Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:44 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 12 February 2015 at 17:19, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > > > wrote: > >> > >> On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch wrote: > >> > >> >> > So your saying the presence (o

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 12 February 2015 at 17:19, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: >> >> On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> > So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result >> >> > in >> >> > physicaly detectable dif

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 12 February 2015 at 16:16, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/11/2015 7:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: If zombies are impossible then what can be shown is that IF a certain being is conscious THEN it is impossible to make a zombie equivalent. But this cannot be used to show that consciou

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 9:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> > So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result > in > >> > physicaly detectable differences in behavior? This is counter to the > >> > belief > >> > of e

Re: evangelizing robots

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:59 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/11/2015 10:48 AM, LizR wrote: > > On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR wrote: >> >>> On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at

Re: evangelizing robots

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 10:51 PM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/11/2015 7:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Stathis Papaioann

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 2/11/2015 7:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch wrote: So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result in physicaly detectable differences in behavior? This is counter to the belief of epiphenominalism, where consciousness is tak

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/11/2015 10:56 AM, LizR wrote: Actually I'm wrong here. The Mars Rover *is* motivated by emotions, just not its own. They're the emotions of its designers. It isn't independently conscious (as far as we know) and hence can't have its own motivations in the normal sense (redefining motives a

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/11/2015 10:48 AM, LizR wrote: On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch > wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote:

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/11/2015 8:25 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:42 AM, meekerdb > wrote: On 2/10/2015 6:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: The implication is that if you believe in universal personhood then even if you are selfish you wil

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/11/2015 7:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch mailto:jasonre...@gmail.com>> wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:

Re: evangelizing robots

On 2/10/2015 11:57 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR mailto:lizj...@gmail.com>> wrote: On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb mailto:meeke...@verizon.net>> wrote: On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, LizR mai

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 12 February 2015 at 13:44, Jason Resch wrote: >> > So your saying the presence (or absence) of consciousness does result in >> > physicaly detectable differences in behavior? This is counter to the >> > belief >> > of epiphenominalism, where consciousness is take-it-or-leave-it without >> > re

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:45 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 12 February 2015 at 02:56, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > > > wrote: > >> > >> On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch wrote: > >> > >> >> [Brent Meeker] If consciousness

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 3:05 PM, LizR wrote: > Surely the unconscious part of the mind is a "partial zombie" ? > > (For example I have an inexplicable craving for chocolate which originates > somewhere in my subconscious. So my conscious thoughts are ruled by a > zombie which is partial to chocol

RE: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Liz, You and your acronyms! I looked up “IMHO” Google says most of the time when people use the phrase their opinion in not humble. I could not find a definition for “LOP” that made sense as you used it. According to my TOE as explained at pages 151 -153, right now our Universe is 100

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 12 February 2015 at 08:05, LizR wrote: > Surely the unconscious part of the mind is a "partial zombie" ? > > (For example I have an inexplicable craving for chocolate which originates > somewhere in my subconscious. So my conscious thoughts are ruled by a zombie > which is partial to chocolate.

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 12 February 2015 at 02:56, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: >> >> On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> [Brent Meeker] If consciousness were unnecessary it would not be an >> >> epiphenomenon, i.e. >> >> something that

Re: evangelizing robots

On 12 February 2015 at 02:50, Jason Resch wrote: >> Sure, but the AI may still decide to do evil, perverse or self destructive >> things. There is no contradiction in superintelligence behaving this way. >> >> > > It's an assumption to say there is no contradiction. If it's beliefs are > defined

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

Surely the unconscious part of the mind is a "partial zombie" ? (For example I have an inexplicable craving for chocolate which originates somewhere in my subconscious. So my conscious thoughts are ruled by a zombie which is partial to chocolate.) -- You received this message because you are sub

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

On 12 February 2015 at 08:09, John Ross wrote: > Hi Liz, > > > > Good to hear from you again. > > > > Empty space *is *the same as nothing. > I would say far from it. Why should empty space exist? The questions "why is there something rather than nothing?" "Why does the universe go to the bother

RE: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Hi Liz, Good to hear from you again. Empty space is the same as nothing. I don’t understand your comment, “It presupposes the laws of physics.” I don’t think empty space presupposes the laws of physics and I don’t think “nothing” presupposes the laws of physics. In my mind neither one

Re: evangelizing robots

Actually I'm wrong here. The Mars Rover *is* motivated by emotions, just not its own. They're the emotions of its designers. It isn't independently conscious (as far as we know) and hence can't have its own motivations in the normal sense (redefining motives as whatever actuates an unconscious mech

Re: evangelizing robots

On 12 February 2015 at 04:46, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR wrote: > >> On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch wrote: >> >>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR wrote: >>> On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM

Re: Robot Dog

We're already willing to attribute sentience to a crude pattern matching programme (ELIZA, was it?), our pets, stuffed toys - and of course in times gone by rocks, clouds, trees, the sea, the stars and so on. I don't think people attributing sentience to something is very meaningful. On 12 Februar

Re: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Hi John As I mentioned before, empty space isn't the same as nothing. It already presupposes the laws of physics, even if it doesn't do much with them they're there. What we're discussing is where the laws of physics themselves come from (and perhaps things they appear to rely on, like maths). It

Re: evangelizing robots

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 2:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote: > So do you believe the Mars Rover is motivated to explore by its emotions? > No, it's motivated to obey humans by its emotions. John K Clark > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything Lis

Re: evangelizing robots

On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 11:37 PM, Samiya Illias wrote: >> So you think that random mutation and natural selection can produce a >> intelligent being but a intelligent designer can't. Why? > > > > I am so happy to read this comment of yours. I hope someday you'll come > to reason that even we have

Re: evangelizing robots

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote: >> Why in the world would a intelligent agent need to be certain before it >> could act? >> > > > Perhaps because it has not (and never will) arrive upon a correct belief > system (religion) > So you believe anything that anybody thinks is imp

RE: Cosmology from Quantum Potential

Liz, Before there was anything that was nothing – empty space. During this period there could be no events, so time has no relevance. At some point portions of nothing separated into two parts, in each case producing a plus tronnie and a minus tronnie, each being a point particle with no m

Re: evangelizing robots

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:42 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/10/2015 6:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> The implication is that if you believe in universal personhood then even >> if you are selfish you will be motivated towards charity. >> > > If humans are any indication, a super-intelligence

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 5:37 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch wrote: > > >> [Brent Meeker] If consciousness were unnecessary it would not be an > epiphenomenon, i.e. > >> something that NECESSARILY accompanies the phenomena of thoughts. Is > heat > >>

Re: evangelizing robots

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:25 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch wrote: > >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch >>> wrote: >>> On Tue, Feb

Re: evangelizing robots

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 4:15 AM, LizR wrote: > On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR wrote: >> >>> On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb wrote: >>> On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, L

Robot Dog

http://techcrunch.com/2015/02/09/google-spot-dog-robot/ The more animal-like they seem the more people will be willing to attribute to it sentience. Jason -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and st

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On 11 February 2015 at 19:03, Jason Resch wrote: >> [Brent Meeker] If consciousness were unnecessary it would not be an >> epiphenomenon, i.e. >> something that NECESSARILY accompanies the phenomena of thoughts. Is heat >> necessary to random molecular motion? > > > As I and others have pointe

Re: evangelizing robots

On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch wrote: > > > On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 8:15 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: > >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 11, 2015, Jason Resch > > wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 3:30 PM, Stathis Papaioannou >> > wrote: >>> On Wednesd

Re: evangelizing robots

On 11 February 2015 at 20:57, Jason Resch wrote: > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:44 AM, LizR wrote: > >> On 11 February 2015 at 18:29, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 2/10/2015 5:47 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >>> >>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2015 at 5:57 PM, LizR wrote: >>> I call this the Cyberman (or Mr Spoc

Re: What over 170 people think about machines that think

On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 1:43 AM, meekerdb wrote: > On 2/10/2015 10:38 PM, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:23 AM, meekerdb wrote: > >> On 2/10/2015 10:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:03 AM, meekerdb wrote: >> >>> On 2/10/2015 9:40 PM, J