Re: Is consciousness epiphenomenal?

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 7:16 PM, meekerdb wrote: > What does it matter that there are uncomputable parts of arithmetic? > They don't affect the computations. > Godel proved that some things are uncomputable and then Turing proved that there is no universal method that can determine if something i

Re: Is consciousness epiphenomenal?

On 2/4/2015 10:13 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: With computationalism, physics is not causally closed, Even with computationalism it seems physics is causally closed except for the apparent randomness of QM. But if you believe in MWI that is closed too. The UD is not casually closed because it i

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 04 Feb 2015, at 03:52, John Clark wrote: On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > We don't need consciousness to follow the plan A. But we need it to be aware of the plan B, and retrieve it quickly in case of urgence. OK, so consciousness does effect behavior Yes.

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 2/4/2015 11:14 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. So

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 04 Feb 2015, at 03:43, John Clark wrote: Maybe I'm wrong but to me that all seems pretty contrived and intended to show that humans are superior, but it doesn't work because if true humans are doomed to be intellectually inferior to computers because their brain is organized in a fundam

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 04 Feb 2015, at 02:52, meekerdb wrote: On 2/3/2015 2:21 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 1:40 PM, meekerdb wrote: On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 2/4/2015 11:40 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having thi

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

2015-02-04 21:03 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > On 2/4/2015 11:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-02-04 20:00 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > >> On 2/4/2015 1:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> So I agree completely that there are levels of consciousness, as there >> level of carness, but there is a lev

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 2/4/2015 11:37 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-02-04 20:00 GMT+01:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 2/4/2015 1:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So I agree completely that there are levels of consciousness, as there level of carness, but there is a level (whatever it i

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 04 Feb 2015, at 02:49, David Nyman wrote: On 3 February 2015 at 23:11, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: An epiphenomenon is a necessary side-effect of the primary phenomenon. The epiphenomenon has no separate causal efficacy of its own; if it did, then we could devise a test for consciousness.

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 2/4/2015 9:02 AM, David Nyman wrote: On 4 February 2015 at 05:11, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > As I understand it, being an epiphenomenon means one can give a causal > account of the phenomenon without mentioning it. But the epiphenomenon > necessari

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:40, meekerdb wrote: On 2/3/2015 11:13 AM, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. I'm n

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

2015-02-04 20:00 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > On 2/4/2015 1:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > So I agree completely that there are levels of consciousness, as there > level of carness, but there is a level (whatever it is) which when you're > below it, there is no more consciousness... like when it's 0

Re: Is it my imagination, or is it getting hot in here?

You think I disagree with your reasoning on this? (Not that you need to care). Yes, your solution sounds practical. But from what is being planned is a gathering in Paris, to set up regulations for the US and the EU. Regulations and not engineering breakouts. Yes, the u235 plants favored because

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 03 Feb 2015, at 20:13, Jason Resch wrote: I agree with John. If consciousness had no third-person observable effects, it would be an epiphenomenon. And then there is no way to explain why we're even having this discussion about consciousness. So we all agree on this. If we build comp

Is consciousness epiphenomenal?

I see a long conversation. I will put my grain of salt here and there, but I think people does not take computationalism and its consequence seriously enough. On 03 Feb 2015, at 23:55, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 4 February 2015 at 09:26, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:

Re: Is it my imagination, or is it getting hot in here?

Regulation and engineering are not independent. The first think to do about AGW is replace fossil fuel powerplants (especially coal fired ones) with nuclear power plants. But the nuclear power plants need to be modern designs, e.g. molten salt thorium, because they are safer, don't use cooling

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 2/4/2015 1:09 AM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: So I agree completely that there are levels of consciousness, as there level of carness, but there is a level (whatever it is) which when you're below it, there is no more consciousness... like when it's 0 it's 0, it's no more positive, whatever word p

Re: Is it my imagination, or is it getting hot in here?

I only use them indirectly, in that I was sent those links by a third party and don't know much about Soros etc (except you don't like him/them/it). But as you no doubt agree we should be looking at the science, not the messenger, and you can get this sot of information from a wide number of source

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 4 February 2015 at 05:11, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > As I understand it, being an epiphenomenon means one can give a causal > > account of the phenomenon without mentioning it. But the epiphenomenon > > necessarily accompanies the phenomenon. In the case of consciousness > it's > > essen

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On Wed, Feb 4, 2015 at 5:49 PM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: > > > > On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > >> >> Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of >> an infinity of universal machines competing

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/4/2015 12:14 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb wrote: >> On 2/3/2015 9:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> If epiphenominalism is possible, then that it implies zombies are possible. All they would require is c

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/3/2015 11:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb wrote: >> On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> Well the question "is something conscious?" is binary, like "is something alive?". However there is a

Re: Is it my imagination, or is it getting hot in here?

My only objection to all this is the love affair with Regulation (control!) rather then engineering for remediation, and energy source replacement. If you use Soros-owned Daily Kos (kos kids), and Slate, you have lost me on the accuracy of the topic. I would want (in a perfect world) scientific

Re: Why is there something rather than nothing? From quantum theory to dialectics?

On 04 Feb 2015, at 06:02, Samiya Illias wrote: On 04-Feb-2015, at 12:01 am, Bruno Marchal wrote: Then reason shows that arithmetic is already full of life, indeed full of an infinity of universal machines competing to provide your infinitely many relatively consistent continuations

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

2015-02-04 9:58 GMT+01:00 Quentin Anciaux : > > > 2015-02-04 9:10 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > >> On 2/3/2015 11:46 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: >> >> >> >> 2015-02-04 7:43 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : >> >>> On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>>Well the question "is something conscious?" is binar

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

2015-02-04 9:10 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > On 2/3/2015 11:46 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > > > 2015-02-04 7:43 GMT+01:00 meekerdb : > >> On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>Well the question "is something conscious?" is binary, like "is >>> something alive?". However there is a great s

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 2/4/2015 12:14 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb > wrote: > On 2/3/2015 9:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > If epiphenominalism is possible, then that it implies zombies are possible. All they would require is cutting the causal link f

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 2/3/2015 11:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb > wrote: > On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> Well the question "is something conscious?" is binary, like "is something alive?". However there is a great spectrum of possi

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Wednesday, February 4, 2015, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/3/2015 9:22 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > If epiphenominalism is possible, then that it implies zombies are possible. All they would require is cutting the causal link from the physical world to the mental world. > > But the definition of epiphen

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 2/3/2015 11:46 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote: 2015-02-04 7:43 GMT+01:00 meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>>: On 2/3/2015 9:12 PM, Jason Resch wrote: Well the question "is something conscious?" is binary, like "is something alive?". However there is a great spectrum of