It is the passage from to eat or to be eaten to to be or not to be.
Very nice!
PS I took the liberty of - I think - correcting it to what you meant.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
-our-emotions/?page=1
Bruno, can this be developed in a machine?
I agree with large parts of Damasio, and disagree on others. Alas, he is
still not aware of the consequence of mechanism, (like most brain
scientists), and I disagree with his interpretation of Descartes (but that
is another
On 29 Apr 2014, at 12:00, Samiya Illias wrote:
An interesting conversation:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/?page=1
Bruno, can this be developed in a machine?
I agree with large parts of Damasio, and disagree on others. Alas, he
is still not aware
An interesting conversation:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/?page=1
Bruno, can this be developed in a machine?
Samiya
*MIND*: Do you believe that we will someday be able to create artificial
consciousness and feelings?
*Damasio*: An organism can possess feelings
On Tuesday, April 29, 2014 12:22:23 PM UTC+1, telmo_menezes wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 12:00 PM, Samiya Illias
samiya...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
An interesting conversation:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/?page=1
Bruno, can this be developed
On 4/29/2014 3:00 AM, Samiya Illias wrote:
An interesting conversation:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/feeling-our-emotions/?page=1
Bruno, can this be developed in a machine?
Samiya
*MIND*: Do you believe that we will someday be able to create artificial consciousness
and feelings
Le 31-oct.-08, à 06:39, Russell Standish a écrit :
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:48:11PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
...
Physical supervenience is the conjunction of the following
assumptions:
-There is a physical universe
-I am conscious (consciousness exists)
-(My) consciousness (at
2008/10/30 Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
The seven first steps of the UD Argument show this already indeed, if
you accept some Occam Razor. The movie graph is a much subtle argument
showing you don't need occam razor: not only a machine cannot
distinguish real from virtual, but cannot
On Wed, Oct 29, 2008 at 05:48:11PM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 29 Oct 2008, at 06:09, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:04:15AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ah! See my papers for a proof that indeed consciousness does not
emerge from brain function. See the
On 29 Oct 2008, at 06:09, Russell Standish wrote:
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:04:15AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ah! See my papers for a proof that indeed consciousness does not
emerge from brain function. See the paper by Maudlin for an
independent and later argument (which handles also
On 24/10/2008, at 8:44 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
And then there's the big white elephant in the room: consciousness. I
don't know what it is ...
I am sure you know what it is. I guess you just cannot defined it, nor
prove that it applies to you (it's different).
and I don't believe
very
strange states that have no survival/replication value. However, I
tend to believe that self-organization based on emotions with
survival/replication value are all that is needed to explain their
existence. I'm not sure I'm making myself clear...
Music to Math:
Whenever I watch Garrett Lisi
On Tue, Oct 28, 2008 at 09:04:15AM +0100, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Ah! See my papers for a proof that indeed consciousness does not
emerge from brain function. See the paper by Maudlin for an
independent and later argument (which handles also the counterfactual
objection). You have to
. It's an emotion that drive us to want to
decode reality. The knowledge gathered in this process allows us, for
example, to build better tools. I believe there's an interplay between
biological and social evolution (the Baldwin effect). As society
becomes more and more complex, new emotions evolve
Kim Jones wrote:
On 24/10/2008, at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
I'm not sure what distinction you're making. As far as I'm concerned
feelings=emotions.
Brent which of the following portray 'feelings' and which portray
'emotions':
I have a ( ) my uranium shares might go up soon
On 24/10/2008, at 5:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
There is radical brain-chemistry change of state under emotions
They have a physical effect on the organism having them that can be
spotted easily by a 3rd party
Feelings are mildly intellectual sensations of value that we have
that
give
Why do we have emotions? Aren't simple, value-conferring feelings good
enough or something?
Through adaption to the environment (non evolutionary), the human
brain grows to become a much more complex systems than what could be
encoded in the genotype. Lets just say that the Kolomogorv
On 24/10/2008, at 6:33 PM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I believe emotions are very basic things. Just strong, overriding,
biological responses. I'm sure animals have them too.
Without doubt
animals are all 'on the make' - without emotions you cannot have any
'leverage' over your kind
How
2008/10/24 Kim Jones [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
On 24/10/2008, at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
I'm not sure what distinction you're making. As far as I'm concerned
feelings=emotions.
Brent which of the following portray 'feelings' and which portray
'emotions':
I have a ( ) my uranium shares
. The knowledge gathered in this process allows us, for
example, to build better tools. I believe there's an interplay between
biological and social evolution (the Baldwin effect). As society
becomes more and more complex, new emotions evolve to guide the
adaption of its individuals.
Artists love
Kim Jones wrote:
On 24/10/2008, at 5:47 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
There is radical brain-chemistry change of state under emotions
They have a physical effect on the organism having them that can be
spotted easily by a 3rd party
Feelings are mildly intellectual sensations of value that we
Absolutely, I don't think anyone could question this. Sensations are so
filtered and processed that the sensorium we experience is pretty much just
an elaborate fabrication of the brain... and no perception,
memory-association or thought comes naked into our qualia - they all have
some emotional
On 24/10/2008, at 9:14 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
I'm suggesting that emotions are tethered to survival need and
protection of values etc.
There is radical brain-chemistry change of state under emotions
They have a physical effect on the organism having them that can be
spotted
. Maybe there isn't even a word to describe it.
Why some seize the artist's brush and some compose music etc.
It's the low-level energy of feelings that permits exploration of
values and concepts, whereas emotions are for decision-time and action
in the big nasty and deceptive world, the world where
to respond now. :) For now I'll just say I have a
background in psychology and computer science engineering.
Emotions are primarily useful as an adaptive decision-making
heuristic. If you had to act only on rational information, you could
take forever to make a decision, and have difficulty
eventually but because this is interesting
to me, I wanted to respond now. :) For now I'll just say I have a
background in psychology and computer science engineering.
Emotions are primarily useful as an adaptive decision-making
heuristic. If you had to act only on rational information, you could
emotion. They
just can't fake it forever, because their contrition doesn't ring true after
the third act of arson.
Yes - but you can - using the power of your own mind - suppress your
emotions which is a kind of 'faking it' ie
I'm not certain I agree. I think you can suppress awareness of your
. In those of us with a functioning frontal lobe, the
emotions are
still there under the surface and still direct action when
inhibition is not
logically called for.
Of particular interest, this. I believe this is why I am suggesting we
get more 'canny' about emotions.
You can perhaps rely
Kim Jones wrote:
Admittedly a bit off-topic but hey - there are some great minds on this
list and it could give birth to something relevant. There! ;-D
Why do we have emotions? Aren't simple, value-conferring feelings good
enough or something? Emotions cause a host of extraordinary
On 24/10/2008, at 4:14 PM, Brent Meeker wrote:
I'm not sure what distinction you're making. As far as I'm concerned
feelings=emotions.
Brent which of the following portray 'feelings' and which portray
'emotions':
I have a ( ) my uranium shares might go up soon
I have a ( ) it might
At this stage you should try to be specific about the reasons why an
hardware independent isomorphism cannot exist, or perhaps you are
just saying that first person feeling would not be genuine if they
were not related to some 'physical reality' in which case I could
agree
I feel we're
Le 28-juil.-06, à 22:15, David Nyman a écrit :
snip (a bit unclear sorry)
In your comments above you refer to Platonism. It seems clear that if
we are to regard mathematics or comp as having the kind of 'efficacy'
(sorry, but what word would you prefer?), then we must indeed grant
them
Le 29-juil.-06, à 18:23, David Nyman a écrit :
No doctor! Or rather, it depends what you mean by 'what really
describes me'. What I have argued is that, at the 'physical' level of
description, running a hardware-independent computation could never
'really describe me' in one of the main
Le 27-juil.-06, à 03:21, David Nyman a écrit :
Mmmmhh This sounds a little bit too much idealist for me. Numbers
exist with some logic-mathematical priority, and then self-intimacy
should emerge from many complex relations among numbers. Also, the
many
universes (both with comp and/or
Le 24-juil.-06, à 04:23, David Nyman a écrit :
Bruno: And this is perhaps the very root of a possible disagreement.
I would
not compare mathematical with tautological, nor with
conventional. This should be clear after the Godelian fall of
logicism. We know today that even just the
Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then if you take your theory seriously enough you will be lead to
Chalmers or Penrose sort of theory which needs actual non Turing
emulable stuff to make singular your experience or even local nature.
I don't see why.
The idea that computation can't lead to what you
to be robustly isomorphic with a
unique physical constitution, howsoever this arrangement may be
described externally in 'informational' terms.
Computers also are physical objects and hence the question of whether
they experience emotions or other conscious states must be referred
empirically
37 matches
Mail list logo
