[General] Verification of Light Interactions

[Wolfgang Baer]

I agree that computers mimik intelligence , thought and mind.
I think Searly's Chinese Room analogy makes the point.
One can respond rationally on a blind rule based instruction sheet 
withoout ever knowing or imagining
             that is having the experiences we normally associate with 
conscious beings

Of course since I am a pan-psychist and am developing a pan-psychic 
physics that includes the conscious observer as a foundational principle
I also believe those switches and systems of switches have a 
primitive-consciousness built into their material.
So there is a natural will and desire built into them.
We capture, and control that natural desire and behavior  to make the 
switches do our tedious symbolic manipulation.
What this means is that a large enough computer may develop a 
consciousness much like a cockroach probably has feelings
but that would be its own way of feeling not ours.
The idea that a computer who is mimicking human response patterns 
actually will have human feelings
like many sci-fy movies portray is pure fiction.

Wolf

Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail wolf at NascentInc.com

On 9/8/2015 8:58 PM, af.kracklauer at web.de wrote:
> If the most complex computer system is nothing but a (big) collection 
> of off-on switches (binary logic), surely "the" mind, with orders of 
> magnitude more switches, need be little else.
> *Gesendet:* Mittwoch, 09. September 2015 um 00:58 Uhr
> *Von:* "Richard Gauthier" <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> *An:* "Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion" 
> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>, "M.A." 
> <ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu>
> *Betreff:* Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions
> Please ignore last email, I hit send by accident.
> Richard
>
> > On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Richard Gauthier 
> <richgauthier at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:35 PM, M.A. <ambroselli at phys.uconn.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Richard,
> >>
> >> Interesting discussion.
> >> Why do you think that 'mind' may not be an epiphenomenon of
> >> matter? (I mean 'matter' here in the broader sense that includes
> >> EM and all the other known interactions - essentially Chandra's CTF)
> >>
> >> I've recently heard (on NPR I believe) an argument that it is
> >> essentially impossible for us to reach a point at which we have
> >> expressed everything one can possibly express on twitter (i.e.
> >> within the confines of 140 characters). The argument included
> >> time scales on the order of the current age of the universe,
> >> and, I believe, only one language.
> >>
> >> Now, the human (or even animal) body (including brain) is
> >> infinitely more complicated than 140 characters and in a
> >> continual feedback loop with its surroundings that consists
> >> itself of a mind-boggling number of (evolved) initial
> >> conditions etc.. I would not find it surprising at all that
> >> something like intelligence/mind/awareness would emerge.
> >>
> >> I'm not saying I understand it, but I don't find it surprising.
> >> Incredibly complex systems can do (at least) one of two things:
> >> they can be on a path that causes them to blow up eventually
> >> (a lot of stars do that, I hear), or they settle into some kind
> >> of interesting dynamic steady state. Not sure were humanity falls.
> >> But then again the time scales are mind-boggling, too. Maybe it
> >> all just blows up in the end, and sometimes something interesting
> >> happens along (for part of) the way...
> >>
> >>
> >> Michael
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700
> >>> From: Richard Gauthier <richgauthier at gmail.com>
> >>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General Discussion
> >>> <general at lists.natureoflightandparticles.org>
> >>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of Light Interactions
> >>> Message-ID: <5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B at gmail.com>
> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> >>>
> >>> Hello Chandra,
> >>> Thank you for your detailed explanations. Whether or not the CTF (or
> >>> the ether) is conscious is definitely an open question. We still need
> >>> to know how mind and subjective experience arise in this physical
> >>> universe, since that?s how we know about the physical universe. 
> The old
> >>> materialistic explanation that mind is an epiphenomenon of organized
> >>> matter (?the brain secretes thought as the liver secretes bile.?) may
> >>> satisfy some materialists (thinking themselves to be scientific). But
> >>> this is not the only possible explanation of mind. Matter itself 
> is yet
> >>> to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be composed of other matter
> >>> ?all the way down?.
> >>> Richard
> >>>
> >>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM, Roychoudhuri, Chandra
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at Wolf at nascentinc.com
> <a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
> Click here to unsubscribe
> </a>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/pipermail/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/attachments/20150909/22461ace/attachment.htm>