Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 6:06:31 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote: > > > > On 5/11/2019 3:45 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: >> >> How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In

Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of > consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily > explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can indeed >

Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 6:06:17 PM UTC-5, telmo wrote: > > > > On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 23:45, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > > On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the

Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 23:45, Philip Thrift wrote: > > > On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: >> How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of >> consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition

Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

On 5/11/2019 3:45 PM, Philip Thrift wrote: On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily explainable, in the

Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 23:21, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: > > > On 5/11/2019 1:31 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: >> How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? > > Tell me what book I'm thinking of and I'll tell you how expl

Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

On Sat, May 11, 2019, at 21:31, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of > consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily explainable, > in the sense that consciousness being non-local

Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

On Saturday, May 11, 2019 at 3:31:19 PM UTC-5, Cosmin Visan wrote: > > How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of > consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily > explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it ca

Re: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

On 5/11/2019 1:31 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? Tell me what book I'm thinking of and I'll tell you how explain. However, I do forsee your failure (as does my laptop). Brent In the case of consciousness <&

How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ?

How do AI fanboys explain telepathy and precognition ? In the case of consciousness <> AI, telepathy and precognition are more easily explainable, in the sense that consciousness being non-local, it can indeed create cases in which spatially and temporally separated consciousne

Re: The religion of AI

On Sat, May 11, 2019 at 6:14 AM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > *> There are lots of ways through which mind evolves.* > There is only one fundamental reason anything evolves, because of random mutation and natural selection; one factor has a cause and one doesn't.

Re: The religion of AI

There are lots of ways through which mind evolves. On Friday, 10 May 2019 21:03:45 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > So the mind evolves by rational acts of free will (maybe JKC will explain > what that means) but that free will is limited by "evolution". > > Brent > -- You received this message because

Re: The religion of AI

So the mind evolves by rational acts of free will (maybe JKC will explain what that means) but that free will is limited by "evolution". Brent On 5/9/2019 11:40 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: Evolution. On Thursday, 9 May 2019 23:19:31 UTC+3, Brent wrote: OK, what limits

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

On Fri, May 10, 2019 at 7:53 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 8 May 2019, at 17:44, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:57 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 26 Apr 2019, at 02:50, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:57 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> >>>

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

> On 8 May 2019, at 17:44, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:57 AM Bruno Marchal > wrote: > >> On 26 Apr 2019, at 02:50, Jason Resch > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:57 AM Bruno Marchal >

Re: The religion of AI

> On 8 May 2019, at 21:55, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Since evolution is the evolution of consciousness, I wasn't programmed, but > consciousness by itself solved new and never before seen problems without > anyone telling her what to do. But machines can do that too.

Re: The religion of AI

> On 7 May 2019, at 23:10, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > They are not labelled 'true' or 'false' or 'cat' or 'dog'. But whatever you > want to call them, they are very small; contrary to your ignorant assertion > that "A computer has to be told how to do it by its

Re: The religion of AI

> On 7 May 2019, at 21:33, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > But can AI write nonsense theories of everything as well as human arm-chair > philosophers? When they write a book explaining why humans can't really be > conscious because they can't even balance

Re: The religion of AI

Evolution. On Thursday, 9 May 2019 23:19:31 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > OK, what limits it? physics? > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to

Re: The religion of AI

On Thu, May 9, 2019 at 4:06 PM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: >>I have no idea what you mean by "free will" and, because you obviously >> haven't given the matter any serious thought, you don't know what you mean >> by "free will" either. However I do know there are

Re: The religion of AI

OK, what limits it?  physics? Brent On 5/9/2019 1:06 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: Only because you don't have absolute will it doesn't mean you don't have limited will. I see a lot of strawman fallacy around here. On Thursday, 9 May 2019 00:17:06 UTC+3, Brent wrote: So

Re: The religion of AI

Only because you don't have absolute will it doesn't mean you don't have limited will. I see a lot of strawman fallacy around here. On Thursday, 9 May 2019 00:17:06 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > So you can will yourself to experience new qualia? > -- You received this message because you are

Re: The religion of AI

On Wed, May 8, 2019 'Cosmin Visan' v wrote: > No. By rationality. > If something is rational then there is a reason, a cause, for it doing what it did. If it was irrational then there was no reason, no cause, for it doing what it did. There has long been a word for events without causes,

Re: The religion of AI

So you can will yourself to experience new qualia? Brent On 5/8/2019 2:06 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: Of course. Decisions which are taken using free will. On Thursday, 9 May 2019 00:01:42 UTC+3, Brent wrote: Rationality is a property of decision processes. -- You

Re: The religion of AI

Of course. Decisions which are taken using free will. On Thursday, 9 May 2019 00:01:42 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > Rationality is a property of decision processes. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this

Re: The religion of AI

Rationality is a property of decision processes. Brent On 5/8/2019 1:26 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: No. By rationality. On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 23:06:34 UTC+3, Brent wrote: By random variation with selection. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: The religion of AI

No. By rationality. On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 23:06:34 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > > By random variation with selection. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an

Re: The religion of AI

On 5/8/2019 12:55 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: Since evolution is the evolution of consciousness, I wasn't programmed, but consciousness by itself solved new and never before seen problems without anyone telling her what to do. By random variation with selection. Brent

Re: The religion of AI

Since evolution is the evolution of consciousness, I wasn't programmed, but consciousness by itself solved new and never before seen problems without anyone telling her what to do. On Wednesday, 8 May 2019 00:06:39 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > > They are programmed in specific ways for

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems (a symposium at the AAAI Stanford Spring Symposium 2019)

On Mon, Apr 29, 2019 at 7:57 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > > On 26 Apr 2019, at 02:50, Jason Resch wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 23, 2019 at 9:57 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> >> On 23 Apr 2019, at 03:32, Jason Resch wrote: >> >> >> >> On Mon, Apr 22, 2019 at 7:51 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 5 May 2019, at 21:56, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/5/2019 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 3 May 2019, at 01:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/2/2019 8:52 AM,

Re: The religion of AI

There exists a limited set of problems the AI can tackle successfully due to the way the AI was trained. But the same is true for human beings tackling problems. While we can tackle a far wider range of problems, this is ultimately also limited due to the way the brain came into being

Re: The religion of AI

The bottom line of the DeepMind test in 2018: *Ultimately, the team’s AI IQ test shows that even some of today’s most advanced AIs can’t figure out problems *[in domains] *we haven’t trained them to solve.* https://medium.com/s/story/what-microsoft-and-google-are-not-telling-you-about

Re: The religion of AI

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:54 PM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *>And how are "rules of the game" not labelled data ?* > That's just stating the problem! Nothing, not a person and not a machine, can give an answer if they don't know the question. Do you actually think

Re: The religion of AI

They are not labelled 'true' or 'false' or 'cat' or 'dog'.   But whatever you want to call them, they are very small; contrary to your ignorant assertion that "A computer has to be told how to do it by its programmers – either in the form of a ready-made algorithm or by feeding it large

Re: The religion of AI

tsoever. You are completely oblivious that those AIs > are first programmed by someone in certain specific ways. You probably > think of them as some sort of magical spirits that appear out of nowhere by > themselves. > > On Tuesday, 7 May 2019 21:40:46 UTC+3, Jason wrote: >> >>

Re: The religion of AI

in specific ways for learning...just like you were programmed, by evolution, to learn a language. Brent You probably think of them as some sort of magical spirits that appear out of nowhere by themselves. On Tuesday, 7 May 2019 21:40:46 UTC+3, Jason wrote: One AI teaches itself how to play Go

Re: The religion of AI

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 4:53 PM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> By saying such things you just prove that you have no understanding of > computer science whatsoever* > We do know 2 facts about computer science that you do not, computers exist and so do computations.

Re: The religion of AI

And how are "rules of the game" not labelled data ? On Tuesday, 7 May 2019 22:28:23 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > > You are at least two years out of date. AlphaGo was not given labelled > data, it was only given the rules of the game. I > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to

Re: The religion of AI

by themselves. On Tuesday, 7 May 2019 21:40:46 UTC+3, Jason wrote: > > > One AI teaches itself how to play Go, Chess, and Shogi better than any > other human. > https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/robotics/artificial-intelligence/mb > > One AI teaches itself how to master 49

Re: The religion of AI

On Tue, May 7, 2019 at 2:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: . > A human being can solve an IQ puzzle that he or she has NEVER seen > before. A computer has to be told how to do it by its programmers Modern programs can get good enough to beat any

Re: The religion of AI

But can AI write nonsense theories of everything as well as human arm-chair philosophers?  When they write a book explaining why humans can't really be conscious because they can't even balance their bank account, THEN we'll know they've master human reasoning, including artificial stupidity

Re: The religion of AI

mpletely random. Brent If presented with a different puzzle, the computer is completely clueless again." - This seems so obvious to me that I wonder why AI religious believers don't see it. https://unherd.com/2018/05/influential-religion-youve-never-heard/?=refinnar -- You received this

Re: The religion of AI

One AI teaches itself how to play Go, Chess, and Shogi better than any other human. https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/robotics/artificial-intelligence/mb One AI teaches itself how to master 49 different video games: https://www.theverge.com/2015/2/25/8108399/google-ai-deepmind-video-games

The religion of AI

large amounts of LABELLED data. If presented with a different puzzle, the computer is completely clueless again." - This seems so obvious to me that I wonder why AI religious believers don't see it. https://unherd.com/2018/05/influential-religion-youve-never-heard/?=refinnar -- You received th

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 5/5/2019 10:10 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 3 May 2019, at 01:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 5/2/2019 8:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 3 May 2019, at 01:08, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/2/2019 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> I guess you meant “clonable”; On the contrary, with mechanism matter is not >> clonable for all its aspect belonging below our substitution level, > It's merely your

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 3 May 2019, at 01:02, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/2/2019 8:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 5/2/2019 9:02 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I guess you meant “clonable”; On the contrary, with mechanism matter is not clonable for all its aspect belonging below our substitution level, It's merely your supposition that the not clonable (I quoted your "coinable") is below the level at which

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 5/2/2019 8:52 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into account all what

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 20:13, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/1/2019 10:19 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: >> No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities with >> natural entities. In an artificial entities the functional parts

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 19:27, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Is it even possible to physical implement your "machine" ? If so, can you > elaborate on it ? What is it about the "physical world" that would allow your > "machine" to be "physically" implemented ? That is a very

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 19:19, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities with > natural entities. That contradicts the monism related to the idea that consciousness is the fundamental things. With mechanism, the

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 18:39, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/1/2019 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> My point is that "qualia" don't exist independent of an environment, and an >>> evolutionary history. >> >> That is ambiguous. A human qualia needs a human history.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 18:23, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into account all what is relevant. >>> But definitions don't call the definidum into

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 5/1/2019 10:19 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities with natural entities. In an artificial entities the functional parts that they contain are 100% knowable by us, because it is us who put them there in the

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

Is it even possible to physical implement your "machine" ? If so, can you elaborate on it ? What is it about the "physical world" that would allow your "machine" to be "physically" implemented ? On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 19:53:54 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > When I talk about digital

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

No, this is the mistake that you make. You confuse artificial entities with natural entities. In an artificial entities the functional parts that they contain are 100% knowable by us, because it is us who put them there in the first place. On the other hand, in a natural entity, the functional

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 11:14, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > What is the difference ? Basically, what is the difference between this > machine: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and this machine: > >

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 5/1/2019 2:01 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: My point is that "qualia" don't exist independent of an environment, and an evolutionary history. That is ambiguous. A human qualia needs a human history. Human qualia are the only kind we know.  Other qualia, independent of environment and

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 5/1/2019 1:53 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: I am not sure I understand. By definition, the substitution level take into account all what is relevant. But definitions don't call the definidum into existence.?? Indeed. But I did not use a definition to claim any truth (of existence, or else).

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

What is the difference ? Basically, what is the difference between this machine: and this machine:

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 00:20, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/30/2019 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >>> On 28 Apr 2019, at 22:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> >> > wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM,

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 1 May 2019, at 00:15, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/30/2019 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> On 28 Apr 2019, at 21:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 4/28/2019 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indexical Digital

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

t; On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 13:38:51 UTC+3, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 26 Apr 2019, at 12:19, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List >> > wrote: >> >> Sorry, if I want to read fairy-tales I read Harry Potter. AI is a rather >> boring fairy-tale. > > You ar

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

Whaaa... so magic happens. Santa Claus has been born! And it was so simple... just add a line of code and pufff... the object becomes alive. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡° )つ──☆*:・ﾟ On Wednesday, 1 May 2019 00:55:09 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > > > On 4/29/2019 11:35 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: > > >

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

As Donald Hoffman says, to take things seriously doesn't mean to take them literally. You take the tiger seriously because you need to survive, in the same way you don't put the blue folder on your computer screen on the recycle bin. Not because there is actually there a blue folder that get

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 2:58 PM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > To talk about errors is to have a standard of (ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*:・ﾟ✧ OBJECTIVE > REALITY > Yes, reality has a way of informing one about what is objectively true and what is not. If you look at a Saber Toothed

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 4/30/2019 3:06 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Apr 2019, at 22:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: Ok, so how does it appear ? Like this (you're getting kind of

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 4/30/2019 2:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 28 Apr 2019, at 21:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List wrote: On 4/28/2019 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: Indexical Digital Mechanism, or simply Mechanism, is the idea that we can survive with an artificial brain. It is the idea that my

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 4/29/2019 11:35 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: On Monday, 29 April 2019 21:09:01 UTC+3, Brent wrote: Ok, so I will make a 2 line computer program that I will connect to a camera: if (signal == 1) { System.out.println("I see red."); } Does this

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

You are again attacking a strawman. Only because we cannot create everything, it doesn't mean we cannot create anything. Some things are indeed under our controls. On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 20:32:40 UTC+3, John Clark wrote: > > *> it means you have the ability to create reality.* >> > > Then

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

To talk about errors is to have a standard of (ﾉ◕*ヮ*◕)ﾉ*:・*ﾟ*✧ OBJECTIVE REALITY ✧*ﾟ*・: **ヽ*(◕*ヮ*◕*ヽ*) on which to refer those errors to. What is the *:・*ﾟ**:・*ﾟ**:・*ﾟ**:・*ﾟOBJECTIVE, ABSOLUTE and GOD-GIVEN REALITY**:・*ﾟ* *:・*ﾟ**:・*ﾟ**:・*ﾟ**:・*ﾟ* behind those evil errors of duck and rabbit ?

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 1:15 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> > > *> The duck-rabbit image shows a lot of profound things.* > It shows that image identification is a difficult task so it's not difficult to make a ambiguous image, and it shows that both

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

Since I am a holly spirit and you are a lost soul, it is my duty to bring you on the right path. The duck-rabbit image shows a lot of profound things. But since you have no understanding of consciousness whatsoever, you cannot go at this moment in all the depths and beauty that duck-rabbit

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:42 PM 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: > Oh, so now you praise yourself for believing in object permanence ? > Pfff... you are going down with each post. > > Even QM showed by Bell's inequalities that there are no

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

Oh, so now you praise yourself for believing in object permanence ? Pfff... you are going down with each post. Even QM showed by Bell's inequalities that there are no objective properties until measurement. What will be your next move ? Finally coming out as a believer in Santa Claus ? On

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 12:31 PM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> You are behaving like a 5 years old. * > Maybe, but 5 year olds believe in object permanence but infants younger than 7 months don't and neither do you. John K Clark -- You received this message

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

You are just showing a collection of pictures that are generated based on certain pre-established rules by human consciousnesses. If computers are so super-duper, why don't you show me a picture with a new colors invented by a computer ? You are so naive that you forget that that system is

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

You are behaving like a 5 years old. Pathetic. On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 19:28:08 UTC+3, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:52 AM 'Cosmin Visan' < > everyth...@googlegroups.com > wrote: > > *> All your answers are answered by the duck-rabbit image,* >> > > But you've taught me so

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:52 AM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> All your answers are answered by the duck-rabbit image,* > But you've taught me so much! You've taught me that just like computers and brains the duck-rabbit image does not exist. Sure I can see the

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

All your answers are answered by the duck-rabbit image, because it contains the entire manifestation of consciousness, in the same way that the double-slit contains the entire manifestation of QM. So if you don't understand duck-rabbit, you don't understand anything. On Tuesday, 30 April 2019

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 11:35 AM 'Cosmin Visan' < everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote: *> Aren't you going to answer the things about duck-rabbit image ?* > Aren't you going to work up your courage and try to answer all the questions, or even one, that I asked you in my long post? And I

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> And since a computer cannot bring anything into existence on its own if you > don't specifically put that information in the database, a computer will > never be conscious. https://www.thispersondoesnotexist.com/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolved_antenna Telmo. -- You received this

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

Aren't you going to answer the things about duck-rabbit image ? You are left with no arguments and instead of accepting the truth, you just go someplace else to preach your religion ? On Tuesday, 30 April 2019 17:54:48 UTC+3, John Clark wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:31 AM Bruno Marchal wrote: *> You* [Cosmin Visan] *need to study what is a digital machine. You need > to read the original paper of Turing,* > Bruno you're wasting your time, Cosmin Visan doesn't think computers exist so he's not going to read a paper about them. And

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

om > wrote: > > Sorry, if I want to read fairy-tales I read Harry Potter. AI is a rather > boring fairy-tale. > > > You are quick here. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To uns

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 12:19, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Sorry, if I want to read fairy-tales I read Harry Potter. AI is a rather > boring fairy-tale. You are quick here. Without such justification. You talk like if you knew the truth, which is (provably

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 18:37, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > That's how existence is: miraculous. I agree that the existence of the natural numbers is miraculous, because we can prove in elementary logic that we cannot derive them from anything simpler and not

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 15:23, cloudver...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Thursday, April 25, 2019 at 1:18:44 AM UTC-5, stathisp wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 2:42 pm, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > > wrote: > But it happens all the time. How do you think you move your body if not by

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 11:31, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > On Thu, 25 Apr 2019 at 16:38, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>> > wrote: > You are randomly extrapolating. I think this is called "strawman logical > error". Things are not random.

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 25 Apr 2019, at 08:40, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > One interpretation might be that consciousness sends its influence from the > future to the past. Which future? Which past? It is unclear what you assume, and what you drive from the assumption. You take

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 28 Apr 2019, at 22:50, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: >> Ok, so how does it appear ? > > Like this (you're getting kind of dense). > > I agree that to define the qualia red, the ostensive

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 28 Apr 2019, at 21:57, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List > wrote: > > > > On 4/28/2019 8:33 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Indexical Digital Mechanism, or simply Mechanism, is the idea that we can >> survive with an artificial brain. It is the idea that my consciousness, or >> my

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 12:51, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > Yeah, ok, you seem to know everything. Probably you are God or something. I > cannot take seriously people that know everything. I just said that the second theorem of recursion by Kleene solved Descartes’ problem

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 26 Apr 2019, at 12:26, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > You're just making a mess of concepts gathered from everywhere. A is like B, > $@#$@ is like 423423, Hampty-Dampty is like Harry Potter. Sorry, there can be > no dialogue with you. You need to study what is a

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

> On 28 Apr 2019, at 17:47, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List > wrote: > > "Brain" doesn't exist. "Brain" is just an idea in consciousness. Therefore, > your entire theory is false. That is weird. The fact that the brain does not exist “ontologically” is a consequence of mechanism, so you

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On Monday, 29 April 2019 21:09:01 UTC+3, Brent wrote: > > Ok, so I will make a 2 line computer program that I will connect to a > camera: > > if (signal == 1) { > System.out.println("I see red."); > } > > Does this computer program see red ? > > > No, it would fail the colorblindness test. > >

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

On 4/28/2019 11:49 PM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: On Sunday, 28 April 2019 23:50:17 UTC+3, Brent wrote: On 4/28/2019 11:09 AM, 'Cosmin Visan' via Everything List wrote: Ok, so how does it appear ? Like this (you're getting kind of dense). You don't really

Re: Towards Conscious AI Systems

You again use your upside down logic in which you start from the existence of computers and conclude your own existence, when in fact you should start from your own existence and conclude the inexistence of computers. Since you exist, you have the properties that existence itself has, namely

<    1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   >