Chip with simple program for Toy

[Kevin Aylward]

Bob Myers wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:4yfMh.12668$7l1.7957@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

No we dont have free will. Trivial logic shows that this is the case.

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/freewill.html


Hmmmm...very interesting argument, Kevin. Not to further
hijack the thread into a philosophical discussion, but...oh, what
the hell, a philosophical discussion will be a whole lot more fun
than what we typically discuss around here....

I like, and to a very large extent agree with, your comments and
logical argument re the notion of "free will." However, from a
practical perspective, does it really make much difference? If it
APPEARS TO US that we have free will, and certainly if along
with that it appears to everyone else that we have free will, then I
would suggest that there is no difference between the conclusion
of your argument ("we do not in reality have free will") and the
belief that we do, in practical terms. (I.e., there is no impact on
our behavior in either case.) It would seem to me that the only
practical definition of "free will" would be something along the lines
of saying that the response of a given individual to a given set of
stimuli cannot be predicted with certainty - whether we attribute
this to "true free will" (whatever that might be) or some level of
randomness in the workings of our brains makes no practical
difference, either as we ourselves perceive our behavior or as it
is seen by those around us.

Yes.

There is an entity, that behaves in everyway, indistinguishable and "as if"
it has free will. that is, the, in principle, random component of the human
machine makes this so. Yes, the fact that my consciousness is no more than a
VDU of the electro-chemical machine, has little baring on how "I" conduct
this illusionary life of "mine". I pretend that I have a choice, err that
is, the electro-chemical machine does...

Well, if your interested, I also have, what I consider a proof that
consciousness is not derivable from physics. Its summarised by, if you are
unconscious can you "understand" anything? So, to "understand" one must be
conscious. Therefore "understanding" consciousness itself requires
consciousness in its explanation. This is a circular argument, and hence,
any understanding can be shown to be valid, hence, there is no way to chose
which particular understanding of consciousness is the correct one.

http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/thehardproblem.html

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:25:01 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
<jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:20:57 -0700, MassiveProng
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Fuck off, then die in any order you want.

You are still infantile as ever. Oh, well. Meanwhile, please check
with someone other than your dad about M80's and where their oxygen
comes from. You may learn something.

Jon

wasting your time Jon.

MP has a habit of arguin about stuff when he think he knows how it
works and then demonstrates (by spouting this "knowledge") that he
actually knows close to nothing at all... if you can get a word in
edgeways, ask him about PIN security ) he was publicly slaughtered
on that one - I was a bit cruel, drawing him into making absolute
statements then producing an MSc written doc that shows how it all
really works.

While the tit-for-tat is amusing for a while I am certain you will
tire of it shortly.

all the best

H

 

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 19:08:48 -0700, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 02:03:52 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> Gave us:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:54:55 -0700, MassiveProng
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

snip
I am fully aware of how they are constructed, and why there IS
airspace in them.
snip

You still abundantly proved you know nothing about their chemistry to
everyone. You still are in serious need of almost any education.

Best of luck with your infantile insults, which are at least at a
level consistent with your science knowledge.



I would bet right now, fucktard, that you do not even know what is
in one. (the old, out of production REAL versions, not the SHIT out
there today).

"bangy stuff"?

BTW sinced you like to lecture people on usenet etiquette...

STOP FUCKING CROSS-POSTING TO ALT.WORLD.PLUS.DOG!!!!

 

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 07:36:00 -0700, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

I do. It was the same silver powder used for photography. Very
fast burn, very bright flash. The fireworks folks still use it in
almost everything. It is called flash powder.

he he... "Flash powder" lol!

 

[Jonathan Kirwan]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:11:25 +0000, feebo wrote:

On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:25:01 GMT, Jonathan Kirwan
jkirwan@easystreet.com> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 18:20:57 -0700, MassiveProng
MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

Fuck off, then die in any order you want.

You are still infantile as ever. Oh, well. Meanwhile, please check
with someone other than your dad about M80's and where their oxygen
comes from. You may learn something.

Jon

wasting your time Jon.

MP has a habit of arguin about stuff when he think he knows how it
works and then demonstrates (by spouting this "knowledge") that he
actually knows close to nothing at all... if you can get a word in
edgeways, ask him about PIN security ) he was publicly slaughtered
on that one - I was a bit cruel, drawing him into making absolute
statements then producing an MSc written doc that shows how it all
really works.

Doesn't surprise me. Thanks.

While the tit-for-tat is amusing for a while I am certain you will
tire of it shortly.

Yes.

all the best

Thanks,
Jon

 

[Bob Myers]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:EbgMh.12714$Lz4.5771@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

Well, if your interested, I also have, what I consider a proof that
consciousness is not derivable from physics. Its summarised by, if you are
unconscious can you "understand" anything? So, to "understand" one must be
conscious. Therefore "understanding" consciousness itself requires
consciousness in its explanation. This is a circular argument, and hence,
any understanding can be shown to be valid, hence, there is no way to
chose which particular understanding of consciousness is the correct one.

I am not sure that the above is a valid argument without
a much better definition of just what is meant by "understanding."
If the term "understanding" itself implies a consciousness, then
"to understand one must be conscious" is effectively a tautology.
However, if "understanding" really means "to have an internally
consistent and sufficient model to explain X," then consciousness
is clearly NOT required for an "understanding" of consciousness,
any more than it is impossible for one to have a book which
explains how to print books.

"Consciousness" itself is a term for which we have yet to show
a consensus definition; we all "know" that we ourselves are
conscious, but I have no way I know of of truly demonstrating
that anyone OTHER THAN myself is conscious other than
what amounts to a Turing test - if the being I am interacting with
behaves in a manner that I think is consistent with "consciousness,"
then my most prudent course of action is to assume that this
individual IS "conscious." But this, of course, is far from
an objective proof that consciousness in others exists, and
I clearly cannot directly experience the consciousness of another.
This equates to saying that I have direct experience of, and therefore
must accept the existence, of ONE example of a conscious
entity - myself - but cannot truly show it to exist elsewhere.

If this is true, however, then I also have no means of truly
distinguishing a "conscious" entity from some other which is
intelligent but not conscious; an artificial being, for example.
So again from any practical perspective, I would also have to
acknowledge a sufficiently sophisticated artificial intelligence -
one capable of reliably passing the Turing test - as a fully
"conscious" entity to the same degree that I recognize any
human being as such. But such an artificial being would clearly
be driven by purely physical mechanisms (unless its creator
could show the point at which a "soul" had been installed,
somewhere in the production process...), and therefore
we would have to conclude that "consciousness" in a
practical sense IS derivable from "physics," or at the very
least could be in this particular case.

Arguments that no such being (a Turing-capable machine)
has been demonstrated to date have, of couse, absolutely no
bearing on the question of whether such a being is POSSIBLE.

Bob M.

 

yeah I'm with you... top posting is much better.


On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 13:11:29 GMT, "MassiveProng"
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

seeing how it works

"MassiveProng" <grampajack@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:v2RLh.9342$282.509@trndny04...
just exploring the workings of the system.

"MassiveProng" <grampajack@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:W_QLh.2282$zN.456@trndny03...
testing

"MassiveProng" <MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in
message news:ucguv2l01do9c3tfqceo7o31mpse4titpk@4ax.com...
On Tue, 20 Mar 2007 01:55:57 GMT, "Jack" <grampajack@verizon.net> Gave
us:




Other than just pig-headed stubbornness, is there any reason why you
top-post?

I work in an environment where a very large amount of communication is
done
via email between a very large number of people in a Fortune 500 company
and
everyone top posts. It just seems right to us. I was not trying to be
difficult. I was only ignorant of your adamancy.



This is NOT email, and you should use something OTHER than Outhouse
Express to read your news with, and post from.

Google "News Client".

 

On Mon, 19 Mar 2007 02:22:02 -0700, MassiveProng
<MassiveProng@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Mar 2007 20:20:42 GMT, Idontthinkso@nospam.com (mojo) Gave
us:


some people dont want to have to scroll every msg down to the second page
to read the response .. !!


Lazy fucktard. Get out of Usenet then you retarded fuck.

you own it then? - you own shit.

 

[Kevin Aylward]

Bob Myers wrote:

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:EbgMh.12714$Lz4.5771@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...

Well, if your interested, I also have, what I consider a proof that
consciousness is not derivable from physics. Its summarised by, if
you are unconscious can you "understand" anything? So, to
"understand" one must be conscious. Therefore "understanding"
consciousness itself requires consciousness in its explanation. This
is a circular argument, and hence, any understanding can be shown to
be valid, hence, there is no way to chose which particular
understanding of consciousness is the correct one.

I am not sure that the above is a valid argument

Oh...

without
a much better definition of just what is meant by "understanding."

Thats the point.

If the term "understanding" itself implies a consciousness,

Of course it does. Thats trivial, but one that seems to have been missed by
many.

then
"to understand one must be conscious" is effectively a tautology.

Yes. Thats the point. There is no way to define understanding without
refering it back to consciousness.

However, if "understanding" really means "to have an internally
consistent and sufficient model to explain X,"

You are missing the point. What do you mean by "explain"?

Please, explain "explain" without referring to itself. Like, explain means
to give an understanding..like. you know...when you are aware of something
that clicks in your brain..well, what do you mean by "aware"...etc. Its all
circular. Turtules all the way down...

The point here is that people have simple ignored what the words themselves
mean when it comes to explaining consciousness. In any other aspect, we
assume we know what words mean, but we can't here, because words are only
"understood" with consciousness. We don't have the basic tools to
independently analyse consciousness without using consciousness itself for
those tools. Its that simple really. Amazing that this simple fact has been
missed. Its only in dealing with consciousness that we *have* to ask these
questions. That's, why no one did before. How do we perceive a words
meaning? what do we mean by perceive? what do we mean by mean? Its never
ending. Its the route of all the failures to "understand" consciousness.
Again, its truly that simple. we have no independent tools of analysis for
consciousness, thats why it intrinsically cannot be explained from simpler
principles.

then consciousness
is clearly NOT required for an "understanding" of consciousness,
any more than it is impossible for one to have a book which
explains how to print books.

Analogy doesn't hold.

"Consciousness" itself is a term for which we have yet to show
a consensus definition; we all "know" that we ourselves are
conscious, but I have no way I know of of truly demonstrating
that anyone OTHER THAN myself is conscious other than

That's correct.

what amounts to a Turing test - if the being I am interacting with
behaves in a manner that I think is consistent with "consciousness,"
then my most prudent course of action is to assume that this
individual IS "conscious." But this, of course, is far from
an objective proof that consciousness in others exists,

Absolute proofs are essentially, not possible, proofs are relative to
deductions from axioms.

My arguments for the existance of consciousness in others is via:

1 No magic axiom http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/magic.html
2 Physical structure of all brains are the simular.
3 Measured brain responses are the simular.

and
I clearly cannot directly experience the consciousness of another.
This equates to saying that I have direct experience of, and therefore
must accept the existence, of ONE example of a conscious
entity - myself - but cannot truly show it to exist elsewhere.

If this is true, however, then I also have no means of truly
distinguishing a "conscious" entity from some other which is
intelligent but not conscious; an artificial being, for example.

Correct.

And the root of this problem is that it is quite impossible to define
consciousness without referring to that consciousness in the explanation.

its all aware->know->understand->conscious->aware etc.

Type circular arguments. That's it really. Its the circular aspects that
makes it all fall down.

So again from any practical perspective, I would also have to
acknowledge a sufficiently sophisticated artificial intelligence -
one capable of reliably passing the Turing test - as a fully
"conscious" entity to the same degree that I recognize any
human being as such. But such an artificial being would clearly
be driven by purely physical mechanisms

Not sure on the "but" here. We are all driven by purely physical mechanisms.

(unless its creator
could show the point at which a "soul" had been installed,
somewhere in the production process...), and therefore
we would have to conclude that "consciousness" in a
practical sense IS derivable from "physics," or at the very
least could be in this particular case.

That's not what is meant by derivable by physics.

Clearly, my "no magic axiom", means that consciousness is indeed a part of
physics in the sense that, whatever it is, it is strictly the result of the
physical structure in the brain. However, it is a new axiom of physics.

By derivable, it is meant, that it logically follows from known laws of
physics.

For example, both the shrodinger equation and the constant of light
postulate are not derivable from prior physics. We don't state that the
constant speed of light is not part of physics because we cannot deduce it
from other laws, we simply introduce it as a new law, and derive new
results from that new axiom. Consciousness is another new law of physics.
It is part of physics, but can not be reduced (explained by) to something
prior in physics. Nothing can explain qualia.

Arguments that no such being (a Turing-capable machine)
has been demonstrated to date have, of couse, absolutely no
bearing on the question of whether such a being is POSSIBLE.

My view is that "Zombies" are not possible. That is, something that acts in
every way as a consciousness would, but not be conscious. It is difficult to
give a solid argument for this conjecture, the hint for me is that
understanding can not be defined without introducing consciousness, so a
neither can a Zombie "understand". It seems that "understanding" is required
to solve problems requiring an overall picture view. Unfortunately, this can
not be proved.

Consciousness just seems to be that thing that occurs when sufficiently
complex systems interact.

Just for referance, the first Zombie google referance to hand
http://www.calstatela.edu/faculty/nthomas/zombie-k.htm

--
Kevin Aylward
ka@anasoftEXTRACT.co.uk
www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice

 

[Rich the Newsgroup Wacko]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:11:25 +0000, feebo wrote:

While the tit-for-tat is amusing for a while I am certain you will tire of
it shortly.

A woman had kids, fancy that!
They're triplets named Nat, Pat, and Tat.
'Twas fun in the breeding,
But not in the feeding,
Because there was no tit for Tat!

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 21:27:01 +0000, feebo wrote:

yeah I'm with you... top posting is much better.

Well, that's about what I'd expect from a trollfeeder.

Or are you merely a troll baiter, working your way up from apprentice
baiter, to journeyman baiter, towards Master?

See Ya!
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:01:27 GMT, Rich the Newsgroup Wacko
<wacko@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:11:25 +0000, feebo wrote:

While the tit-for-tat is amusing for a while I am certain you will tire of
it shortly.


A woman had kids, fancy that!
They're triplets named Nat, Pat, and Tat.
'Twas fun in the breeding,
But not in the feeding,
Because there was no tit for Tat!

---
Rotate Larkin's logo 90° CCW.


--
JF

 

[sparky]

On Mar 4, 11:52 pm, lovelyd...@hotmail.com wrote:

My brothers and sisters everywhere! With this essay, I am not singling
out the adherents of Islam - to which I ascribe - but rather I am
writing this essay to every man and woman throughout the whole world.

I ask Allah that He facilitates tat this essay reaches every ear,
falls under the sight of every eye, and is understood by every
heart...

Muhammad the son of `Abdullah is Allah's Prophet and the Final
Messenger Sent by Allah to the Inhabitants of Earth.

My brothers and sisters everywhere! You should know that the
Messenger, Muhammad the son of `Abdullah (may Allah's blessings and
peace be upon him) is Allah's Messenger in reality and truth. The
evidences that show his veracity are abundant. None but an infidel,
who out of arrogance alone, could deny these signs.

Here is a quote from a famous muslims book. he is following in his
bosses footsteps with little girls and boys.

Khomeini's Teachings on sex with infants and animals

Islamic Teachings on sex with infants:

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby.
However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is
harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.
This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives.
The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah
Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"

 

[sparky]

On Mar 7, 2:42 pm, "Homer J Simpson" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:

"Jon Slaughter" <Jon_Slaugh...@Hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:XHtHh.5477$M65.467@newssvr21.news.prodigy.net...

Its like why the fuck do they cover up there womens faces?

If they don't they can tell it isn't a goat they're screwing.

Khomeini's Teachings on sex with infants and animals

Islamic Teachings on sex with infants:

"A man can have sexual pleasure from a child as young as a baby.
However, he should not penetrate. If he penetrates and the child is
harmed then he should be responsible for her subsistence all her life.
This girl, however would not count as one of his four permanent wives.
The man will not be eligible to marry the girl's sister."

The complete Persian text of this saying can be found in "Ayatollah
Khomeini in Tahrirolvasyleh, Fourth Edition, Darol Elm, Qom"



Islamic Teachings on sex with animals:

"The meat of horses, mules, or donkeys is not recommended. It is
strictly forbidden if the animal was sodomized while alive by a man.
In that case, the animal must be taken outside the city and sold."

Editor's notes: I wonder if it is OK to sodomize a dead animal? What
happens if the buyer brings the poor animal back into the city?

"If one commits an act of sodomy with a cow, a ewe, or a camel,
their urine and their excrements become impure, and even their milk
may no longer be consumed. The animal must then be killed as quickly
as possible and burned, and the price of it paid to its owner by him
who sodomized it."

Editor's note: The poor animal first is sodomized and then killed and
burned. What an Islamic justice towards animals? Where are the animal
rights group?

"It is forbidden to consume the excrement of animals or their
nasal secretions. But if such are mixed in minute proportions into
other foods their consumption is not forbidden."

"If a man (God protect him from it!) fornicates with an animal and
ejaculates, ablution is necessary."

 

[MassiveProng]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:11:25 +0000, feebo Gave us:

he was publicly slaughtered
on that one -

You're full of shit. The PIN is on the card, dumbfuck. Your cite
even said so.

Bwuahahahahahaha!

 

[MassiveProng]

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 18:34:33 -0500, John Fields
<jfields@austininstruments.com> Gave us:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 23:01:27 GMT, Rich the Newsgroup Wacko
wacko@example.net> wrote:

On Wed, 21 Mar 2007 20:11:25 +0000, feebo wrote:

While the tit-for-tat is amusing for a while I am certain you will tire of
it shortly.


A woman had kids, fancy that!
They're triplets named Nat, Pat, and Tat.
'Twas fun in the breeding,
But not in the feeding,
Because there was no tit for Tat!

---
Rotate Larkin's logo 90? CCW.

Shows what happens when she doesn't get the hysterectomy soon
enough...

 

[Bob Myers]

"Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylward@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:VChMh.12686$7l1.8261@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net...

You are missing the point. What do you mean by "explain"?

Account for. Describe sufficiently to duplicate. To enable
the creation of a model which performs in a manner at
least similar to, if not identical to, the original.

Please, explain "explain" without referring to itself. Like, explain means
to give an understanding..like. you know...when you are aware of something
that clicks in your brain..well, what do you mean by "aware"...etc. Its
all circular. Turtules all the way down...

Agreed, again IF this all must ultimately refer back to this
notion of "consciousness" which we have yet to define.
MY point was that it is "consciousness" itself which we have
yet to adequately define or describe such that we can truly
speak of it in any meaningful manner. In any and all cases I've
been able to think of, at least, "consciousness" winds up
equating to "that which *I* experience in myself."

Absolute proofs are essentially, not possible, proofs are relative to
deductions from axioms.

I'm not sure I can parse that correctly; did you intend for
a period after "possible" and no comma following
"essentially"?

My arguments for the existance of consciousness in others is via:

1 No magic axiom http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/magic.html
2 Physical structure of all brains are the simular.
3 Measured brain responses are the simular.

Again, I completely agree that the existence of consciousness
in others is the safe way to bet; I was simply assert that since
we cannot directly experience it, we cannot be
"absolutely certain" (whatever THAT really means ) that
it exists.

The problem with the above, of course, will come with #2
and #3, in that should we ever come up with examples of
entities which APPEAR to display sentience/intelligence/
consciousness, and which are NOT humans, then these will
not hold and yet we would not have a truly valid reason for
denying consciousness in these non-human entities.

And the root of this problem is that it is quite impossible to define
consciousness without referring to that consciousness in the explanation.

Yes, in that we cannot define it such that the definition
would in fact indicate that we could KNOW of its
existence in others. As I noted above, the only real definition
that any of us use in practice is "this experience which is going
on inside my own head."

So again from any practical perspective, I would also have to
acknowledge a sufficiently sophisticated artificial intelligence -
one capable of reliably passing the Turing test - as a fully
"conscious" entity to the same degree that I recognize any
human being as such. But such an artificial being would clearly
be driven by purely physical mechanisms

Not sure on the "but" here. We are all driven by purely physical
mechanisms.

Agreed, but there are of course those people who assert
a "supernatural" origin of consciousness/self, or at the very
least would still fall into the mind/body dualist camp. And I at
least thought you had started out with an assertion that a physical
basis for consciousness could not be proven. My point here is
that, should we ever demonstrate the existence of entities as I
describe here (and I believe we will), then this would constitute
an existence proof of that very thing.

(unless its creator
could show the point at which a "soul" had been installed,
somewhere in the production process...), and therefore
we would have to conclude that "consciousness" in a
practical sense IS derivable from "physics," or at the very
least could be in this particular case.

That's not what is meant by derivable by physics.

OK, I have misunderstood your point, then. I am beginning to
suspect that we are actually in what could only be termed
violent agreement...;-)

Clearly, my "no magic axiom", means that consciousness is indeed a part of
physics in the sense that, whatever it is, it is strictly the result of
the physical structure in the brain. However, it is a new axiom of
physics.

By derivable, it is meant, that it logically follows from known laws of
physics.

Ah, I see; but then, while I agree with the "no magic" axoim, I am
not sure that you have truly proven that consciousness could not
be derived from physical laws. IF consciousness has purely physical
origins - and I think we are in agreement that it does - then it should
be derivable. That we have not yet achieved this is evidence that it
may be difficult to do this, but not that it is impossible.

For example, both the shrodinger equation and the constant of light
postulate are not derivable from prior physics. We don't state that the
constant speed of light is not part of physics because we cannot deduce it
from other laws, we simply introduce it as a new law, and derive new
results from that new axiom. Consciousness is another new law of physics.
It is part of physics, but can not be reduced (explained by) to something
prior in physics. Nothing can explain qualia.

I'm not even sure that consciousness, at our present level of
understanding, could be called a "new law of physics" - if it is,
then exactly what IS that law? What does it state? Where is
the "Schroedinger equation" of consciousness? Now it may very
well turn out that this IS the case, that consciousness will wind
up being described by such a fundamental law that it cannot be
derived - but I don't believe that this has yet been shown.

My view is that "Zombies" are not possible. That is, something that acts
in every way as a consciousness would, but not be conscious.

Perhaps, and I might even agree with that view - but I would have
to also acknowledge that I have no solid basis in evidence in
reason for that view, for the simple reason that I cannot PROVE
that even other humans are truly conscious. I assume that they
are, and I can say that I have some fairly good reasons for doing so
- but if "zombies" ARE possible, then by definition I cannot distinguish
them from truly conscious beings, and thus have no way to describe
the difference. Dan Dennett has done some very good work in
addressing this in his books on the nature of consciousness, which
I would wholeheartedly recommend to anyone still reading the
thread at this point...

It is difficult to give a solid argument for this conjecture, the hint for
me is that understanding can not be defined without introducing
consciousness, so a neither can a Zombie "understand". It seems that
"understanding" is required to solve problems requiring an overall picture
view. Unfortunately, this can not be proved.

Agreed, again. This will rapidly become a very dull discussion
if we can't find something to actually argue about...

Consciousness just seems to be that thing that occurs when sufficiently
complex systems interact.

Yes, but then that would imply that it will always (or at least
sufficiently often) will arise when "intelligent" systems become
sufficiently complex. (Which is, of course, a time-honored
mainstay of science-fiction stories involving AI, as in the
Gospels According To St. Heinlein & St. Asimov....) And
should that happen, we will then have the aforementioned
existence proof of consciousness arising from purely physical
mechanisms. Which, at this point, I realize we are in agreement
on, but it's pleasing to note that that would (or at least SHOULD,
if only we lived in a just and rational universe) put the final nail
in the coffin of the "supernatural" assertions regarding the self.
I don't actually expect it to, of course, since such beliefs are
inherently non-rational, but it will at least at that point provide
the rest of us with the added entertainment of that camp trying
to show us where HAL 9000's soul came from....;-)

It's been a fun discussion, but I suspect we've reached or are
rapidly approaching the end of having much more ground to
cover.

Bob M.

 

[RichD]

On Mar 20, Rich the Philosophizer <r...@example.com> wrote:

You have Free Will. You can't get rid of your Free Will, but you can
deny it.

Bzzzzzzz! I'm sorry, our panel of judges does
not accept this answer.

OK, well, check back with me when you've learned to undeny.

You have been programmed to say that.

--
Rich

 

[RichD]

On Mar 19, Bob <bbx107....@excite.XYZ.com> wrote:

You are composed of cells, billions and billions. Each
cell follows the laws of chemistry, immutably - including
your brain cells. They just run along, minimizing the
Gibbs free energy, that's what molecules do.

You are reaching quite incorrect conclusions.
More precisely, you are misrepresenting what the
laws of chemistry say.

Am not.

If we accept the general intent of what you said or
meant to say, it is statistical. The importance of "random"
fluctuations to biology is increasingly appreciated.

Straw man.

Clearly, human behavior is very complex,
probably intractable. And likely, this is due
in large part to thermodynamic fluctuations.
Humans are noisy, messy sytems.

But that doesn't address the free will question.
The brain/mind may be chaotic and
unpredictable, but that doesn't mean you have
free will. You are still a mass of cells, governed
by the laws of chemistry.

I won't address the specifics of "free will". But it is improper to
dismiss it by invoking thermodynamics or such.

It's quite proper, if it is reasonable.

To invoke free will, you must posit a 'mind',
which is somehow acting independently
of cellular activity.

--
Rich

 

[Grostle News]

Hi Jerry, triathlete, you asked for electronic help with your swimming:

I usually find myself off course by a few yards
and need to make corrections.

You might want to look into "Assistive Technology" ....R&D electronics
and software development for gadgets and methods of transducing visual
into tactile (vibration) or audio. For example:

http://www.senderogroup.com/
http://www.cs.unc.edu/Research/assist/bats/index.html

Although the research is meant to assist the blind (or other disabled)
if there is another application for any of these inventions or systems
the developers would probably be interested in experimentation. An
application used in an athletic event would be good PR. Companies and
researchers look for situations where their projects can get in the
public eye and generate interest in funding and grants for research.

Another simple idea using available technology on the shelf might be a
radio transmitter and an ear plug radio receiver. A coach on the beach
could guide you by radio while you are swimming, They could tell you to
go left or right or straight ahead. It might fit into the rules covering
the competition.(or not). In any event, it sounds plausible to me.

g.n.