From: David Morey (us@divadeus.freeserve.co.uk)
Date: Tue Oct 19 2004 - 19:21:34 BST
the whole cosmos is perhaps a selection from the more infinite
on the basis of value, this selection is a tricky business though,
we get both the beautiful and the cruel, can we finally
produce something that makes the suffering worthwhile,
is it a cosmic art form, is art worth it? Is mankind the super-artist
or a disappointment?
DM
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Roberts" <jse885@earthlink.net>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Tuesday, October 19, 2004 3:54 AM
Subject: Re: MD A bit of reasoning
> Ian, Mark,
>
>> Turing test was coined c. 60 years ago to try to get people to think
>> about the problem of thinking machines. I think we have to think a
>> little more specifically now, like can they understand the halting
>> problem and how do we test for this.
>
> "Understand" is the deadly word here. A calculator can add 2 + 3, but does
> it understand it? If all that happens is at the end a logic switch goes on
> if the answer is "yes" or off if "no", can we say there has been
> understanding?
>
> This is an unresolvable issue. The Dennett-like materialist will call it
> understanding, the Chalmers-like critic (and I) will not.
>
>>
>>
>> AI was and perhaps still is very naive in its assuptions of what it
>> takes to produce thought. At first, imbued as we were by the classics,
>> all we thought was that it took a little bit of image processing,
>> language parsing, logic and hey bingo! I don't know how long ago Scott
>> gave up on AI, but certainly stuff like genetic algorithms and neural
>> nets offer some form of insight into how how random variations turn into
>> adaptive features and how feedback mechanisms with relatively simple
>> linkage rules can start to provide meaningful output presented with
>> complex patterns.
>
> All that is true, but a neural net adds nothing against my argument if it
> is a spatiotemporal mechanism. I trust you have noticed that my argument
> also works against the brain being conscious if the brain is considered to
> be a spatiotemporal mechanism.
>
>>
>> Adding complexity to a system can have a very great effect. It can
>> cancel out dominant effects and bring to the fore hitherto unobserved
>> variations.
>
> But can it be aware of time passing? That is really my argument at its
> simplest. To be aware of time passing we must in some sense be outside of
> time.
>
>> The argument that "if the only channel from one electron to another is
>> assumed to be a photon, then there can be no gestalt bigger than one
>> electron absorbing or emitting one photon" is plain silly. Electrons
>> tend to occur in probability patterns determined by their surroundings.
>> If the physical juxtaposition of molecules has something to do with
>> memory, this will affect the response of the electrons. One transistor
>> produces a switch, two transitors produce an oscillator.
>
> What makes a gestalt out of the electrons in a pattern, that is, what can
> detect the pattern *as* a pattern?
> What turns an oscillation into a continuously heard tone? Something has
> to
> be continuous through the oscillation. If not, there is no connection
> between one wave crest/trough and the next, and no tone is heard. One
> oscillator can cause a resonance in another, but that only pushes the
> problem to the next oscillator.
>
>>
>>
>> Space and time exist in my dreams because evolution has been hammering
>> to get something to correspond to physical associations into my thick
>> skulled mammalian and previous ancestors for millions of years. Either
>> it worked or we have been incredibly lucky at roulette.
>
> I'm not asking why space and time exist in dreams, I am pointing out that
> they do exist, yet that space and time is not the space and time in which
> somebody watching you sleep is operating. The point being that it can make
> sense that our perception creates the spacetime structure of what we
> perceive, just as our perception adds color, taste, smell, sound, and
> touch. One nice thing in addition is that it provides a simple
> interpretation of quantum physics. Assume that non-locality is the norm,
> and it is our perception that produces a spacetime projection. Hence we
> have wave/particle duality, since what is "really going on" is more
> complex
> than can fit into a spacetime view (one can say it is perception that
> turns
> a wave-like whatever into spatiotemporal particles). And the uncertainty
> principle is just the fact that at the Planck limit spacetime is no longer
> applicable. (Note that this is slightly different from the "consciousness
> collapses the state vector" interpretation, in that no collapse is
> assumed.
> It would be more like a selection based on value.)
>
> - Scott
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
> http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Oct 20 2004 - 07:10:07 BST