<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
I agree that computers mimik intelligence , thought and mind.<br>
I think Searly's Chinese Room analogy makes the point. <br>
One can respond rationally on a blind rule based instruction sheet
withoout ever knowing or imagining<br>
that is having the experiences we normally associate
with conscious beings <br>
<br>
Of course since I am a pan-psychist and am developing a pan-psychic
physics that includes the conscious observer as a foundational
principle<br>
I also believe those switches and systems of switches have a
primitive-consciousness built into their material.<br>
So there is a natural will and desire built into them.<br>
We capture, and control that natural desire and behavior to make
the switches do our tedious symbolic manipulation.<br>
What this means is that a large enough computer may develop a
consciousness much like a cockroach probably has feelings<br>
but that would be its own way of feeling not ours.<br>
The idea that a computer who is mimicking human response patterns
actually will have human feelings<br>
like many sci-fy movies portray is pure fiction.<br>
<br>
Wolf<br>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">Dr. Wolfgang Baer
Research Director
Nascent Systems Inc.
tel/fax 831-659-3120/0432
E-mail <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:wolf@NascentInc.com">wolf@NascentInc.com</a></pre>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/8/2015 8:58 PM,
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:af.kracklauer@web.de">af.kracklauer@web.de</a> wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:trinity-9e209bdf-c4cd-4222-9579-9b6b939f7071-1441771094334@3capp-webde-bs28"
type="cite">
<div style="font-family: Verdana;font-size: 12.0px;">
<div>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.
<div>
<div name="quote" style="margin:10px 5px 5px 10px; padding:
10px 0 10px 10px; border-left:2px solid #C3D9E5;
word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space;
-webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
<div style="margin:0 0 10px 0;"><b>Gesendet:</b> Mittwoch,
09. September 2015 um 00:58 Uhr<br>
<b>Von:</b> "Richard Gauthier"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br>
<b>An:</b> "Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion"
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a>,
"M.A." <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"><ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu></a><br>
<b>Betreff:</b> Re: [General] Verification of Light
Interactions</div>
<div name="quoted-content">Please ignore last email, I hit
send by accident.<br>
Richard<br>
<br>
> On Sep 8, 2015, at 3:57 PM, Richard Gauthier
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>> On Sep 8, 2015, at 12:35 PM, M.A.
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu"><ambroselli@phys.uconn.edu></a> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Hi Richard,<br>
>><br>
>> Interesting discussion.<br>
>> Why do you think that 'mind' may not be an
epiphenomenon of<br>
>> matter? (I mean 'matter' here in the broader
sense that includes<br>
>> EM and all the other known interactions -
essentially Chandra's CTF)<br>
>><br>
>> I've recently heard (on NPR I believe) an
argument that it is<br>
>> essentially impossible for us to reach a point
at which we have<br>
>> expressed everything one can possibly express
on twitter (i.e.<br>
>> within the confines of 140 characters). The
argument included<br>
>> time scales on the order of the current age of
the universe,<br>
>> and, I believe, only one language.<br>
>><br>
>> Now, the human (or even animal) body (including
brain) is<br>
>> infinitely more complicated than 140 characters
and in a<br>
>> continual feedback loop with its surroundings
that consists<br>
>> itself of a mind-boggling number of (evolved)
initial<br>
>> conditions etc.. I would not find it surprising
at all that<br>
>> something like intelligence/mind/awareness
would emerge.<br>
>><br>
>> I'm not saying I understand it, but I don't
find it surprising.<br>
>> Incredibly complex systems can do (at least)
one of two things:<br>
>> they can be on a path that causes them to blow
up eventually<br>
>> (a lot of stars do that, I hear), or they
settle into some kind<br>
>> of interesting dynamic steady state. Not sure
were humanity falls.<br>
>> But then again the time scales are
mind-boggling, too. Maybe it<br>
>> all just blows up in the end, and sometimes
something interesting<br>
>> happens along (for part of) the way...<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> Michael<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>>> Date: Tue, 8 Sep 2015 10:52:11 -0700<br>
>>> From: Richard Gauthier
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:richgauthier@gmail.com"><richgauthier@gmail.com></a><br>
>>> To: Nature of Light and Particles - General
Discussion<br>
>>>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org"><general@lists.natureoflightandparticles.org></a><br>
>>> Subject: Re: [General] Verification of
Light Interactions<br>
>>> Message-ID:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B@gmail.com"><5AE0CAA3-2648-4AE7-A87C-B261D99E886B@gmail.com></a><br>
>>> Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="windows-1252"<br>
>>><br>
>>> Hello Chandra,<br>
>>> Thank you for your detailed explanations.
Whether or not the CTF (or<br>
>>> the ether) is conscious is definitely an
open question. We still need<br>
>>> to know how mind and subjective experience
arise in this physical<br>
>>> universe, since that?s how we know about
the physical universe. The old<br>
>>> materialistic explanation that mind is an
epiphenomenon of organized<br>
>>> matter (?the brain secretes thought as the
liver secretes bile.?) may<br>
>>> satisfy some materialists (thinking
themselves to be scientific). But<br>
>>> this is not the only possible explanation
of mind. Matter itself is yet<br>
>>> to be fully understood. It?s unlikely to be
composed of other matter<br>
>>> ?all the way down?.<br>
>>> Richard<br>
>>><br>
>>>> On Sep 7, 2015, at 12:46 PM,
Roychoudhuri, Chandra</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre wrap="">_______________________________________________
If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Wolf@nascentinc.com">Wolf@nascentinc.com</a>
<a href=<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">"http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/wolf%40nascentinc.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1"</a>>
Click here to unsubscribe
</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>