On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 4:09:22 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Monday, September 9, 2013 11:39:31 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>>
>>> (Resending complete email - trying to do this on a phone.)
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, Septembe
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013 2:07:26 AM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>
> Craig,
> I've been trying to stay focused studying the past few days (medical exam
> D: ), but now im procrastinating
>
> So which of the following are you advancing
>
> No implementation of rules could ever perfectly e
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, September 9, 2013 11:39:31 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>>
>> (Resending complete email - trying to do this on a phone.)
>>
>> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thursday, September 5, 201
Craig,
I've been trying to stay focused studying the past few days (medical exam
D: ), but now im procrastinating
So which of the following are you advancing
No implementation of rules could ever perfectly exemplify (or at least to
such a degree that no human could every tell it was a mere im
On Monday, September 9, 2013 11:39:31 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> (Resending complete email - trying to do this on a phone.)
>
> On Tuesday, September 10, 2013, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> My position would s
(Resending complete email - trying to do this on a phone.)
On Tuesday, September 10, 2013, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> My position would suggest that the more mechanistic the conditions of the
>> test, the more it stacks
On Thursday, September 5, 2013, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
>
> My position would suggest that the more mechanistic the conditions of the
> test, the more it stacks the test in favor of not being able to tell the
> difference. If you want to fool someone into thinking an AI is alive, get a
> small
>but what policies can produce an effect ab initio?
then is there anything wrong with saying the *implementation* of the rules
of GOL produce the behavior of the game?
i think you missed the nuance of what i was asking. (i was trying
fecklessly to make it clear with few words) i dont want moral
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 4:54:20 PM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>
> >but what policies can produce an effect ab initio?
>
> then is there anything wrong with saying the *implementation* of the rules
> of GOL produce the behavior of the game?
>
Nothing wrong with that, no, just like there'
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 2:45:30 PM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>
> Rules don't produce anything, just as triangles or steps don't produce
>> anything
>
>
> What about something like Conway's Game of Life? Why is it wrong to see
> the behavior of the game as produced by the rules of the g
>
> Rules don't produce anything, just as triangles or steps don't produce
> anything
What about something like Conway's Game of Life? Why is it wrong to see the
behavior of the game as produced by the rules of the game and initial
conditions?
To ask what my evidence is is the same as asking wh
On Wednesday, September 4, 2013 1:46:14 PM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>
> Determinism is a logical justification of cause and effect or else it is
>> meaningless...
>
>
> Sure, whatever, I was speaking colloquially, I wasn't using it in a
> technical fashion.
>
> Nobody, including you can see
>
> Determinism is a logical justification of cause and effect or else it is
> meaningless...
Sure, whatever, I was speaking colloquially, I wasn't using it in a
technical fashion.
Nobody, including you can see how a set of rules could lead to desire
mmhmm, what's your evidence of this? This
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 11:36:29 PM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>
> 1) rationality (logic) in this case is to mean founded on justified
> principles. This is inherently a normative judgment. the principles that
> govern a deterministic system needn't appeal to our psychology as justified,
also, unless we come up with a clever way of raising the cost of reneging,
we wont be able to make any bets
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013, Dennis Ochei wrote:
> 1) rationality (logic) in this case is to mean founded on justified
> principles. This is inherently a normative judgment. the principle
1) rationality (logic) in this case is to mean founded on justified
principles. This is inherently a normative judgment. the principles that
govern a deterministic system needn't appeal to our psychology as
justified, this is what i mean by determined doesn't mean logical. none of
my desires seem t
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 8:57:13 PM UTC-4, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>
> Craig,
>
> What UV looks like will depend on how it is transduced into the nervous
> system. I could add a new opsin into your blue cones and it would appear to
> be a shade of blue.
>
Sure, we can look at an infra-red ca
Craig,
What UV looks like will depend on how it is transduced into the nervous
system. I could add a new opsin into your blue cones and it would appear to
be a shade of blue. Or, I could achieve the transduction in such a way that
UV doesn't confuse with blue. In which case UV will look different
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 3:42:53 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/3/2013 12:32 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
> > Telmo and Brent,
> >
> > The Humean quote sums it up nicely. You can think of a human as a
> collection of desires
> > and a reasoning process that arbitrates between and attempts t
On 9/3/2013 12:32 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
Telmo and Brent,
The Humean quote sums it up nicely. You can think of a human as a collection of desires
and a reasoning process that arbitrates between and attempts to realize them. In the
process of reasoning, one might bring about new desires, but r
n the ability of sensors that were active
>>>> directly before the event (that activated the effectors) to trigger the
>>>> effectors they are wired to. 3) In the event that the chemical bath is
>>>> removed, weaken the strength of sensors that were active righ
ction of the effectors of the system in question), then the system will
>>> even develop novel, unpredictable behavior.
>>>
>>
>> Novel and unpredictable behavior is not intentional behavior. You
>> conflate local causes with understanding. A garage door spring &#x
It's a sleight of hand because it assumes a single self on a single level
which does the wanting and the willing and the discerning between the two.
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 6:54:46 AM UTC-4, telmo_menezes wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Dennis Ochei
> >
> wrote:
> > this is i
On Tuesday, September 3, 2013 12:41:09 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/2/2013 8:50 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>
>
> No matter how complex a system is, it can never be complex enough to
> contain itself, and is therefore unable to perceive itself directly as a
> deterministic process. Only in t
t;> lower it. If the concentration exhibits noisy behavior (is not solely a
>>> function of the effectors of the system in question), then the system will
>>> even develop novel, unpredictable behavior.
>>>
>>
>> Novel and unpredictable behavior is not inten
it to become aware of anything
> beyond those primitive interactions. If it did, the universe would be
> overflowing with intelligent non-biological species, or at least contain a
> single one.
>
>
>> Desire and qualia pose no real problem for determinism.
>>
>
> Why n
usally efficacious is a deal breaker for determinism.
Thanks,
Craig
>
> On Monday, September 2, 2013 5:15:47 PM UTC-5, chris peck wrote:
>>
>> Hi Brent
>>
>> I think the researchers would agree. Its definately present stimuli they
>> have in mind.
>>
>&
On 9/3/2013 3:54 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>this is in line with schopenhauer's views. he was essentially a buddhist.
>you can want not to want, in which case you cannot will yourself to want to
>want. you can have and act upon the desire to c
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
> this is in line with schopenhauer's views. he was essentially a buddhist.
> you can want not to want, in which case you cannot will yourself to want to
> want. you can have and act upon the desire to change your desires, but that
> doesn't con
this is in line with schopenhauer's views. he was essentially a
buddhist. you can want not to want, in which case you cannot will yourself
to want to want. you can have and act upon the desire to change your
desires, but that doesn't constitute "willing" what you want. instead, this
constitutes jus
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 6:41 AM, meekerdb wrote:
> On 9/2/2013 8:50 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
>
>
> No matter how complex a system is, it can never be complex enough to contain
> itself, and is therefore unable to perceive itself directly as a
> deterministic process. Only in the special cases, where
On 9/2/2013 8:50 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
No matter how complex a system is, it can never be complex enough to contain itself, and
is therefore unable to perceive itself directly as a deterministic process. Only in the
special cases, where the major causes of its action are made apparent, such
;meekerdb" >
> Sent: 3 September 2013 4:11 AM
> To: everyth...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
>
> On 9/2/2013 7:34 AM, chris peck wrote:
>
> The study you're citing firstly claims the 60% of the variance they
> uncovered i
Hi Brent
I think the researchers would agree. Its definately present stimuli they have
in mind.
All the best
--- Original Message ---
From: "meekerdb"
Sent: 3 September 2013 4:11 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On 9/2/20
On 9/2/2013 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, September 2, 2013 2:11:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2013 7:34 AM, chris peck wrote:
The study you're citing firstly claims the 60% of the variance they
uncovered is
explained by 'spontaneous' brain activity not 60% of all
On Monday, September 2, 2013 2:11:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 9/2/2013 7:34 AM, chris peck wrote:
>
> The study you're citing firstly claims the 60% of the variance they
> uncovered is explained by 'spontaneous' brain activity not 60% of all brain
> activity. More importantly, by sponta
On 9/2/2013 7:34 AM, chris peck wrote:
The study you're citing firstly claims the 60% of the variance they uncovered is
explained by 'spontaneous' brain activity not 60% of all brain activity. More
importantly, by spontaneous they just mean brain activity that has not been triggered by
external
Brent wrote:
*Just *any* response? Doesn't the response have to be something we can
identify as intelligent or purposeful?*
Depends on your definition of 'intelligent or purposeful' - Oh, and of
RESPONSE of course. My def. of response includes your characterisation.
*
Brent wrote:
* So do you agr
cy for the hideous demons who raise us as cattle?
You're out with fairies tonight Craig. Good luck to you.
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 03:34:59 -0700
From: whatsons...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
"The emotional life of very ma
forms we can study.
>
> Thanks for the interesting thread,
>
> Chris
>
>
>
> *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:
> everyth...@googlegroups.com ] *On Behalf Of *chris peck
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:20 PM
> *To:* everyth...@googlegroups.com
&
that the laws of physics are a random conspiracy of brain chemicals,
"zexires", which give the impression of validating each other because it
makes us more tender and juicy for the hideous demons who raise us as
cattle?
Thanks,
Craig
> All the best.
>
> ------
On 22 August 2013 15:23, chris peck wrote:
>
> Hi Chris / Stathis
>
> I probably shouldn't have used the word adaptive.
>
> I think Craig is arguing :
>
> 1) whatever 'feels'/psychological states emerge from the universe must be
> compatible with its fundamental nature.
>
> 2) Anxiety implies that
g would accept my paraphrase of his argument.
All the best.
> From: stath...@gmail.com
> Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2013 15:01:35 +1000
> Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
> To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
>
> On 22 August 2013 13:20, chris peck wrote:
> > Hi
On 22 August 2013 13:20, chris peck wrote:
> Hi Craig
>
>
> am saying that the ontology of desire is impossible under strong
> determinism. Deterministic and random processes cannot possibly produce
> desire - not because desire is special, but because it doesn't make any
> sense. You are talking
m
[mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of chris peck
Sent: Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:20 PM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
Hi Craig
am saying that the ontology of desire is impossible under strong
determinism. Deterministic a
those conditions need
be functional. I don't see a logical contradiction there.
All the best.
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 19:13:57 -0700
From: whatsons...@gmail.com
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:33:06 AM UTC-
On Wednesday, August 21, 2013 8:33:06 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
> On 21 August 2013 03:59, Craig Weinberg >
> wrote:
>
> >> It is possible to make the distinction between doing something by
> accident
> >> and intentionally, between enslavement and freedom, while still
> >> acknowledging t
On 21 August 2013 03:59, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>> It is possible to make the distinction between doing something by accident
>> and intentionally, between enslavement and freedom, while still
>> acknowledging that brain mechanisms are either determined or random.
>
>
> Why would such a distinctio
@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On Monday, August 19, 2013 11:02:00 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 17 August 2013 04:01, Craig Weinberg >
wrote:
The objection that the terms 'consciousness' or 'free will' are used in too
many different
On Monday, August 19, 2013 11:02:00 AM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
>
>
>
>
> On 17 August 2013 04:01, Craig Weinberg >wrote:
>
>> The objection that the terms ‘consciousness’ or ‘free will’ are used in
>> too many different ways to be understandable is one of the most common
>> arguments that I run
On 17 August 2013 04:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
> The objection that the terms ‘consciousness’ or ‘free will’ are used in
> too many different ways to be understandable is one of the most common
> arguments that I run into. I agree that it is a superficially valid
> objection, but on deeper consid
Synesthesia proves that data can be formatted in multiple ways,
irrespective of assumed correlations. A computer proves this also. Your
argument is essentially that we couldn't look at the data of an mp3 in any
other way except listening to it with an ear. "You'd have realized that
visual/alphanume
I can nothing but laugh at at a Physicist pontificating about what
they call "free will" . It show how far the destruction of philosophy
by metaphisical-ideological-religious reductionism has gone since
Occam.
Calvin would be surprised about the twists that have suffered his
theory of predestinati
On 8/17/2013 10:09 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Don't be so evasive, Brent. Being dense is how science works. It's about stripping away
your assumptions. Your assumption is that somehow a sense of smell is an expected
outcome of chemical detection, so I ask you to explain why you assume that. You
On Sunday, August 18, 2013 12:24:18 AM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 8/17/2013 8:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:14:22 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 8/17/2013 7:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent
On 8/17/2013 8:59 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:14:22 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 8/17/2013 7:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Consciousness is
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 11:14:22 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 8/17/2013 7:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>>
>> On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>>
>> Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted
>>
On 8/17/2013 7:05 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted
scientists/pholosophers
invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every aut
On Saturday, August 17, 2013 9:59:26 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
>
> Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted
> scientists/pholosophers invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every
> author uses the term for a content that fits he
On 8/17/2013 2:01 PM, John Mikes wrote:
Consciousness is different: it is a hoax some high hatted scientists/pholosophers
invented to make themselves smart. No basis, every author uses the term for a content
that fits her/his theoretical stance.
Me, too.
Mine is: a response to relations we get
Brent, your 'quip' comes close, but...
It is a fundamental view of the world as we see it (the MODEL of it we know
about). We can detect the affecting of many factors we know about, which is
a portion only. We THINK the rest is up to us. It isn't - however we are
not slaves of deterministic effects
On Friday, August 16, 2013 2:45:56 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
>
> On 8/16/2013 11:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
>
> Nobody on Earth can fail to understand the difference between doing
> something by accident and intentionally,
>
>
> Really?� Intentionally usually means with conscious forethought
On 8/16/2013 11:01 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Nobody on Earth can fail to understand the difference between doing something by
accident and intentionally,
Really? Intentionally usually means with conscious forethought. But the Grey Walter and
Libet experiments make it doubtful that consciousn
The objection that the terms ‘consciousness’ or ‘free will’ are used in too
many different ways to be understandable is one of the most common
arguments that I run into. I agree that it is a superficially valid
objection, but on deeper consideration, it should be clear that it is a
specious a
64 matches
Mail list logo
