On 2/20/08, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On 21/02/2008, John Ku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > By the way, I think this whole tangent was actually started by Richard
> > misinterpreting Lanier's argument (though quite understandabl
On 2/20/08, Stan Nilsen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It seems that when philosophy is implemented it becomes like nuclear
> physics e.g. break down all the things we essentially understand until
> we come up with pieces, which we give names to, and then admit we don't
> know what the names identi
On 2/18/08, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> By the way, Lanier's idea is not original. Hilary Putnam, John Searle,
> Tim Maudlin, Greg Egan, Hans Moravec, David Chalmers (see the paper
> cited by Kaj Sotola in the original thread -
> http://consc.net/papers/rock.html) have all con
On 2/17/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Nevertheless we can make similar reductions to absurdity with respect to
> qualia, that which distinguishes you from a philosophical zombie. There is no
> experiment to distinguish whether you actually experience redness when you see
> a red o
On 2/17/08, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> If computation is multiply realizable, it could be seen as being
> implemented by an endless variety of physical systems, with the right
> mapping or interpretation, since anything at all could be arbitrarily
> chosen to represent a tape
On 2/17/08, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> In the final extrapolation of this idea it becomes clear that if any
> computation can be mapped onto any physical system, the physical
> system is superfluous and the computation resides in the mapping, an
> abstract mathematical object
On 2/16/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I would prefer to leave behind these counterfactuals altogether and
> > try to use information theory and control theory to achieve a precise
> > understanding of what it is for something to be the standard(s) in
> > terms of which we are abl
On 2/16/08, Matt Mahoney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I believe his target is the existence of consciousness. There are many proofs
> showing that the assumption of consciousness leads to absurdities, which I
> have summarized at http://www.mattmahoney.net/singularity.html
> In mathematics, it sh
On 2/15/08, Eric B. Ramsay <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I don't know when Lanier wrote the following but I would be interested to
> know what the AI folks here think about his critique (or direct me to a
> thread where this was already discussed). Also would someone be able to
> re-state his rain
ny topics.
The fact that much disagreement persists because of thse sorts of reasons
shouldn't make us despair or doubt that we have good methods for getting at
the truth.
John Ku
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
try to overcome to whatever extent possible), then great, it sounds
like we don't really have much of a disagreement, except perhaps on some
details.
John Ku
On 5/27/07, Samantha Atkins <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
It was not perhaps so simple as you are portraying it. There
lutely
absurd! Yet it's frustrating how many people seem to make that sort of
error. Our genes programmed us to have various direct concerns. A mother
will for instance directly care about her offspring, not care about her
offspring in order to promote the human species or her own genes.
John Ku
--
with conflicts in people's reasons.
John Ku
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
paper that will hopefully be fairly accessible to
non-philosophers:
http://www.umich.edu/~jsku/reasons.html
John Ku
-
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=4007604&user_secret=7d7fb4d8
I argued previously that inflationary cosmology and its successes give us
good reason to think there is probably a multiverse that spawns 10^37 *more*
universes every second. I think Kurzweil has argued that there probably have
not been any other singularities elsewhere in the universe already and
Does anyone know what Bill Gates thinks about the singularity? (Or for that
matter, other great philanthropists.) On Kurzweil's "The Singularity is
Near" (paperback edition), he has a blurb saying Kurzweil is "The best
person I know at predicting the future of artificial intelligence." He also
has
Shane,
It still seems decidedly odd to me to call AIXI intelligent. For similar
reasons, I wouldn't call a program that generates all possible strings of
characters, sometimes randomly producing a literary masterpiece, artistic or
creative. While I'm sympathetic to a functional account of these c
Shane,
Thanks for the thoughtful response. If something like infinite computation
were feasible, I would agree with you that we should aim more at that than
intelligence. I personally do have a very theoretical bent, but that does
have its limits. :)
However, it appears that infinite computation
On 3/5/07, Stathis Papaioannou <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
You seem to be equating intelligence with consciousness. Ned Block also
seems to do this in his original paper. I would prefer to reserve
"intelligence" for third person observable behaviour, which would make the
Blockhead intelligent, a
On 3/4/07, Ben Goertzel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Richard, I long ago proposed a working definition of intelligence as
"Achieving complex goals in complex environments." I then went through
a bunch of trouble to precisely define all the component terms of that
definition; you can consult the
On 3/3/07, Charles D Hixson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, I see no valid argument asserting that this is not a simulation
fiction that some other entity is experiencing. And there's no
guarantee that sometime soon he won't "put down the book". But this
assumption yields no valid guide as to
be a he.)
Ku
http://www.umich.edu/~jsku
On 3/2/07, gts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 03:25:58 -0500, John Ku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Skeptics are fond of pointing out that no non-circular argument can be
> given to support inductive reasoning. That is tr
ke to confuse a basic *rule of inference* like deduction or induction
with another *premise* that needs to be justified.
-Ku
http://www.umich.edu/~jsku
On 3/2/07, Mitchell Porter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>From: "John Ku" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>I actually think there
le simulating other stuff we don't observe at a higher level of
description? I guess there's lots of tricky issues here. I'd better stop
here and see if anyone else cares to try and make some headway.
-Ku
On 3/1/07, John Ku <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Hi everyone! I just joi
observers who share our evidence
set about our history, evolution, etc., there will be many more universes in
which we were the first civilization to evolve than in which we came
significantly after some other civilization.
John Ku
Philosophy Graduate Student
University of Michigan
http://www.umich.edu/~
25 matches
Mail list logo
