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
...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:06:20 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
There is information (I take information to be a
manifestation of entropy) and it is always represented
in the form of a pattern (a distribution) of the units
of mass
, March 07, 2013 8:10 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 10:55:31 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
The falling tree makes sound, the wind make sound, the . makes sound
regardless of your presence (or the presence
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 12:09:28 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Now we are getting some place.
Exactly. There is simply action.
Contexts react to sign.
They react to their interpretations
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2013 8:33 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 1:39:25 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
I have before claimed that the computer is
a good example of the power of semiosis.
It is simple
: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:21:57 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Craig:
When you say that interpretation is consciousness you contradict
your prior statements regarding semiosis, that acceptance and action
are not value.
I'm not sure
The context takes all action, to include the action
of doing nothing at all.
Once the signal is given by the transmitter, then sure it is up to the
receiver of the signal to interpret it. How the transmitter formats the
signal will influence the receiver's reception and interpretation
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:48:19 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Craig:
The mistake you make is clearly stated in your words:
“…doesn’t mean
@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2013 4:12 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:48:19 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Craig
I have before claimed that the computer is
a good example of the power of semiosis.
It is simple enough to see that the mere
construction of a Turing machine confers
upon that machine the ability to recognise
all computations; to generate the yield of
such computations.
In this sense, a
@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 5:24 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 2:06:20 AM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
There is information (I
-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 10:14 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 12:03:28 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Craig
Google knows what it is - only that the string
of characters in the name is to be associated with an ip address.
Craig
2013/3/2 William R. Buckley bill.b...@gmail.com javascript:
Thinking about how information content of a message
Big mistake. Information is never contained
PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:03:31 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
Craig,
You build an automaton, place it and turn it on, and from that point in time
forward
the automaton reacts to acceptable
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 1:27 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 3:07:00 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
The fact that a machine can act
:06 AM, William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com
wrote:
There is information (I take information to be a
manifestation of entropy) and it is always represented
in the form of a pattern (a distribution) of the units
of mass/energy of which the Universe is composed. I
think that semiotic signs
Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 7:34 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Tuesday, March 5, 2013 5:52:32 PM UTC-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
I do not hold that the acceptor must exist, for then I
am making a value judgment
There is information (I take information to be a
manifestation of entropy) and it is always represented
in the form of a pattern (a distribution) of the units
of mass/energy of which the Universe is composed. I
think that semiotic signs are simply specific bits
of information; I will use the
:
On 3/1/2013 8:39 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
And therein do you see the arbitrariness of either choice.
The universe is subjective, not objective.
Is that just your opinion...or is it objectively true.
It's an educated guess, and a provocation. On what basis do we presume
snip
I can use a phonetic transliteration to recite an Arabic
prayer without even knowing what words are being spoken,
let alone the meaning of those words.
If your argument is that you have no knowledge of what you
are doing, of the sounds you make in recitation, then you
have
-5, William R. Buckley wrote:
snip
I can use a phonetic transliteration to recite an Arabic
prayer without even knowing what words are being spoken,
let alone the meaning of those words.
If your argument is that you have no knowledge of what you
are doing, of the sounds you make
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2013 4:48 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On Saturday, March 2, 2013 6:40:44 PM UTC-5, William R
Thinking about how information content of a message
Big mistake. Information is never contained with but
exactly one exception, an envelope.
I made this point with Jesper Hoffmeyer regarding a
statement in his book Biosemiotics, that information
is represented but not contained in that
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Messages Aren't Made of Information
On 3/1/2013 5:27 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
Thinking about how information content of a message
Big mistake. Information is never contained with but
exactly one exception, an envelope.
I made
Also, we do not experience a reality. We experience something
(consciousness, mainly) and we extrapolate reality from that, and from
theories already extrapolated.
Bruno has it down!
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
Nice to know something of the man on the other end of these emails!
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2012 7:25 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Biography, roger clough, Soles, 1963
Hi William R. Buckley
You can speak to a potential test subject,
but it can only reply if it indeed has a mind.
This is an assumption you make.
This is the Turing test, the results of which are not
certain. But it is the only test I can think of unless
you want to get into the Chinese
Solipsism makes everyone zombie except you.
But in some context some people might conceive that zombie exists,
without making everyone zombie. Craig believes that computers, if they
might behave like conscious individuals would be a zombie, but he is
no solipsist.
There is no test for
Just because the individual holds the position that he/she is the
only living entity in all the universe does not imply that such a
person (the solipsist) is incapable of carrying on a conversation,
even if that conversation is with an illusion.
For instance, I have no logical reason to
$$$ 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 ability to select.
BRUNO: OK. But the ability
Roger:
Please then describe for us in detail however painstaking
that model of consciousness which you hold, and your means
of determining intelligence. That is, present for us in
clear text your measures; the waving of hands is specifically
disallowed as an offering of answer to this
Seems funny that Turing .assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers. given that the tape is assumed to be infinite.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, September 04, 2012 8:59 AM
To:
, September 04, 2012 9:10 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
2012/9/4 William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com
Seems funny that Turing .assumed that machines could not operate with
infinite numbers. given that the tape
are wrong.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Friday, August 31, 2012 5:40 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Non-causal evolution and the innate intelligence of life.
Hi William R. Buckley
IMHO, stemming
Consider that we begin with a living, biological cell.
Next, we begin to remove systems and elements from the cell,
and replace them with non-biological alternatives. For example,
we replace the genome and nucleic acid production system with
a nanotechnology systems that yields the same
Vitalism would be that there are some substances which are used by
biological organisms and others that are not. There would be no bump from
cell to animal to human being, or even from molecule to cell - vitalism
would be that living cells are composed of life-giving molecules which are
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Thursday, August 30, 2012 8:50 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Wednesday, August 29,
This statement is blatant vitalism, and in the traditional (ancient) sense:
So there has to be something else inside the DNA besides software.
DNA has nothing inside of it that is critical to the message it represents.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
computers IMHO cannot
exhibitintelligence
Hi William R. Buckley
A set of instructions (DNA) can not create a living chimpanzee all by itself.
Roger Clough, mailto:rclo...@verizon.net rclo...@verizon.net
8/30/2012
Leibniz would say, If there's no God, we'd have to invent him so
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On 29 Aug 2012, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, August 29, 2012 1:22:38 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form -
i.e. DNA
Roger:
It is my contention, quite to the dislike of biologists generally methinks,
that DNA is a physical representation of program.
Cells are indeed controlled by software (as represented in wetware form – i.e.
DNA).
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Bruno:
Will you please cite the theorem of Kleene.
All:
Living systems are not the material from which they are constructed (upon which
they exist).
Living systems are rather the systems of processes and higher, which rest upon
the material
from which they are constructed.
are
for the quasi-independence of the spectrum of identity which we embody.
Craig
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:13:23 AM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:
Roger:
I suggest that at root, you have vitalist sympathies.
wrb
From: everyth...@googlegroups.com javascript:
[mailto:everyth
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg
Sent: Tuesday, August 28, 2012 12:45 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit intelligence
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 2:55:54 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote
of that description. If
you are claiming that GoL can produce something other than meaningless
iterations of quantitative pixels, then the burden of proof is on you. Where
is the Elvis?
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 4:13:22 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote:
Proof of non-sequitur. You assert
it. That's all you are going
to ever get out of the damn abacus. It isn't going to jump up and make you
pancakes. It isn't a 'claim' to say that, it is an understanding of what is
actually possible, what isn't and why.
On Tuesday, August 28, 2012 5:17:36 PM UTC-4, William R. Buckley wrote
Roger:
I suggest that at root, you have vitalist sympathies.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger Clough
Sent: Monday, August 27, 2012 4:07 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: Two reasons why computers IMHO cannot exhibit
Sorry, Roger:
The universe is purely subjective.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 11:11 AM
To: everything-list
Subject: 0s and 1s
Hi John Clark
You're wrong.
1) Very
In all your statements, you are expressing subjectivity.
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 2:55 PM
To: everything-list
Subject: Mornings and afternoons
Hi William R. Buckley
Bruno:
Are you reading Stanley Salthy? Know of his work in hierarchy theory?
wrb
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Bruno Marchal
Sent: Wednesday, August 15, 2012 12:56 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Is
-list@googlegroups.com
Time: 2012-08-15, 03:38:37
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
William,
On 14 Aug 2012, at 17:02, William R. Buckley wrote:
Bruno:
You抳e turned things around. The implication is context to information, not
information to context.
And, I suggest you think
-0700, William R. Buckley wrote:
Dear Russell:
When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not
its replicant but itself, then I will heed better your advice.
wrb
I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but do Langton loops count?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Langton's_loops
, Aug 15, 2012 at 8:24 AM, William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com
wrote:
No, Langton's loops do not count. Nor do any published
cellular automaton.
William,
Do these count:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_Neumann_universal_constructor ?
Read these papers:
Computational Ontogeny
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
2012/8/15 John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 2:16 PM, William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com
wrote:
Regardless of your dislike for the term omniscience
I don't dislike the term, in fact I
:01, William R. Buckley wrote:
The physical universe is purely subjective.
That follows from comp in a constructive way, that is, by giving the means to
derive physics from a theory of subejectivity. With comp any first order
logical theory of a universal system will do, and the laws
Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:39 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 8:09 PM, William R. Buckley bill.buck...@gmail.com
wrote:
Consider that the Turing machine is computational omniscient[...]
Turing's entire
I think the limitation is better expressed as,
Halting problem - no one arbitrary algorithm can decide whether or not
another arbitrary algorithm will halt.
There are some cases, typically one to one, or one to some small and well
defined set, where decidability is
satisfied. There is
: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:11 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 11:16:47AM -0700, William R. Buckley wrote:
John:
Regardless of your dislike for the term omniscience versus
universality, the
Turing machine
can
and Katharine Russell might not agree.
On Tue, Aug 14, 2012 at 8:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 8/14/2012 7:22 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
Dear Russell:
When you can design and build a machine that builds itself, not
its replicant but itself, then I will heed better your advice
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
On 8/14/2012 8:35 PM, William R. Buckley wrote:
I have done exactly as I challenged Russell.
That you built a machine that built itself would imply that you built
yourself. Which implies you arose from nothing, otherwise there would have
been a prior
:09 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Why AI is impossible
William,
On 12 Aug 2012, at 18:01, William R. Buckley wrote:
Roger:
Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal.
When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the
physical
Please, a few foundational references on COMP that I
might follow the discussion on Google EverythingList.
wrb
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To
Roger:
Nothing in the universe is objective. Objectivity is an ideal.
When the physicist seeks to make some measure of the
physical universe, he or she necessarily must use some other
part of the physical universe by which to obtain that measure.
QED.
The physical universe is
I, for one, remain skeptical.
wrb
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Russell Standish
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 4:17 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: scientists simulate an entire
I think it is more like, there's a program in your bug.
wrb
-Original Message-
From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-
l...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of meekerdb
Sent: Sunday, July 22, 2012 7:41 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: scientists
Craig:
Please explain a little further what you mean by *accomplished through
presentation* and in
particular, what you mean by presentation.
Your point number 5 fits clearly within the purview of semiotics.
wrb
On Mon, Apr 2, 2012 at 9:14 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
1.
66 matches
Mail list logo
