http://io9.com/you-ll-probably-never-upload-your-mind-into-a-computer-474941498
--
Onward!
Stephen
I apologize in advance for the gross errors that this post
and all of my posts will contain. ;-)
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List"
Sorry, Roger but this is a terribly naïve view of
the physical universe. For instance, how do you
distinguish between machine and non-machine?
wrb
Hi
The universe cannot be a machine.
For life cannot exist without an intelligent observer
(to find food to eat, to judge friend
PGC and Bruno,
I couldn't agree more. Bitcoins are a glimmer of hope in this bleak
point in History we are currently at. Every time I read an article
stating that bitcoins are a toy currency, my hope is renewed that they
will fly under the radar for long enough to grow up to a point where
the band
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:34 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> Telmo:
> I would not draw nth conclusions on a plain assumption.
> Particles (IMO) are explanatory presumptions upon (mostly math-phys)
> temporary explanatory 'understanding' of some phenomena we got. So are the
> reasons for 'dacay' taken from
Bruno asked why I have problems how to figure out *'numbers'*. * *
In his texts (as I remember and I have no quotes at hand) the "world" can
be construed from a large enough amount of numbers in simple arithmetical
ways (addition-subtraction). Also: numbers do not mean quantities.
If his older pos
On 5/1/2013 12:34 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Telmo:
I would not draw nth conclusions on a plain assumption.
Particles (IMO) are explanatory presumptions upon (mostly math-phys) temporary
explanatory 'understanding' of some phenomena we got.
Tables and chairs are also explanatory presumptions for so
Telmo:
I would not draw nth conclusions on a plain assumption.
Particles (IMO) are explanatory presumptions upon (mostly math-phys)
temporary explanatory 'understanding' of some phenomena we got. So are the
reasons for 'dacay' taken from the limited access we have so far.
- The rest of it goes into
On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:55:05 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 29 Apr 2013, at 17:38, Roger Clough wrote:
>
> *How can matter (the universe) be a thought in the mind of a cosmic
> intelligence ?*
>
> How can matter be a thought ? That is because matter is at the base
> entirely ma
On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 10:49:11 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 30 Apr 2013, at 20:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:31:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 24 Apr 2013, at 15:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:
On 5/1/2013 8:08 AM, John Clark wrote:
> I don't see how the two things are related.
If you believe that intelligence and consciousness are unrelated then logically there is
no alternative, you must believe that Charles Darwin was wrong. I don't think Charles
Darwin was wrong, I think
On Wed, May 1, 2013 Bruno Marchal wrote:
>> Darwin knew for a fact that he was conscious.
>>
>
> > Really?
>
Yes really.
> References please.
>
No.
> > you need to grasp the FPI and go farer than step two to see this.
>
Which Foreign Policy Initiative are you referring to?
John K Clark
On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 12:57:45 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 5/1/2013 7:16 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> >> What would
> >> >constitute a solution to the "hard problem" that could be tested? I
> think
> >> >the best we will be able to do is to understand human brains to the
> point
> >> >
On 5/1/2013 7:35 AM, John Clark wrote:
> One possibility, of course, is that consciousness is the fundamental
stuff.
Yes, I think that is by far the most likely possibility! But if that is indeed true then
its meaningless to ask, as so many on this list do, what consciousness is made of
On 5/1/2013 7:16 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
What would
>constitute a solution to the "hard problem" that could be tested? I think
>the best we will be able to do is to understand human brains to the point
>that we can manipulate thoughts and emotions as reported by subjects and we
>can make AI rob
On Wednesday, May 1, 2013 10:35:24 AM UTC-4, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 Telmo Menezes >wrote:
>
> >> The facts are undeniable, either Charles Darwin was wrong or
>>> consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence. And I don't think Charles
>>> Darwin was wrong.
>>>
>>
>> > I d
On 01 May 2013, at 17:33, Telmo Menezes wrote to John Clark:
At this point I'm not even talking about Science but logic and a
distaste
for cheerfully and strongly believing in 2 contradictory things.
I believe that human intelligence is a product of Darwinian evolution
and I'm agnostic on
On 01 May 2013, at 15:56, Telmo Menezes wrote:
The current mainstream narrow
interpretation of science is religion in my sense.
Absolutely. It is imposed Aristotelian theology, mainly. It is dogma
and irrationalism.
It does not fit either with the facts, nor with logic+comp.
It does not f
> I don't reject it, I just want to know the difference between saying "shit
> happens" and saying "it happened because of emergence". Yes, complicated
> systems behave in ways that are, well, complicated; but tell me something I
> didn't know.
The difference is that at some point people realised
On 01 May 2013, at 16:00, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal
wrote:
On 01 May 2013, at 00:19, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Telmo said:
Just like religions, nations are an artefact from an era when there
wasn't anything better to scaffold civilisa
On 01 May 2013, at 16:35, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> The facts are undeniable, either Charles Darwin was wrong or
consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence. And I don't think
Charles Darwin was wrong.
> I don't think Charles Darwin ever wrote anyt
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 5:08 PM, John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>
>> > I understand the point, I just find that there's something rather
>> > puritanical about this view. Tweaking a computer program to perform a
>> task well is "hard" and "real work", l
On 01 May 2013, at 16:16, Telmo Menezes wrote:
Hi Brent,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:48 AM, meekerdb
wrote:
On 4/29/2013 2:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, John Clark
wrote:
On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
I also believe that some isolated tri
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
> I understand the point, I just find that there's something rather
> puritanical about this view. Tweaking a computer program to perform a
> task well is "hard" and "real work", laying in an isolation tank trying to
> observe yourself from ins
On 01 May 2013, at 15:11, Roger Clough wrote:
Is AI possible ? Even strong AI ?
In a debate with a colleague, the concept of Strong AI arose.
I had to look it up. Strong intelligence (stronger than human
intelligence)
sounds good, but it is just science fiction unless you allow for a
livi
On 30 Apr 2013, at 22:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It seems like there's nothing to bet on though. Comp is not really
giving any guidance as to whether Comp itself is valid - it only
shows that some machines believe it isn't, and that suggests that it
is, and some machines see through that
On 30 Apr 2013, at 20:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:31:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 24 Apr 2013, at 15:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, April 24, 2013 8:50:07 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 23 Apr 2013, at 22:26, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>> The facts are undeniable, either Charles Darwin was wrong or
>> consciousness is a byproduct of intelligence. And I don't think Charles
>> Darwin was wrong.
>>
>
> > I don't think Charles Darwin ever wrote anything about consciousness.
>
Probably bec
Hi Brent,
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:48 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 4/29/2013 2:18 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 8:04 PM, John Clark wrote:
>>>
>>> On Mon, Apr 22, 2013 Telmo Menezes wrote:
>>>
> I also believe that some isolated tribes assume everything is
> consc
On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 01 May 2013, at 00:19, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
>
> Telmo said:
>
> *Just like religions, nations are an artefact from an era when there
> wasn't anything better to scaffold civilisation. They are becoming
> especially ridiculous in the
Hi Alberto,
I agree with everything you say, it's just one of the many cases of
assigning different meanings to the same word. Maybe I should have
said fundamentalism. I still don't like the term though, because it
assigns a negative connotation to the concept of "the fundamentals"
and that's tric
Is AI possible ? Even strong AI ?
In a debate with a colleague, the concept of Strong AI arose.
I had to look it up. Strong intelligence (stronger than human intelligence)
sounds good, but it is just science fiction unless you allow for a living
thinker.
For intelligence requires free choice (f
On 01 May 2013, at 00:19, Alberto G. Corona wrote:
Telmo said:
Just like religions, nations are an artefact from an era when there
wasn't anything better to scaffold civilisation. They are becoming
especially ridiculous in the Internet age.
Telmo I often agree with you, but I can not avoid to
Hi Alan Rayner \(BU\)
Then you take the intelligent (independent) observer for granted,
which is good and doesn't get you into trouble.
But it doesn't solve the complete problem of inclusionality.
I think you can say more.
I don't think we can say in detail what the independent observer is, b
On 01 May 2013, at 12:50, Roger Clough wrote:
Hi
The universe cannot be a machine.
(I reason with the mechanist assumption all along)
Yes, the physical universe cannot be a machine, as it is only an
appearance from inside a non computable arithmetical reality.
For life cannot exist
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:57 PM, John Mikes wrote:
> Telmo: did you research WHERE would you migrate FREELY to find all those
> goodies?
> I did for awhile before I had a chance to DO it and got nowhere. The "global
> rottenness" abounds.
Hi John, yes, I sadly agree with you. It's a bit claustro
35 matches
Mail list logo
