thoughts and sensual experiences. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/7/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following co

Re: Re: The All

"A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency. " All-powerful does not mean unlawful. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/7/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the following content - From: meekerdb

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

On 9/7/2012 6:24 AM, benjayk wrote: Why are two machines that can be used to emlate each other regarded to be equivalent? In my view, there is a big difference between computing the same and being able to emulate each other. Most importantly, emulation only makes sense relative to another machine

Re: The Unprivacy of Information

Hi Craig Weinberg Although I don't follow Dawking's views on life and God, I think his idea of "semes", which are like genes but ideas instead, is a very good one. If the logic follows through, then man is the semes' way of propagating itself through society. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net

Re: The All

On 9/7/2012 4:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following: On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency. What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if reality is sometimes inconsistent? This

The rational must be a priori and the contingent (factual) must be a posteriori

According to my argument below, all rational truths must be a priori and all contingent truths (facts) have to be a posteriori. Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net 9/7/2012 Leibniz would say, "If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so that everything could function." - Receiving the f

Re: Sane2004 Step One

On 9/7/2012 3:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 07 Sep 2012, at 04:20, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, me

Life forces, intentions, goals and final ends as opposed to mechanics

An intention is a desire in the form of thought, so is nonphysical, as are all of the processes of mind. In Leibniz's philosophy, intentions are essentially what L calls "appetites" in monads. They are goal-directed, following what Aristotle called "end causation", which are potential, pulling f

Re: being conscious in a completely atemporal mode

On 9/7/2012 2:41 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: It is a recent suggestion, corroborated by the salvia reports and experiences. I was used to agree with Brouwer that consciousness and subjective time are not separable, like the 1p logic examplifies (S4Grz is both a temporal logic, and the machine's 1

Re: Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?

Hi Stephen P. King I believe that what is necessarily true (rationally true) had to be always true and thus a priori. Man may think he created numbers or whatever, but whatever was there before man (to allow physics etc. to happen) something else had to create. Man simply discovered numbers. R

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

Jason Resch-2 wrote: > > On Thu, Sep 6, 2012 at 12:47 PM, benjayk > wrote: > >> >> >> Jason Resch-2 wrote: >> > >> > On Tue, Aug 28, 2012 at 2:57 PM, benjayk >> > wrote: >> > >> >> >> >> It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal >> >> turing >> >> machine can compute

Can experiences be teleported ?

Hi Bruno Marchal Eventually you will have to answer the question of what is teleportable. I have no doubt that someday matter can be transported, even information. Even energy. But the more important question to me is whether or not experiences (the stuff of life or consciousness) can be transpo

Rational vs experiential religion

Hi Bruno Marchal The rational view of God can be discussed logically and publicly, such as in the philosophy of religion. But according to Christian (especially Lutheran) tradition, that is only a description of God. There is also a Living God (also called the Word, or the Christ) that can only

A leibnizian argument that necessary truths would seem to be a priori

Hi Brian Tenneson Whether or not sets were there (true) a priori is a subject of debate. You might want to see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mathematics My own (uninformed) view is based on Leibnizian thinking. He lists two kinds oif logic, necessary or rational logic, which is alw

The physical and the mental

Hi Evgenii Rudnyi Leibniz divides the world into physical and mental states, each a reflection of the other. The mental is mental and the physical is not an illusion. You canstill stub your toe on a rock. This philosophy is called Idealism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 28 Aug 2012, at 21:57, benjayk wrote: > >> >> It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an >> universal turing >> machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has >> near >> universal acceptance among computer scientists. > >

Re: The All

On 06.09.2012 21:03 meekerdb said the following: On 9/6/2012 11:52 AM, Brian Tenneson wrote: A too much powerful God leads to inconsistency. What if reality does not always obey the laws of logic? What if reality is sometimes inconsistent? This is a confusion of levels. Logic is rules ab

Re: Why the Church-Turing thesis?

On 28 Aug 2012, at 21:57, benjayk wrote: It seems that the Church-Turing thesis, that states that an universal turing machine can compute everything that is intuitively computable, has near universal acceptance among computer scientists. Yes indeed. I think there are two strong argument

Re: Where do numbers and geometry come from ?

On 06 Sep 2012, at 16:28, Brian Tenneson wrote: All numbers can be defined in terms of sets. The question becomes this: do sets have ontological primacy relative to mankind or are sets invented or created by mankind? I would say "invented", as many different notion of sets can exist. You

Re: Sane2004 Step One

On 07 Sep 2012, at 04:20, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/6/2012 1:44 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 08:38, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 2:03 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 10:07 PM, Stephen P. King wrote: On 9/5/2012 12:38 AM, meekerdb wrote: On 9/4/2012 8:59 PM, Stephe

Re: Sane2004 Step One

On 06 Sep 2012, at 21:25, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Thursday, September 6, 2012 2:02:02 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 17:27, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, September 5, 2012 10:50:02 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 05 Sep 2012, at 03:48, Craig Weinberg wrote