Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

You've said this before, although you haven't come out and actually said there is no such thing as first person experience. The only way I can think of to use third person data to gain first person knowledge, aside from using it to guess how close it is to your own first person experience, is to ac

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/22/07, *Mark Peaty* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: ... > The idea of the Turing test is that "an algorithmic implementation of > rules" will give the required "degree of spontaneous creativity". If you > don't believe in this, the

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/22/07, *Brent Meeker* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > A patient says that his leg is paralysed, behaves as if his leg is > > paralysed, but the clinical signs and investigations ar

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/22/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stathis: > > > "Stathis [from the other posting again]: 'There is good reason to > > believe that the third person observable behaviour of the brain can be > > emulated, because the brain is just chemical reactions and chemistry is a > > well-

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/22/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > A patient says that his leg is paralysed, behaves as if his leg is > > paralysed, but the clinical signs and investigations are not consistent > > with a paralysed leg. The diagnosis of hysterical paralysis is mad

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/22/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > >But some patients claim to hear voices with none of the "correct" > psychotic > >features; similarly, they have "delusions" without the classic features > of > >paranoid delusions, which do not respond to antip

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >But some patients claim to hear voices with none of the "correct" psychotic >features; similarly, they have "delusions" without the classic features of >paranoid delusions, which do not respond to antipsychotic treatment. But wouldn't it also be true that a person hyp

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

I was referring to my own clinical observation treating psychiatric patients. Patients with schizophrenia undoubtedly have perceptions in the absence of stimuli: they have certain stereotypical features which make them instantly recognisable, get better with antipsychotics and fMRI studies show tha

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >On 2/21/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > > > > >It is a complicated issue. Patients with psychotic illnesses can > > sometimes > > >reflect on a past episode and see that they were unwell then even >though >

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/21/07, *Jesse Mazer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > >It is a complicated issue. Patients with psychotic illnesses can > sometimes > >reflect on a past episo

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Jesse, you differentiate between 'real' (I think you refer to physically measureable) and 'hallucinatorally (excuse for the substitute vocabulary) ((visual)) input to the mind. I wonder if it is right: we acknowledge an nth transformation result of inputs reaching the "understanding" organ (whateve

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis: "Stathis [from the other posting again]: 'There is good reason to believe that the third person observable behaviour of the brain can be emulated, because the brain is just chemical reactions and chemistry is a well-understood field.' MP: Once again it depends what

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/21/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > > > >It is a complicated issue. Patients with psychotic illnesses can > sometimes > >reflect on a past episode and see that they were unwell then even though > >they insisted they were not at the time. They th

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > >It is a complicated issue. Patients with psychotic illnesses can sometimes >reflect on a past episode and see that they were unwell then even though >they insisted they were not at the time. They then might say something >like, >"I don't know I'm unwell when I'm u

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/21/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > >On 2/20/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >I would bet on functionalism as the correct theory of mind for > various > > > >reasons, but I don't see that there is anything illogical

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

They're completely blind, walking into things and falling over. They insist that they see things and they confabulate, claiming that they see tables and chairs if they believe they are in a dining room, that they can see the face of someone they know when they are talking to them, and so on. It is

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/21/07, Brent Meeker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A human with an intact brain behaving like an awake human could not > > really be a zombie unless you believe in magic. However, it is possible > > to conceive of intelligently-behaving beings who do not have an internal > > life because they l

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >On 2/20/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > > >I would bet on functionalism as the correct theory of mind for various > > >reasons, but I don't see that there is anything illogical the >possibility > > >that consciousness is substrate-dependent. Let'

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 19-févr.-07, à 20:14, Brent Meeker a écrit : > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> >>> Le 18-févr.-07, à 13:57, Mark Peaty a écrit : >>> >>> My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable >>> assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypoth

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/20/07, *Jesse Mazer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > > >I would bet on functionalism as the correct theory of mind for various > >reasons, but I don't see that there is anything illogical the > possibility >

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Le 19-févr.-07, à 20:14, Brent Meeker a écrit : > > Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> Le 18-févr.-07, à 13:57, Mark Peaty a écrit : >> >> My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable >> assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis, >> wherein it is a

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > > On 2/20/07, *Mark Peaty* <[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > wrote: > > Stathis:'Would any device that can create a representation of the > world, itself and the relationship between the world and itself be > conscious?' > > MP: We

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/20/07, Jesse Mazer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >I would bet on functionalism as the correct theory of mind for various > >reasons, but I don't see that there is anything illogical the possibility > >that consciousness is substrate-dependent. Let's say that when you rub > two > >carbon ato

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/20/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stathis:'Would any device that can create a representation of the world, > itself and the relationship between the world and itself be conscious?' > > MP: Well that, in a nutshell, is how I understand it; with the proviso > that it is dynamic: tha

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/20/07, John Mikes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Stathis (barging in to your post to Mark); > Your premis is redundant, a limited model (machine) cannot be (act, > perform, sense, react etc.) identical to the total it was cut out from. So > you cannot prove it either. As i GOT the difference lat

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

ason > > To: Everything List > > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:42 AM > > Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error > > > On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECT

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

>I would bet on functionalism as the correct theory of mind for various >reasons, but I don't see that there is anything illogical the possibility >that consciousness is substrate-dependent. Let's say that when you rub two >carbon atoms together they have a scratchy experience, whereas when you ru

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > Le 18-févr.-07, à 13:57, Mark Peaty a écrit : > > My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable > assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis, > wherein it is assumed that it must be possible to digitally emulate >

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On Feb 19, 7:50 am, "John M" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Pls see after Jason's remark > John > > - Original Message - > From: Jason > To: Everything List > Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:42 AM > Subject: Re: Searles' Fu

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis:'Would any device that can create a representation of the world, itself and the relationship between the world and itself be conscious?' MP: Well that, in a nutshell, is how I understand it; with the proviso that it is dynamic: that all representations of all salient features and relati

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Stathis (barging in to your post to Mark); Your premis is redundant, a limited model (machine) cannot be (act, perform, sense, react etc.) identical to the total it was cut out from. So you cannot prove it either. As i GOT the difference lately, so I would use 'simulated' instead of 'emulated' if

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Pls see after Jason's remark John - Original Message - From: Jason To: Everything List Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:42 AM Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > O

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Le 18-févr.-07, à 13:57, Mark Peaty a écrit : > My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable > assumptions to be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis, > wherein it is assumed that it must be possible to digitally emulate > some or all of a person's body/brain funct

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: MP: Well at least I can say now that I have some inkling of what 'machine's > theology' means. However, as far as I can see it is inherent in the nature > of consciousness to reify something. I have not seen anywhere a refutation > of my favoured u

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/19/07, Jason <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > You can't prove that a machine will be conscious in the same way you > are. > > There is good reason to believe that the third person observable > behaviour > > of the brain can

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On Feb 18, 5:46 pm, "Stathis Papaioannou" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable assumptions to > > > be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis, wherein it is assumed > > that it mu

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On 2/18/07, Mark Peaty <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: My main problem with Comp is that it needs several unprovable assumptions to > be accepted. For example the Yes Doctor hypothesis, wherein it is assumed > that it must be possible to digitally emulate some or all of a person's > body/brain function

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

As I wrote in my response to Russell Standish: * I think [Russell's] 'kicks back' = physical = measurable in some way, and * I think 'exists' is a generic, irreducible, ultimate value. In fact it is THE generic, irreducible, ultimate value and it underlies mathematical ob

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

My apologies if my replying seems a bit slow. I *have* been thinking about these things though. I thought to try and make excuses, but really all that is necessary, amongst ethical correspondents anyway, is a forthright confession of mental inadequacy, n'est ce pas? :-) I think 'kicks back' =

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

ang fable - and consider our > > universe from BB to dissipation, the entire history, as evolution. > > > H. To be sure comp is not enough developed so as to say > anything precise on the big bang, but it is hard to believe the big > bang could be a "beginning", with comp. > &

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

uperstitions. I'm not sure why. Bruno >   > I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions. >   > John M >   > and let me join Angelica [Rugrat](???) >   >> - Original Message - >> From: Mark Peaty >> To: everything-list@google

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Le 07-févr.-07, à 18:06, Torgny Tholerus a écrit : > Mark Peaty skrev: And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? > > > Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility.  That is why our > Universe exists.  Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the > same way.  But we can not get in touch w

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Le 07-févr.-07, à 17:34, Mark Peaty a écrit : > Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have > understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having > figure this out by themselves.' > > MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to > understand 'it

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On Wed, Feb 07, 2007 at 06:10:34PM -0500, John M wrote: > > I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions. > > John M > My take on physical and existence. Physical: that which "kicks back" in the Samuel Johnson sense. It doesn't rule out idealism, because the virtual reality in a VR simula

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

olution. I am nowhere ready to outline these superstitions. I can't wait for Bruno's (and others') versions. John M and let me join Angelica [Rugrat](???) - Original Message - From: Mark Peaty To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 0

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

By who's logic? John M - Original Message - From: Torgny Tholerus To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 1:35 PM Subject: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error Brent Meeker skrev: > Torgny Tholerus wrote: > >

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Torgny Tholerus wrote: > Brent Meeker skrev: >> Torgny Tholerus wrote: >> >>> Mark Peaty skrev: >>> And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? >>> 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'. >>> >>> Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our U

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Brent Meeker skrev: > Torgny Tholerus wrote: > >> Mark Peaty skrev: >> >>> And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? >>> >> 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'. >> >> Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe >> exists. Every mathema

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Torgny Tholerus wrote: > Mark Peaty skrev: >> And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? > 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'. > > Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility. That is why our Universe > exists. Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way.

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Mark Peaty skrev: And next: what do you mean by 'exist'? 'Exist' is exactly the same as 'mathematical possibility'. Our Universe is a mathemathical possibility.  That is why our Universe exists.  Every mathematically possible Universe exists in the same way.  But we can not get in touch

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Bruno: 'Dont hesitate to ask why, I am sure few people have understand the whole point. Some are close to it, perhaps by having figure this out by themselves.' MP: Don't look at me boss ... I'm just glad I don't have to understand 'it' to be able to exist within it! SO, yes I will ask: What do

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Hi Mark, Le 03-févr.-07, à 17:12, Mark Peaty a écrit : > > John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look > at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in > the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly > prior to anything e

RE: Searles' Fundamental Error

l, as there is a difference in kind between zero and a very small number or infinity and a very large number. Stathis PapaioannouDate: Sun, 4 Feb 2007 01:12:42 +0900From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Re: Searles' Fundamental Error John, I share your apparent perplexit

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Mark, a profound THANKS! I did not reflect lately to your posts (good for you?) because you seemed to merge into the topics on hand. Descartes? a funny story. He was under the thumb of the Inquisition-times and HAD to write idealistically. My version is not so humble as yours: "I think, therefore

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

John, I share your apparent perplexity. No matter which way up I look at the things being discussed on this list, I always end up back in the same place [and yes it is always 'here' :-] which is that clearly prior to anything else is the fact of existence. I have to take this at too levels: 1/

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error (was: rep: rep: the meaning of life)

Bruno: has anybody ever seen "numbers"? (except for Aunt Milly who dreamed up the 5 numbers she saw in her dream - for the lottery). "Where is the universe" - good question, but: Has anybody ever seen "Other" universes? Have we learned or developed (advanced) NOTHING since Pl & Ar? It is amazin

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:34:41 Brent Meeker wrote: > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:28:07 Brent Meeker wrote: > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit : > On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le 23-jan

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Quentin Anciaux wrote: > On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:34:41 Brent Meeker wrote: >> Quentin Anciaux wrote: >>> On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:28:07 Brent Meeker wrote: Bruno Marchal wrote: > Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit : >> On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:34:41 Brent Meeker wrote: > Quentin Anciaux wrote: > > On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:28:07 Brent Meeker wrote: > >> Bruno Marchal wrote: > >>> Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit : > On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Le 23-jan

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Quentin Anciaux wrote: > On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:28:07 Brent Meeker wrote: >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit : On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit : >> Bruno Marchal wrote: >>> Also,

RE: Searles' Fundamental Error

Brent Meeker wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Where is the universe? > > Here. > And here (in this machine) too, of course. I thought I would just pop in and also say that I very much appreciated your recent post, Brent, where you made some very good points including the one about amoebas ha

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

On Thursday 01 February 2007 19:28:07 Brent Meeker wrote: > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit : > >> On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>> Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit : > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Also, nobody has proved the exi

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error

Bruno Marchal wrote: > > Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit : > >> >> >> On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit : >>> >>> >>> Bruno Marchal wrote: > Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical > universe.

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error (was: rep: rep: the meaning of life)

Le 29-janv.-07, à 21:33, 1Z a écrit : > > > > On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit : >> >> >> >>> Bruno Marchal wrote: >> Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical universe. >> >>> Or of a PlatoniaCall it

Re: Searles' Fundamental Error (was: rep: rep: the meaning of life)

On 24 Jan, 11:42, Bruno Marchal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit : > > > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > > >> Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical > >> universe. > > > Or of a PlatoniaCall it Platonia, God, Universe, or Glass-of-Beer, we don'

Searles' Fundamental Error (was: rep: rep: the meaning of life)

Le 23-janv.-07, à 15:59, 1Z a écrit : > > > Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> Also, nobody has proved the existence of a primitive physical >> universe. > > Or of a Platonia Call it Platonia, God, Universe, or Glass-of-Beer, we don' t care. But we have to bet on a "reality", if we want some progre