While I totally appreciate the 'justice' of that arrangement, in a court of law what you did was a far greater offense than the simple theft he committed. Be careful.
I wouldn't worry about it. It's pretty obvious that the cops won't care enough to do anything about it.
Which is fine by me. Lazy cops hanging out at the station or the donut shop aren't shooting innocent people and dogs and aren't harassing law-abiding citizens.
Because they're too lazy to retrieve your phone from a known thief? Because law-abiding citizens are terrified when they're around? How about the never-ending stream of stories detailing horrific violence, cover-ups, and other abuse?
We should be outraged that any public money goes to fund that street-gang. How are you okay with paying those thugs 100k a year?
That you think postulating entirely new physics to explain something that demonstrates no evidence of new physics, and is not even remotely understood to the limits of current physics, is pretty damning
I suggested no such thing.
Why would you assume consciousness is not rooted in current physics?
I don't assume it, I only agree that it's a reasonable possibility as current physics offers no account of the phenomenon.
You have yet to give any reason why you think computation in insufficient.
I've provided relevant citations, as you requested. What more do you want?
Given sufficient processing power the physical world can be computationally simulated to an arbitrary degree of accuracy
We've come full circle. You're confusing the simulation of the thing for the thing itself. Simulated water, no matter how detailed, will not slake your thirst. A simulated power plant will not light a single lamp. In simulation, no matter how detailed, you are not guaranteed the same properties as the thing you're simulating. A simulated fire will never be hot, nor will simulated water ever be wet, why do you assume that a simulated brain would be conscious?
Your belief seems to rest on two indefensible points: 1) Current physics, while it can not presently offer an account of consciousness, will very likely do so in the future without modification. 2) A sufficiently detailed simulation of a thing will share all of the same properties as the thing itself.
The first is entirely faith-based, and seems foolish on historical grounds. The second is absurd on its face, for the reasons I've already given.
I'm very curious as to why you believe these two things. Can you offer a justification for either point?
Lets just be clear that we're postulating new physics here.
That sounds perfectly reasonable, considering this is an area that not at all understood. This doesn't imply that such new physics would be impossible to simulate. Though, as I've stated before, the ability to simulate it or not is complete irrelevant. Why do you think this is relevant?
To propose that the behavior of those atoms are insufficient to generate a mind is to explicitly propose that some unknown force never before observed is at play.
Again, I'm saying that computation is insufficient. You seem to be having an awful lot of trouble with this point. What do you think I'm suggesting here? It doesn't seem like we're having the same conversation.
I'm not exactly sure, now, what you're arguing? Do you have some reason to believe that computation alone IS sufficient? How do you counter Searle or Lucas? Do you have some alternative? On what basis do you believe computation can be sufficient? (As far as I can tell, it's a conclusion you're deriving merely from a set of metaphysical assumptions. That's pretty weak.)
On the halting problem, well, good luck with that. I eagerly look forward to your upcoming paper. You'll be quite famous, after all, after you turn the whole of computer science on it's head with your simple observation. Why are you even bothering with me? Fame and fortune surely await you!
Except William of Occam never said such a thing. It's a laughably bad mis-quote of the original non-quote "Entia non sunt multiplicanda, praeter necessitatem", which he also never said.
This is what happens when you have a community like Slashdot, educated primarily through exposure to GIFs of facebook.
Starting with (2) True, depending on the nature of the simulation, this cannot be denied. If you want to put a qualifier like "perfectly" or something on it, then it becomes either "false", "unknown", or "unknowable". I'd offer the same for a qualifier like "in principle".
On (1) The only legitimate answer can be "unknown". To claim otherwise is to either make a religious claim or to draw such a conclusion from a set of metaphysical assumptions.
You can believe what you want about those two points, but if we're being completely honest, we'd have to offer a firm "unknown" to both. (This is all *without* offering anything supernatural, spiritual, or whatever term you prefer to use. Though I suspect that's the only alternative you've considered.)
My point, though I haven't personally made a specific argument for it, is that computation alone is insufficient. I've passed along enough to pin down the most common arguments in support of that point, at your request. They're quite strong, in my opinion, and have withstood decades of attack.
You can tear any one of those arguments against computationalism down if you want, but I'm much more interested in your solution to the halting problem.:)
Hardly off topic. You are postulating that there is an incomputable component to the mind.
No, I said that computation was insufficient.
That means either a metaphysical component, or an incomputable aspect to the physics in the brain that has hitherto gone unnoticed.
I don't think you know what the term "metaphysics" means.
Then you haven't been following modern physics.
You claimed that "computation alone is all there is". Do you no longer hold this position? If so, we may be able to proceed.
And don't go trotting out CS101 - gradeschool understandings of computability aren't applicable here. [snip]
Well, don't waste your time with me. If what you suggest is true, you can revolutionize computer science! Everything is computable! The halting problem solved! Get to writing -- fame and fortune await you!
Do you accept that atoms and their interactions can be accurately simulated?
That's completely irrelevant. See my earlier posts. My position is identical in either case.
Actually, I said that it was unlikely further discussion would be productive as you believe that "computation alone is all there is." It is therefore impossible to further discuss the topic (computationalism) as the conclusion you've come to is demanded by your metaphysical assumptions.
To be frank, I think that is incoherent. If you want to clarify your position, I'll indulge you. But as it stands, we're at an impasse.
The best I can do is respond to this:
All right, you want to continue - name me one thing that is not computable
But that's completely off-topic. To answer your question, I've got to got back to CS 101: There are significantly more functions that are non-computable than computable. See any introduction to computer science textbook for further information.
I see. I don't think we're going to get very far. I just can't make that metaphysical leap.
Given enough processing power, I can predict with perfect accuracy the behavior of an atom. Or a hundred atoms, or a billion. Or a hundred trillion trillion, which is getting to the scale of a human brain.
You disagree:
The random noise of quantum mechanics notwithstanding of course. That's easy enough to add in, but it does tend to destroy the predictive capacity.
We can go round and round on this, but frankly you don't seem to have anything to say
Well, I was going to argue against computationalism. Of course, I'm not going to make any progress at all, given the confession you make in that first sentence. How could I? I've repeated a rather simple point twice, though I now see why it is meaningless to you. If we can't even come close to some common ground regarding the nature of the universe, a complex topic like the mind is going to be impossible to discuss.
I appreciate the effort, but I don't see how this discussion could meaningfully continue.
I ask again: Do you propose that a consciousness is dependent on a soul or other influence that could not be adequately simulated? Because that's the only way I see that you can honestly argue that a perfectly simulated brain could not harbor one.
That's because you assume that computation alone is sufficient. That point which is not only very difficult to defend, we have many reasons to believe it's false.
Simulated water will get nothing wet, just as simulated fire won't burn your fingers, no matter how detailed the simulations. You don't need to posit a soul or some magical attributes to water and fire. Plain old physical reality is sufficient here.
Don't confuse the simulation of the thing for the thing itself.
(1) A) Not including "good" code block semantics. -- What? Nevermind, the "good" qualifier makes this pointless to argue. B) Not supporting classes -- This is an VERY good thing. Classes are not only unnecessary for OOP, but are responsible for many bad programming practices. C) Not separating library (or OS) calls from language primitives -- Again, What? Not only is that 100% false, how would that encourage bad programming practices if it were true? D) Having not proper concept of scope -- Again, false, for many interpretations of "proper". E) Not having a standard -- How would this "encourage poor programming practices"? Also, it's completely false! (For more than 30 years now!)
(2) -- CLS being slow on your Z80 does not in any way make the language bad.
Good effort though. It's hard to defend an indefensible meme.
I could, but this is Slashdot, where reading TFA is extra credit, you expect me to search out papers to skim for the sake of a mediocre discussion?
You got me there, but you did ask for them!
You never answered - do you honestly propose that a 100% accurate atomic-level simulation of a specific, fully developed brain, connected to a full complement of prosthetics (virtual or otherwise) for I/O, could not support a consciousness?
Do you honestly propose that a 100% accurate atomic-level simulation of a specific, fully developed, rainstorm, could flood my basement?
Don't confuse a simulation of a thing for the thing itself.
I am quite aware of the limits of behavioralism, but are you suggesting that observing the behavior of an organism has no value at all?
It's clearly insufficient for the purpose you suggest.
Really? You're actually going to draw a conclusion based on metaphysics alone? To each their own, I guess.
Citation? Sure! Here are some of the popular ones, in no particular order.
Lucas, John Randolph (1961) Minds, Machines, and Gödel, Philosophy 36:112-137 Block, Ned (1978) Troubles with Functionalism, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9:261-325 Fodor, Jerry A (2000) The Mind Doesn't Work That Way, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press Penrose, Roger (1994) Shadows of the Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press Thompson, Evan (2007) Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Searle, John R (1980) Minds, Brains, and Programs The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:417-457
(Your response is very likely to contain one or both of the following: a completely incoherent paragraph objecting to my use of the term "metaphysics", and/or a pointless non-argument attacking one or more of the sample of citations I provided. Please, if you're going to respond, don't embarrass yourself and include either of those two very silly things.)
GOTO isn't inherently evil. I'd go as far to say that the GOTO hate is little more than religious propaganda.
It's used in the Linux kernel. There's even a famous post by Linus defending it. He's not alone. Do a quick google search. The results may surprise you.
Slashdot Mirror
While I totally appreciate the 'justice' of that arrangement, in a court of law what you did was a far greater offense than the simple theft he committed. Be careful.
I wouldn't worry about it. It's pretty obvious that the cops won't care enough to do anything about it.
Which is fine by me. Lazy cops hanging out at the station or the donut shop aren't shooting innocent people and dogs and aren't harassing law-abiding citizens.
Because they're too lazy to retrieve your phone from a known thief? Because law-abiding citizens are terrified when they're around? How about the never-ending stream of stories detailing horrific violence, cover-ups, and other abuse?
We should be outraged that any public money goes to fund that street-gang. How are you okay with paying those thugs 100k a year?
Oh, no! Someone is doing something that you think is a waste of time!
The horror!
do people still think that these days?
Yes, they do.
Ah, you're confused, I see. They can't "hand over the keys" because they don't have them. As always, BES users are safe.
Or are you that guy who keeps repeating this despite being told, multiple times, that it's nonsense?
I've been waiting for reactos for a very long time. It's nice to see the project active again.
That you think postulating entirely new physics to explain something that demonstrates no evidence of new physics, and is not even remotely understood to the limits of current physics, is pretty damning
I suggested no such thing.
Why would you assume consciousness is not rooted in current physics?
I don't assume it, I only agree that it's a reasonable possibility as current physics offers no account of the phenomenon.
You have yet to give any reason why you think computation in insufficient.
I've provided relevant citations, as you requested. What more do you want?
Given sufficient processing power the physical world can be computationally simulated to an arbitrary degree of accuracy
We've come full circle. You're confusing the simulation of the thing for the thing itself. Simulated water, no matter how detailed, will not slake your thirst. A simulated power plant will not light a single lamp. In simulation, no matter how detailed, you are not guaranteed the same properties as the thing you're simulating. A simulated fire will never be hot, nor will simulated water ever be wet, why do you assume that a simulated brain would be conscious?
Your belief seems to rest on two indefensible points: 1) Current physics, while it can not presently offer an account of consciousness, will very likely do so in the future without modification. 2) A sufficiently detailed simulation of a thing will share all of the same properties as the thing itself.
The first is entirely faith-based, and seems foolish on historical grounds. The second is absurd on its face, for the reasons I've already given.
I'm very curious as to why you believe these two things. Can you offer a justification for either point?
Lets just be clear that we're postulating new physics here.
That sounds perfectly reasonable, considering this is an area that not at all understood. This doesn't imply that such new physics would be impossible to simulate. Though, as I've stated before, the ability to simulate it or not is complete irrelevant. Why do you think this is relevant?
To propose that the behavior of those atoms are insufficient to generate a mind is to explicitly propose that some unknown force never before observed is at play.
Again, I'm saying that computation is insufficient. You seem to be having an awful lot of trouble with this point. What do you think I'm suggesting here? It doesn't seem like we're having the same conversation.
I'm not exactly sure, now, what you're arguing? Do you have some reason to believe that computation alone IS sufficient? How do you counter Searle or Lucas? Do you have some alternative? On what basis do you believe computation can be sufficient? (As far as I can tell, it's a conclusion you're deriving merely from a set of metaphysical assumptions. That's pretty weak.)
On the halting problem, well, good luck with that. I eagerly look forward to your upcoming paper. You'll be quite famous, after all, after you turn the whole of computer science on it's head with your simple observation. Why are you even bothering with me? Fame and fortune surely await you!
Except William of Occam never said such a thing. It's a laughably bad mis-quote of the original non-quote "Entia non sunt multiplicanda, praeter necessitatem", which he also never said.
This is what happens when you have a community like Slashdot, educated primarily through exposure to GIFs of facebook.
Starting with (2) True, depending on the nature of the simulation, this cannot be denied. If you want to put a qualifier like "perfectly" or something on it, then it becomes either "false", "unknown", or "unknowable". I'd offer the same for a qualifier like "in principle".
On (1) The only legitimate answer can be "unknown". To claim otherwise is to either make a religious claim or to draw such a conclusion from a set of metaphysical assumptions.
You can believe what you want about those two points, but if we're being completely honest, we'd have to offer a firm "unknown" to both. (This is all *without* offering anything supernatural, spiritual, or whatever term you prefer to use. Though I suspect that's the only alternative you've considered.)
My point, though I haven't personally made a specific argument for it, is that computation alone is insufficient. I've passed along enough to pin down the most common arguments in support of that point, at your request. They're quite strong, in my opinion, and have withstood decades of attack.
You can tear any one of those arguments against computationalism down if you want, but I'm much more interested in your solution to the halting problem. :)
Hardly off topic. You are postulating that there is an incomputable component to the mind.
No, I said that computation was insufficient.
That means either a metaphysical component, or an incomputable aspect to the physics in the brain that has hitherto gone unnoticed.
I don't think you know what the term "metaphysics" means.
Then you haven't been following modern physics.
You claimed that "computation alone is all there is". Do you no longer hold this position? If so, we may be able to proceed.
And don't go trotting out CS101 - gradeschool understandings of computability aren't applicable here. [snip]
Well, don't waste your time with me. If what you suggest is true, you can revolutionize computer science! Everything is computable! The halting problem solved! Get to writing -- fame and fortune await you!
Do you accept that atoms and their interactions can be accurately simulated?
That's completely irrelevant. See my earlier posts. My position is identical in either case.
We're talking about programming. There are just a few basic concepts. Surely, that can be taught in a few weeks. The rest is just details.
Check again.
All right, you want to continue
Actually, I said that it was unlikely further discussion would be productive as you believe that "computation alone is all there is." It is therefore impossible to further discuss the topic (computationalism) as the conclusion you've come to is demanded by your metaphysical assumptions.
To be frank, I think that is incoherent. If you want to clarify your position, I'll indulge you. But as it stands, we're at an impasse.
The best I can do is respond to this:
All right, you want to continue - name me one thing that is not computable
But that's completely off-topic. To answer your question, I've got to got back to CS 101: There are significantly more functions that are non-computable than computable. See any introduction to computer science textbook for further information.
I assume that computation alone is all there is.
I see. I don't think we're going to get very far. I just can't make that metaphysical leap.
Given enough processing power, I can predict with perfect accuracy the behavior of an atom. Or a hundred atoms, or a billion. Or a hundred trillion trillion, which is getting to the scale of a human brain.
You disagree:
The random noise of quantum mechanics notwithstanding of course. That's easy enough to add in, but it does tend to destroy the predictive capacity.
We can go round and round on this, but frankly you don't seem to have anything to say
Well, I was going to argue against computationalism. Of course, I'm not going to make any progress at all, given the confession you make in that first sentence. How could I? I've repeated a rather simple point twice, though I now see why it is meaningless to you. If we can't even come close to some common ground regarding the nature of the universe, a complex topic like the mind is going to be impossible to discuss.
I appreciate the effort, but I don't see how this discussion could meaningfully continue.
I ask again: Do you propose that a consciousness is dependent on a soul or other influence that could not be adequately simulated? Because that's the only way I see that you can honestly argue that a perfectly simulated brain could not harbor one.
That's because you assume that computation alone is sufficient. That point which is not only very difficult to defend, we have many reasons to believe it's false.
Simulated water will get nothing wet, just as simulated fire won't burn your fingers, no matter how detailed the simulations. You don't need to posit a soul or some magical attributes to water and fire. Plain old physical reality is sufficient here.
Don't confuse the simulation of the thing for the thing itself.
Science is applied philosophy. Do you honestly think the two can be separated? Read Kuhn and Popper until you have a clue.
He always posts irrelevant philosophical garbage (most of which has been discredited decades ago)
I'll bite. Which of the ideas I've presented has been "discredited"?
Oh, that's right. None of them.
Follower of the holy Kurzweil, I'm guessing? There's not arguing with you religious zealots. Enjoy your fantasy.
(1)
A) Not including "good" code block semantics. -- What? Nevermind, the "good" qualifier makes this pointless to argue.
B) Not supporting classes -- This is an VERY good thing. Classes are not only unnecessary for OOP, but are responsible for many bad programming practices.
C) Not separating library (or OS) calls from language primitives -- Again, What? Not only is that 100% false, how would that encourage bad programming practices if it were true?
D) Having not proper concept of scope -- Again, false, for many interpretations of "proper".
E) Not having a standard -- How would this "encourage poor programming practices"? Also, it's completely false! (For more than 30 years now!)
(2) -- CLS being slow on your Z80 does not in any way make the language bad.
Good effort though. It's hard to defend an indefensible meme.
I could, but this is Slashdot, where reading TFA is extra credit, you expect me to search out papers to skim for the sake of a mediocre discussion?
You got me there, but you did ask for them!
You never answered - do you honestly propose that a 100% accurate atomic-level simulation of a specific, fully developed brain, connected to a full complement of prosthetics (virtual or otherwise) for I/O, could not support a consciousness?
Do you honestly propose that a 100% accurate atomic-level simulation of a specific, fully developed, rainstorm, could flood my basement?
Don't confuse a simulation of a thing for the thing itself.
I am quite aware of the limits of behavioralism, but are you suggesting that observing the behavior of an organism has no value at all?
It's clearly insufficient for the purpose you suggest.
I'm going to assume they all suffer from one major flaw though
Or, you know, you could actually read them instead of making completely uninformed assumptions.
Do you see a flaw in my logic?
Yes. You assume the conclusion.
And if by some miracle you get the thing displaying coherent behavior then you can start fine-tuning your understanding far faster.
You should read up on the limits of behavioralism. There's a reason it's fallen out of favor these past few decades.
Really? You're actually going to draw a conclusion based on metaphysics alone? To each their own, I guess.
Citation? Sure! Here are some of the popular ones, in no particular order.
Lucas, John Randolph (1961) Minds, Machines, and Gödel, Philosophy 36:112-137
Block, Ned (1978) Troubles with Functionalism, Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science 9:261-325
Fodor, Jerry A (2000) The Mind Doesn't Work That Way, Cambridge, MA, MIT Press
Penrose, Roger (1994) Shadows of the Mind, Oxford: Oxford University Press
Thompson, Evan (2007) Mind in Life: Biology, Phenomenology, and the Sciences of Mind, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press
Searle, John R (1980) Minds, Brains, and Programs The Behavioral and Brain Sciences 3:417-457
(Your response is very likely to contain one or both of the following: a completely incoherent paragraph objecting to my use of the term "metaphysics", and/or a pointless non-argument attacking one or more of the sample of citations I provided. Please, if you're going to respond, don't embarrass yourself and include either of those two very silly things.)
I've always suspected you were a bot.
Let's also not forget that it's pretty well-known that computational approaches to AI are untenable.
if we're creating this simulation based on the human brain, then what are the odds that some form of consciousness dwells within it?
If I had to guess, I'd say the odds are about the same as a simulated rainstorm flooding my basement.
GOTO isn't inherently evil. I'd go as far to say that the GOTO hate is little more than religious propaganda.
It's used in the Linux kernel. There's even a famous post by Linus defending it. He's not alone. Do a quick google search. The results may surprise you.