Bruno and all,
I have not infrequently brought up the need for a self
in your models. Why do you need to include a self or 1p
in your models ?
There are two ways of looking at something:
a) the objective material, which is the raw material
without an observer. The impersonal, scientific
Hi Roger,
On 01 Oct 2012, at 19:28, Roger Clough wrote:
BRUNO: OK. But the ability to selct does not require intelligence,
just interaction and some memory.
$$ ROGER: No, that's where you keep missing the absolutely
critical issue of self.
Choice is exclusive to the autonomous
Hi Stathis Papaioannou
The self is not the brain, which is objective.
The self is the subjective or personal view of what the brain does.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/2/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content
On 01 Oct 2012, at 19:37, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
A brain in a vat would probably have an autonomous self,
which is needed for everything the brain does.
I don't see how an autonomous self can be present in
a computer, because autonomous means it can't depend
on anything---
Statis,
A more concise response would be that the self is the brain's
activity from a certain point of view (yours).
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/2/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Roger
On 02 Oct 2012, at 07:14, William R. Buckley wrote:
$$$ 1) Well it's an indeterminantcy, but which path is chosen is
done by the geometry of the location
or test probe, not the same I would think as logical choice (?)
So I would say no.
...
Note that intelligence requires the
On 02 Oct 2012, at 05:57, Stephen P. King wrote:
On 10/1/2012 1:00 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Physiological realities are mechanistic. Biologists and doctors are
mechanists. Even if you claim that the whole is greater than the
sum
of its parts that does not mean that if yoyu replace the
Hi Bruno Marchal
Yes, complete autonomy of the mind may not be possible, I agree,
but we seem to survive this problem.
My objection that sufficent computer autonomy may not be possible
to emulate life is still a doubt in my mind.
In both of these cases, the ultimate limitation might be
Hi Bruno Marchal
My understanding of personal or subjective or 1p filtering
has little to do with where the person is (Washington or Moscow).
it has to do (if I might say it this way) with where the person has been.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/2/2012
Forever is a long time,
Hi Bruno Marchal
I agree that conscious selection is a posteriori,
but the selector and his possible biases or personal
baggage are a priori. He has or is a self.
It is the a priori part that I am referring to
when I insist that the selector must be
able to make autonomous choices. The choice
Hi Stephen P. King
I appreciate criticisms of Leibniz.
Not sure what computational complexity or universality means
although I suppose that it has something to do with the whole is
greater than its parts.
That being so, if we take the parts to be monads, each
part knows everything (all of
Hi Richard Ruquist
Absolutely.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/2/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Richard Ruquist
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-01, 16:51:44
Subject: Re: Numbers and
On 02 Oct 2012, at 12:30, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi Bruno Marchal
I agree that conscious selection is a posteriori,
but the selector and his possible biases or personal
baggage are a priori. He has or is a self.
It is the a priori part that I am referring to
when I insist that the selector must
On 02 Oct 2012, at 11:27, Roger Clough wrote:
Bruno and all,
I have not infrequently brought up the need for a self
in your models. Why do you need to include a self or 1p
in your models ?
There are two ways of looking at something:
a) the objective material, which is the raw material
Hi Bruno Marchal
Responses in **
We're pretty much aligned.
Roger Clough, rclo...@verizon.net
10/2/2012
Forever is a long time, especially near the end. -Woody Allen
- Receiving the following content -
From: Bruno Marchal
Receiver: everything-list
Time: 2012-10-02,
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I don't understand the question because I'm not clear on what these
differences refers to.
The differences between evolutionary nature (teleonomy) and rational
design (teleology) that we are talking about.
For God's sake!
Hi Roger,
Another way to express my view is
subjective = a priori = autonomous = the chooser
Yes. Both the chooser, and the one selected (but not the selector). It
is also the knower. The soul is the knower of its own conscience/
consciousness.
The man is when the soul believing it has a
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 1:48:39 PM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
On Mon, Oct 1, 2012 Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
I don't understand the question because I'm not clear on what these
differences refers to.
The differences between evolutionary nature (teleonomy)
On Tuesday, October 2, 2012 5:28:47 AM UTC-4, rclough wrote:
Bruno and all,
I have not infrequently brought up the need for a self
in your models. Why do you need to include a self or 1p
in your models ?
There are two ways of looking at something:
a) the objective material, which is
On 10/2/2012 2:57 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen (and Bruno?)
What I called The Aris - Total- meaning Aristotle's maxim that /the 'whole' is bigger
than the sum of its parts/ - means something else in MY agnosticism. Originally I
included only the fact what Bruno pointed out now: that the PARTS
On 10/2/2012 5:57 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Stephen (and Bruno?)
What I called The Aris - Total- meaning Aristotle's maxim that /the
'whole' is bigger than the sum of its parts/ - means something else in
MY agnosticism. Originally I included only the fact what Bruno pointed
out now: that the
21 matches
Mail list logo
