Chip with simple program for Toy

[Kevin Aylward]

Daryl McCullough wrote:

Kevin Aylward says...

Daryl McCullough wrote:

I think you're misunderstanding the situation. Yes, most people
would assume that a rock is not conscious, and it's a perfectly
sensible thing to do because a rock doesn't *behave* in the way
that typical conscious beings behave. That's typically what people
want to know when they ask "Is that thing conscious?": they want
to know is it paying attention to what's happening, is it noticing
who and what is nearby, will it respond to things being done to it?
Saying "Is it conscious" is *usually* a short-hand for asking such
purely behavioral questions.

That's all we need if we're only asking practical questions. We just
need to know how (and if) an object behaves in response to changing
environment.

However, if you are doing a *philosophical* investigation into
the nature of consciousness, it seems to me that either you want
to say that consciousness is *identical* to behavioral properties
(it's just a name for complex behaviors), or you allow for the
possibility, in principle, of behavior and consciousness not
coinciding. That is, you allow for the possibility of something
behaving as if conscious when it's not, or failing to behave as
if conscious when it actually is. But if you're allowing for this
disconnect between behavior and mentality, then what *is* your
basis for saying that something is or is not conscious?

I think that you really haven't thought enough about these matters.

Ahhhmmmm.....

What can I say other than, not at all. I have looked at this a fair
bit.e.g. http://www.kevinaylward.co.uk/replicators/consciousness.html

I'm not talking, at this point, about your theory of consciousness,

Well, can't say I have a theory as such.

I'm talking about your statement

...it would take a lot to convince anyone that a wind up watch is
conscious.

What it would take to convince the average person is *IRRELEVANT*
to this discussion, because the average person is using the word
"conscious" pragmatically. If you are talking pragmatics, then that
is relevant, but if you're discussing philosophy or science, then
it isn't.

I still don't understand the point you are making. As far as that particular
statement above, it applies to expert philosophys as well, in my view.

Sure, I have no absolute proof, but is simple not credible that a watch is
conscious. Furthermore, I don't see that expert philosophys will spend any
significant time debating that point either. So, other than acknowledging
that a watch is not conscious, I am sure they get on with trying to figure
out just what is a good definition of consciousness. We only need a decent
definition for the cases where it is not trivially obvious. i.e in those
cases we already know, whatever the definition could turn out to be. ...and
of course, my take is that it is impossible to define consciousness anyway.

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

 

On Mar 28, 3:45 pm, "Don Stockbauer" <donstockba...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

I can make choices. I have free will

I know you can. It's only the materialists here think you illuse
yourself in that. Funny thing is, they do admit nature laws, as modern
physics claims, are of statistical type. That is, if a photon hits a
surface, you can never predict whether it'll be reflected or not. You
can give only probabilities. So, not only no one can predict what's
going to happen in the brain, in the quantum scale, but actually a lot
of different things may happen. I mean that from a given state, many
different states may follow and all are physically possible. You can
only give statistical prediction. Now it's obvious that free will can
force one of these following states to actually happen, preventing all
the rest, without violating any physical law.

For some reason, materialists overlook this point. Even more
interesting, even if we ignored modern physics, and assumed that
atomic and sub-atomic processes act according to some classical
definite rules (I mean non-statistical), even then it doesn't violate
free will, as Popper once proved that classical mechanics isn't
deterministic. Apparently materialists don't bother themselves with
philosophy.

Also, as you said, and everyone feels, free will is one of the basic
axioms of our feelings, thinkings and behaviour, as I demonstrated in
my pre-previous post. We can't seriously deny it more than we can deny
our own existance (although I'm not at all sure one can prove his own
existance in physical means (I mean 'I think therefore I am' is a
philosophical argument. Not a physical one)). Have laws of physical
contradict free will, the abvious conclusion would be that we didn't
get the laws right, not that we illuse ourselves on free will.
Apparently materialists like of take things the opposite way.

 

[Daryl McCullough]

Kevin Aylward says...

I'm saying that you can give an evolutionary explanation for
*behavior*, because behavior affects survival and reproduction.
You can give an evolutionary explanation for brain structures
that give rise to those behaviors. So as long as you are identifying
consciousness with "the brain structures necessary to produce
such and such behavior" then I think it's fine to invoke
evolution as an explanation for consciousness. That's my preferred
approach. Consciousness is just another name for a sophisticated
process of modeling the world and acting on that model.

Consciousness, is more. A kick in the balls *hurts*.

But we don't know whether that is "more" or not.

Just how is that accounted for by "a sophisticated process
of modeling the world and acting on that model"?

You haven't really said what it would *mean* to account
for it. We can certainly account for the fact that a kick
in the balls causes a person to grab his crotch, to scream,
to keel over, to strike back, to avoid situations in which
that sort of thing happens. What, exactly, are you thinking
is left to account for?

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[Don Stockbauer]

On Mar 28, 11:59 am, part...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Mar 28, 3:45 pm, "Don Stockbauer" <donstockba...@hotmail.com
wrote:



I can make choices. I have free will

I know you can. It's only the materialists here think you illuse
yourself in that. Funny thing is, they do admit nature laws, as modern
physics claims, are of statistical type. That is, if a photon hits a
surface, you can never predict whether it'll be reflected or not. You
can give only probabilities. So, not only no one can predict what's
going to happen in the brain, in the quantum scale, but actually a lot
of different things may happen. I mean that from a given state, many
different states may follow and all are physically possible. You can
only give statistical prediction. Now it's obvious that free will can
force one of these following states to actually happen, preventing all
the rest, without violating any physical law.

For some reason, materialists overlook this point. Even more
interesting, even if we ignored modern physics, and assumed that
atomic and sub-atomic processes act according to some classical
definite rules (I mean non-statistical), even then it doesn't violate
free will, as Popper once proved that classical mechanics isn't
deterministic. Apparently materialists don't bother themselves with
philosophy.

Also, as you said, and everyone feels, free will is one of the basic
axioms of our feelings, thinkings and behaviour, as I demonstrated in
my pre-previous post. We can't seriously deny it more than we can deny
our own existance (although I'm not at all sure one can prove his own
existance in physical means (I mean 'I think therefore I am' is a
philosophical argument. Not a physical one)). Have laws of physical
contradict free will, the abvious conclusion would be that we didn't
get the laws right, not that we illuse ourselves on free will.
Apparently materialists like of take things the opposite way.

Well, I don't know, I've gotten spoiled by the cybernetic way of
looking at things, that you start with building bocks such as atoms,
they combine constuctivistically and recursively to form higher level
structures: molecules, cells, organs, organisms, humans. With humans
you wind up with a system that has a lot of memory and is self-aware,
all kinds of emergent phenomena come out of one of these creatures,
one of which is free will. I don't have a lot of doubt that I can
make choices. Before I make the choice I have free will, after I make
it the situation is determinite, so free will appears to be time
dependent. Free will conbined with constructivism is a pretty
powerful duo, letting us control our future, at least that part of it
that can be controlled, to try to ensure our survival. One way I
think people go wrong in the free will debate is to start quoting a
bunch of quantum level phenomena, which just don't apply to a
macroscopic object such as the human brain (which is why
Schroedinger's cat is a fallacy). In any case, all that's just my
opinion.

- Don

 

[Wolf]

partso2@yahoo.com wrote:
[...]

Now it's obvious that free will can
force one of these following states to actually happen, preventing all
the rest, without violating any physical law.

It's not obvious at all. Unless of course "free will" is some sort of
physical force that acts at the quantum scale.

Care to describe what such a force would have to be able to do? And how
it could do so?

[...]

--

Wolf

"Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)

 

[Daniel Mandic]

Don Stockbauer wrote:

Free will conbined with constructivism is a pretty
powerful duo, letting us control our future, at least that part of it
that can be controlled, to try to ensure our survival. One way I
think people go wrong in the free will debate is to start quoting a
bunch of quantum level phenomena, which just don't apply to a
macroscopic object such as the human brain (which is why
Schroedinger's cat is a fallacy). In any case, all that's just my
opinion.

- Don

Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

 

[Glen M. Sizemore]

"Daryl McCullough" <stevendaryl3016@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eueeep0rmt@drn.newsguy.com...

Kevin Aylward says...

I'm saying that you can give an evolutionary explanation for
*behavior*, because behavior affects survival and reproduction.
You can give an evolutionary explanation for brain structures
that give rise to those behaviors. So as long as you are identifying
consciousness with "the brain structures necessary to produce
such and such behavior" then I think it's fine to invoke
evolution as an explanation for consciousness. That's my preferred
approach. Consciousness is just another name for a sophisticated
process of modeling the world and acting on that model.

Consciousness, is more. A kick in the balls *hurts*.

But we don't know whether that is "more" or not.

Just how is that accounted for by "a sophisticated process
of modeling the world and acting on that model"?

You haven't really said what it would *mean* to account
for it. We can certainly account for the fact that a kick
in the balls causes a person to grab his crotch, to scream,
to keel over, to strike back, to avoid situations in which
that sort of thing happens. What, exactly, are you thinking
is left to account for?

I don't know what Kevin is thinking, but I'll tell you what is unaccounted
for: the verbal response "That hurts." Accounting for that is the key to
"self-awareness," and it is reasonably well understood by a few people.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

 

[RichD]

On Mar 26, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:

"RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote on 24 Mar 2007 16:5:

In QM, there is a sharp difference in result, depending on whether, and
where, we observe; refer to the electron double slit experiment. Since the
only difference between 'observer' and 'non-observer' appears to be
consciousness, we attribute special attributes to it.

You've confused:
1. Macroscopic measurement of portions of the experimental
apparatus; with
2. Human consciousness.

No. You are confused, in your belief that they are separable.

The double-slit experiment will give the same result
regardless of whether there are any humans anywhere
nearby the equipment while the experiment runs.

"nearby" has nothing to do with it. The wave function
encompasses everything, everywhere, everytime. You
cannot separate observer from observed.

I assume you aren't going to start claiming that the mechanical photon
detectors themselves have a kind of "consciousness".

I won't.

Otherwise, do you somehow believe that these mysterious
powers that you attribute to human consciousness can act over
great distances?

Yes, somehow...

Or perhaps act backwards in time;

The most bizarre aspects of quantum theory have
been confirmed. Superluminal correlation, and
cause/effect time reversal, are real.

maybe you extend Schrodinger's Cat to say that the
double-slit experiment actually gives all outcomes, and
it is only when the human returns -- perhaps months
or years later -- that the various printouts assume their final
shape to give the right data.

Correct. That is what the theory says.
If you believe ortherwise, please provide cites.
Your common sense notions of sensible and absurd
are worthless, in this domain.

Quantum mechanics has never failed.

Schrodinger's Cat is the same as the double slit -
everything exists in a superposition of 'potentialities',
until we look. Schrodinger's intent is immaterial;
he ended as an old crank, pecking at the theory
he helped create.

Or maybe, just maybe, you ought to try to understand
Quantum Mechanics without appeal to human consciousness.

<cough cough>


--
Rich

 

[RichD]

On Mar 26, Don Geddis <d...@geddis.org> wrote:

Anyhow, I can describe a germane experiment,
which has been performed:
The usual electron double slit apparatus.

Yes, I'm quite familiar with the double-slit experiment.
Fascinating stuff, and hard to understand given commonsense notions
of how the universe works.

case i) Both detectors are off (removed entirely, if you wish). Result:
interference pattern, electrons behave like waves.
case ii) Both detectors are operational. Result: no interference pattern,
electrons behave like particles.
case iii) One detector on, the other off. Result: same as case (ii)
Cogitate upon case (iii), particularly compared to case (ii).

Yes, I'm aware of all this.
But in none of the experimental setup do you have any human
consciousness playing any role.

Alas, you inadequately cogitated.

What is the difference between case (ii) and (iii)?
In (ii), every electron is detected. In (iii), only half
the electrons click - no interaction with the
apparatus - yet results are identical. Somehow they
are 'observed'. Where does the observation take
place? What causes the wave function to collapse
to an event?

Whenever the active detector fails to click, the
experimenter deduces (or assumes) the electron
traversed the other slit. Thus, the interaction
occurs in the observer's mind!

You'll get the same results as you just described, whether
or not any human is anywhere nearby when the experiment runs.

"nearby" doesn't matter. What does matter, is that
someone observes the result.

I claim this satisfies your challenge - it demonstrates some
interaction between the observer's mind, and nature.

But there was no "observer's mind" in your description of the
experimental setup.

There is. And it explains the results.
You cannot reject it as absurd, when it fits the facts,
and you cannot offer any other explanation.

--
Rich

 

[RichD]

On Mar 28, "Kevin Aylward" kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

yeah the speed of light is an invariant in an inertial frame,
well how do we know what is an inertial frame or not?
Look mate these issues are pretty fundamental and unresolved.

An inertial frame is a collection of objects
which are not accelerating with respect to
one another.

Er..how do you define acceleration?

Start with a measuring stick.
Then get a clock... tick, tick, tick...

Measure how far something went, in
a given number of ticks. Repeat,
later. If the distance is different,
for the same number of ticks, its
velocity changed, i.e. it accelerated.

Look, Rich, dont even go there.

I went.
And fascinating trip, it was... hope you
like the postcard...

--
Rich

 

[PD]

On Mar 28, 5:14 pm, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Mar 28, "Kevin Aylward" kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

yeah the speed of light is an invariant in an inertial frame,
well how do we know what is an inertial frame or not?
Look mate these issues are pretty fundamental and unresolved.

An inertial frame is a collection of objects
which are not accelerating with respect to
one another.

Er..how do you define acceleration?

Start with a measuring stick.
Then get a clock... tick, tick, tick...

Measure how far something went, in
a given number of ticks. Repeat,
later. If the distance is different,
for the same number of ticks, its
velocity changed, i.e. it accelerated.

OK, let's jump out of a building and measure to see if the building is
accelerating. We'll measure how far the 103rd floor goes between
seconds 2 and 4, and then we'll measure how far the 103rd floor goes
between seconds 4 and 6. Hey, the velocity of the 103rd floor changed,
and so it is accelerating!

PD

Look, Rich, dont even go there.

I went.
And fascinating trip, it was... hope you
like the postcard...

--
Rich

 

[Bill Hobba]

"Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:VHxOh.17280$nh4.11056@newsfe20.lga...

PD wrote:
On Mar 27, 3:08 pm, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 24, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

The universe and everything in it however isn't circular -
It indeed is.This is in fact very well known and understood.
yeah the speed of light is an invariant in an inertial frame,
well how do we know what is an inertial frame or not?
Look mate these issues are pretty fundamental and unresolved.
An inertial frame is a collection of objects
which are not accelerating with respect to one another.

What's the problem?

Your description is a problem.

Stomp on your gas pedal in your car.
During the acceleration, the passenger seat, the radio, the cup
holder, the steering wheel, and the door latch comprise a collection
of objects which are not accelerating with respect to one another.
Does this collection represent an inertial frame?

PD


The distinction made in elementary texts is flawed. An accelerating car
and a non-accelerating car are both already in a non-inertial frame wrt to
the perpendicular acceleration of gravity.

Sure - by definition inertial frames can not contain gravity. But it is
obvious such will not affect the outcome.

In an accelerating car, any and all objects fixed to a surface
perpendicular to the acceleration of the car are still in an inertial
frame of reference wrt that surface.

No they aren't - the acceleration breaks the isotopy of an inertial frame
regardless of its direction.

Bill

Only in the special case of "Free fall" can you have a truly inertial
frame of reference,
leaving aside micro-gravity issues.

 

[RichD]

On Mar 27, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

My twin brother is a Schizophrenic. He once believed that
the sun was conscious and controlling things. He currently
believes that, other than himself, no one is conscious at all.
We are all robots made by aliens to deliberately annoy him.

Well, we can't prove otherwise...

Are you identical twins? If so, how do you account
for the drastic psychological difference?

--
Rich

 

[Lawson English]

Bill Hobba wrote:

"Lawson English" <LawsonE@nowhere.none> wrote in message
news:VHxOh.17280$nh4.11056@newsfe20.lga...
PD wrote:
On Mar 27, 3:08 pm, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 24, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

The universe and everything in it however isn't circular -
It indeed is.This is in fact very well known and understood.
yeah the speed of light is an invariant in an inertial frame,
well how do we know what is an inertial frame or not?
Look mate these issues are pretty fundamental and unresolved.
An inertial frame is a collection of objects
which are not accelerating with respect to one another.

What's the problem?
Your description is a problem.

Stomp on your gas pedal in your car.
During the acceleration, the passenger seat, the radio, the cup
holder, the steering wheel, and the door latch comprise a collection
of objects which are not accelerating with respect to one another.
Does this collection represent an inertial frame?

PD

The distinction made in elementary texts is flawed. An accelerating car
and a non-accelerating car are both already in a non-inertial frame wrt to
the perpendicular acceleration of gravity.

Sure - by definition inertial frames can not contain gravity. But it is
obvious such will not affect the outcome.

In an accelerating car, any and all objects fixed to a surface
perpendicular to the acceleration of the car are still in an inertial
frame of reference wrt that surface.

No they aren't - the acceleration breaks the isotopy of an inertial frame
regardless of its direction.

How is that a different situation than with gravity?

Bill

Only in the special case of "Free fall" can you have a truly inertial
frame of reference,
leaving aside micro-gravity issues.

 

[Lawson English]

PD wrote:

On Mar 28, 5:14 pm, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, "Kevin Aylward" kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

yeah the speed of light is an invariant in an inertial frame,
well how do we know what is an inertial frame or not?
Look mate these issues are pretty fundamental and unresolved.
An inertial frame is a collection of objects
which are not accelerating with respect to
one another.
Er..how do you define acceleration?
Start with a measuring stick.
Then get a clock... tick, tick, tick...

Measure how far something went, in
a given number of ticks. Repeat,
later. If the distance is different,
for the same number of ticks, its
velocity changed, i.e. it accelerated.

OK, let's jump out of a building and measure to see if the building is
accelerating. We'll measure how far the 103rd floor goes between
seconds 2 and 4, and then we'll measure how far the 103rd floor goes
between seconds 4 and 6. Hey, the velocity of the 103rd floor changed,
and so it is accelerating!

The question is, who goes splat?

 

[PD]

On Mar 28, 8:24 pm, Lawson English <Laws...@nowhere.none> wrote:

PD wrote:
On Mar 28, 5:14 pm, "RichD" <r_delaney2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Mar 28, "Kevin Aylward" kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:

yeah the speed of light is an invariant in an inertial frame,
well how do we know what is an inertial frame or not?
Look mate these issues are pretty fundamental and unresolved.
An inertial frame is a collection of objects
which are not accelerating with respect to
one another.
Er..how do you define acceleration?
Start with a measuring stick.
Then get a clock... tick, tick, tick...

Measure how far something went, in
a given number of ticks. Repeat,
later. If the distance is different,
for the same number of ticks, its
velocity changed, i.e. it accelerated.

OK, let's jump out of a building and measure to see if the building is
accelerating. We'll measure how far the 103rd floor goes between
seconds 2 and 4, and then we'll measure how far the 103rd floor goes
between seconds 4 and 6. Hey, the velocity of the 103rd floor changed,
and so it is accelerating!

The question is, who goes splat?

The ground does. It's obviously accelerating right along with the
103rd floor, as a similar measurement will show, and it hurls itself
headlong into us. No wonder the ground suffers damage in that contact.

PD

 

[Lawson English]

RichD wrote:

On Mar 27, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
My twin brother is a Schizophrenic. He once believed that
the sun was conscious and controlling things. He currently
believes that, other than himself, no one is conscious at all.
We are all robots made by aliens to deliberately annoy him.

Well, we can't prove otherwise...

Are you identical twins? If so, how do you account
for the drastic psychological difference?

--
Rich

Even identical twins have genetic differences. There are subtle
mutations that can occur after the initial split. I know a girl whose
identical twin has pretty severe ADHD while she is normal. The ADHD one
is into computers while she is more literary-oriented.

 

[Don Stockbauer]

On Mar 28, 3:24 pm, "Daniel Mandic" <daniel_man...@aon.at> wrote:

Don Stockbauer wrote:
Free will conbined with constructivism is a pretty
powerful duo, letting us control our future, at least that part of it
that can be controlled, to try to ensure our survival. One way I
think people go wrong in the free will debate is to start quoting a
bunch of quantum level phenomena, which just don't apply to a
macroscopic object such as the human brain (which is why
Schroedinger's cat is a fallacy). In any case, all that's just my
opinion.

- Don

Kind regards,

Daniel Mandic

And kind regards to you.

- Don

 

On Mar 28, 10:20 pm, Wolf <ElLoboVi...@ruddy.moss> wrote:

part...@yahoo.com wrote:

[...]

Now it's obvious that free will can
force one of these following states to actually happen, preventing all
the rest, without violating any physical law.

It's not obvious at all. Unless of course "free will" is some sort of
physical force that acts at the quantum scale.

No, you don't have to assume that. What I wanted to say is that if

free will exists ('physical' or not), and if it affects the brain
workings by selection of quantum states as described, then there's no
contradiction to known laws of physics. Thus I wanted to refute the
materialist claim that physical laws prevent free will.

Now, free will being a 'physical force' or not depends on your
definition of that. If 'physical force' is anything that acts on
physical objects, then free will is physical, by definition, by acting
on the brain. If you want to include in the definition that physical
force must result out of some mass, well, I believe it isn't, and gave
a few hints in the direction in my previous post.

Care to describe what such a force would have to be able to do? And how
it could do so?

It should be able to select the following brain (quantum) state out

of the possible states following a given state, as allowed by quantum
mechanics, of course. Maybe more, but at least that. That's enough to
understand free will. How it can do it? well, that's an illegitimate
question in physics. Do you know how charges attract/repell each
other? all physics can do is offer descriptions which don't really
explain anything (virtual photons? well, then I'll ask how exactly can
the charges emit/absorb the virtual photons? and if you answer that,
I'll ask how does THAT work, and so on). Feynmann once called gravity
'a mysterious force no one knows how/why it acts', but really, we
don't need Feynmann for that. The question of how things are able to
do what they do isn't physical, but philosophical. Physics finds
enough difficulty in describing how they do it, no more.

--

Wolf

"Don't believe everything you think." (Maxine)

 

[Kevin Aylward]

RichD wrote:

On Mar 27, "Kevin Aylward" <kevin_aylw...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
My twin brother is a Schizophrenic. He once believed that
the sun was conscious and controlling things. He currently
believes that, other than himself, no one is conscious at all.
We are all robots made by aliens to deliberately annoy him.

Well, we can't prove otherwise...

Are you identical twins?

No.

If so, how do you account
for the drastic psychological difference?

We are a function of both genes and memes. Even with the same genes, the
environment can make appearance different, e.g some identical insects can
become different colours due to temperte at birth, I think...

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