text:
blog.lib.umn.edu |
About Rationally Speaking
Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.
Thursday, November 08, 2012
Consciousness and the Internet
77 comments:
- AnonymousNovember 08, 2012 9:42 AM
Can you recommend a good handbook/companion to the philosophy of mind that discusses the latest controversies/theories of consciousness? Thanks.
ReplyDelete I was rather impatient with all the replies until Sean Carroll's came along. While the connections and substrate may be there, they basically provide a lump of dead meat, rather than something that has come together like a brain.
If level of complexity sufficed, then the iTunes Terms and Conditions would be sentient.I think Searle's mistake is focusing on syntax while neglecting semantics. The reason the Chinese room fails is that it fails on the semantic level.
Meaning is about sign and signified. To fix the Chinese room, you would have to have 5 languages, all inputting at the same time. Like our five senses. Then our illiterate homunculus could create meaning, via the order, and organization of how these different languages interact... causation, category and identity. Time scale is an issue, but computers can also compute much faster than the human brain. So the evolution necessary could happen faster.
The internet has nothing like our type of interaction, as you say, so any consciousness that might occur would be very different and... well... very unlikely. It might not even notice us, if it did become conscious.
I think robots are a much more likely candidate for consciousness, because they 'interact' like us.RepliesI could be misunderstanding you, but I don't see how your method would solved the Chinese room problem. I was under the impression that to have semantics of the same kind as a human, the signs have to be grounded with real senses.
DeleteWhat is a 'real sense'?
To be 'real', it would just have to be self-consistent over time. Standard brain-in-a-vat type stuff.
Imagine an apple, it feels a certain way, smells a certain way, tastes a certain way...etc..
As long as these inputs are self-consistent, your language is not nonsense and by organizing the different language inputs, the inputs become meaningful. But you need interaction (and comparison of the inputs creates meaning). Consciousness seems to simply be a high level of this, which leads to self-reflection. The abstract 'I'.
I completely agree with your characterization of the article...it was a bit of fun, but misguided play. Sean Carroll nailed it on the head in the interview, but I don't know if I completely buy your criticisms of the concept of building consciousness.
I'd like to caveat that I've only read a couple Dennett's books partway through, but I'm inclined to fall on a "substrate matters, kinda". And where I slip up and don't mention it, I'm going to be focusing on human-like consciousness. It's probably physically possible to emulate a brain on a different substrate when the substrate can support a manageable density of the fundamental computing units. I cannot see any reason why consciousness should be limited to biological systems, though I think we're a long way of even understanding enough to know how to build it (much less actually build it). But we no the substrate for consciousness can't be made carpentry, as the engineering challenges would be literally astronomical. Also, the degrees of freedom in carbon chemistry are not going to bubble-up beyond the "logical" layer (this may be a computer science only term, but "logical" vs "physical" is about abstracting items in a useful way away from their physical details).
When it comes to the emulation problem...isn't the output of conscious processes itself usually abstract symbols? Emulation seems perfectly capable of transmitting this into the "real world", or rather, we have no problem getting at it. Why can we not judge consciousness based on input/output? Anything capable of consciousness would probably need time to build a "private state" (experience) that was complex enough to behave "consciously", but after this period, the things we use to reason about human-like conscious minds should start to make sense. We would talk about degrees of consciousness based on how well reasoning about the "other mind" of the computer(s) would work (predict output).
Now, with the "uploaders" thing...I think that's the most ridiculous thing in the world. I don't see that it would be feasible or at all...consciousness seems sufficiently complex that the subtleties of the medium would prevent any 1:1 transfer, and I don't know how one would capture a 100% complete brain-state snapshot.Tononi addressed the complexity is not sufficient argument in his new book Phi (the style of which I find annoying rather than amusing - still a thought provoking read).
Also a simple correction to Unknown (above) - we have many, many more senses than 5. I'm not at all sure why this is taught to children. Some senses other than the top 5 (the earth's gravitational field and acceleration more generally, balance, a sense of where our limbs are in 3D space, heat, cold, noxious substances, levels of various chemicals in our tissues, lots of tissues can sense strain which gives us the sense of where our limbs are but also bone loading environment, blood pressure, etc. etc., possibly but not likely pheromones, possibly but really not likely the earth's (or any) magnetic field)Dan56,
> Can you recommend a good handbook/companion to the philosophy of mind that discusses the latest controversies/theories of consciousness? <
We may have to crowd source this one. My specialty is philosophy of biology, so I would hesitate to make that kind of recommendation.
I think our positions are very close, but a couple of comments:
> I cannot see any reason why consciousness should be limited to biological systems <
I never said that. I think, however, that it is limited to certain classes of complex systems with certain kinds of chemistries, in part because other kinds of chemistries just do not allow for the necessary complexity and reactivity.
> the degrees of freedom in carbon chemistry are not going to bubble-up beyond the "logical" layer <
Right, but that assumes that consciousness is only a matter of logic / symbol manipulation. It isn't, otherwise modern computers would likely already be conscious. Consciousness is about the feeling of first person experience, which is separate from whatever computational issues pertain to the logical layer (unless, again, one defines the latter as having to do with computability in the broadest sense of the word, in which case I'd like to know the difference between a conscious being and anything else that is computable in the universe).
> isn't the output of conscious processes itself usually abstract symbols? <
No, or not only. See comment above.
> Now, with the "uploaders" thing...I think that's the most ridiculous thing in the world. <
Indeed, and I keep being amazed at how much traction the thing has in the allegedly skeptical community...RepliesAlong these lines ... what if our definition of consciousness, like, say, SETI's search for extraterrestrial life, is too narrowly focused? Or, if not too narrow, wrongly focused? We could both overlook consciousness somewhere, wrongly, and impute it where it isn't, also wrongly?
Also, there's degrees of consciousness, based on how many "layers" of thinking a conscious entity can manipulate, as in:
1. I am thinking;
2. I know that you are thinking;
3. I know that you are thinking about what I am thinking;
If "the Internet" is conscious, I'm sure it's not beyond the second-order level of thinking consciousness.
Beyond that, what is "the Internet"?I'd argue these are layers of abstractions in the conscious thinking process. Which only life forms are capable of.
1. I am thinking about making conscious choices.
2. I am thinking about the conscious choices you are thinking about.
3. I am thinking about the conscious choices you may make in response to those you think I'm making.
The Internet is aware of serving human purposes - as are our human brains. (It also serves some animal purposes, although in a largely "unawareness" state.) Purpose is an intelligently strategic process, and the process requires itself to ask the questions. The Internet so far can ask no questions that we humans haven't prompted it to do.
Now you might respond that humans have also been prompted by the universe to ask questions. But we have evolved to make our own choices of and from our own questions, and the Internet and its functional computers have so far not evolved, by either their own intelligences or ours, to do so.RepliesHammers "serve" a purpose. but it's mostly ours. They don't have any purposes of their own that we know of. Not in the guise of being hammers anyway. The hammer does react to its physical awareness of stress, but its reactive options were chosen for it when we arranged for and caused it to function.
Computers, by the way, can act intelligently. But again because we've taught them to.
And so I've tried to teach my hammer to anticipate things at least, but so far to no purpose."The Internet" is aware of nothing. Its human users, programmers, etc.? Different story. That said, I think, speaking of, the thrust of Dan Falk is all wrong. Maybe we should take a page from Lynn Margules and ask if (shades of Kurzweil, even, I know) we shouldn't talk about symbiosis.
I think that "complexity" is being misused much like brain-volume was mis-used in the early 20th century as a measure of intelligence. Consciousness requires complexity, but it requires (IMHO) a particular, non-random complexity, and the internet, for all it's virtues, lacks the requisite character to become conscious. It sounds cool, but it's BS.
ReplyDeleteI've held this idea in my mind for years. Not long ago, I discovered that there's actually a name for it, the "China brain" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_brain). That's a separate thought experiment than the Chinese room -- an argument that never had much weight for me.
Falk asks if the Internet is "about to wake up"...What if it already has? Our individual neurons have no idea what we are thinking (or that we are thinking), so how would be know if the Internet is thinking?
Unless we can figure out a test for the Internet's possible consciousness, I think the answer is to remain agnostic on the question. The one thing in my mind that makes it seem unlikely is the lack of coherent input. By that, I mean that we have eyes that give us a coherent visual image of the world, feedback from touching an object that we also see, plus hearing, smell, and taste that we can correlate with what is around us. The Internet gets most of its inputs from humans who are doing stuff like tweeting about what they ate for breakfast. Yeah perhaps the Internet can "see" through the many webcams attached to it, but without physical interaction, what can it possibly make of what it sees? And supposing it can, it knows "where" things are mainly in terms of IP addresses, so its perception of the globe we live on might have an unusual (and quite artificial) topology. Ultimately it would depend on whether the Intenet is capable of self-organizing into something that can form a coherent world view. This is another way of saying that the substrate matters -- yes, I think it does, but not in a way that Searles' Chinese room captures.Gadfly,
> what if our definition of consciousness, like, say, SETI's search for extraterrestrial life, is too narrowly focused? Or, if not too narrow, wrongly focused? We could both overlook consciousness somewhere, wrongly, and impute it where it isn't, also wrongly? <
Yes, this is always a possibility. But, just in the case of life, we have to go by what we know, and we know only one type of consciousness. If anyone is interested in a "broader" version it is up to them to provide reasons, definitions, and evidence.
pete, denlillekemisten,
I see what you mean. I'll look into it, but it sounds like the idea is to use multi-valued logic to avoid paradoxes, which is fine. Bayesian inference comes in for practical applications (resolution of inconsistent beliefs), but, again, I don't see how a theory of probability is directly relevant to an abstract problem in logic.
> The Internet is aware of serving human purposes <
And you know this how?
> The hammer does react to its physical awareness of stress <
Hammers are aware?? Oh boy.- AnonymousNovember 09, 2012 12:33 PM
Hi Massimo,
I agree that the internet is almost certainly not about to reach some human-level of consciousness. But I don't agree that the substrate is as necessary for consciousness as you suggest.
First I should mention that I haven't read much of this blog, so I'm not sure if you've covered any of what I discuss below elsewhere. Please do refer me to posts that might cover these topics.
Second, I seem not have the same narrow definition of "consciousness" as you, since you've implied that only humans are conscious. I tend to view consciousness as a scale of awareness. Practically all animals have some collection of senses of which they are aware. Higher mammals start to become aware of more complex world states and interactions, including things such as intentions, desires and feelings. Humans certainly do appear to be the best species at being able to deal with abstractions and being able to reflectively perceive and control our internal state of mind. Though there are many low-level brain processes that are beneath the level of our conscious awareness.
I think your analogy between Searle's Chinese Room and photosynthesis falls down since you don't maintain the external interaction. The Chinese Room is flawed as an argument against artificial intelligence, but it interacts through the input and output of messages in Chinese. The "photosynthesis room" should be capable of generating the same chemical output as photosynthesis. From an external perspective, it doesn't matter what is going on in the room as long as the output is the same. There could be actual photosynthetic chemicals in there, or some complex machine that includes a simulation connected to a "molecule assembler". Would you be concerned that the photosynthesis was only simulated if the physical result was still the same?
Of course, few would argue that consciousness is much more complicated than photosynthesis. The China brain, mentioned by Richard above, is something I've contemplated in one form or another in the past. It seems to me that the vast difference in the substrate there is probably a significant stumbling block for people considering such a system to be conscious. Though I don't see how the China brain producing consciousness raises questions of any greater difficulty (where and how consciousness arises) than in a biological brain.
The human brain is composed of approximately 100e9 neurons, and each neuron is a distinct cell that can survive in a culture outside of the brain. Through the arrangement and efficacy of connections to sensory neurons and each other, the activity of collections of neurons abstractly represent awareness of the body and environment. Consciousness emerges from the collective activity of neurons, so it seems to me that consciousness is actually the combination and interaction of these abstract representations.
Scientific experiments with out-of-body experiences would seem to suggest that, while consciousness is a product of the brain, ambiguous sensory information or direct chemical manipulation can cause our consciousness to "leave" the body. This could be evidence for consciousness being the emergent abstractions of perceptual brain processes.
Having said that, the substrate is critically important for biological organisms. Just as the physical laws of the universe are critical. (How could they not be when living things are composed of matter and energy interacting under these physical laws?) But if consciousness emerges from the abstract representations resulting from perceptual brain processes, by the nature of abstraction, the physical substrate of consciousness becomes non-critical. Given this view, I don't currently see why consciousness couldn't exist "in silico".
Maybe you could give your point of view on the ideas that abstract representations can objectively exist, do exist in the brain, and that consciousness is the a collection of abstract representations?
TobyReplies>"Scientific experiments with out-of-body experiences would seem to suggest that, while consciousness is a product of the brain, ambiguous sensory information or direct chemical manipulation can cause our consciousness to "leave" the body."
What scientific experiments with out-of-body experiences, such as those using transcranial magnetic stimulation and the like, tell us is that the 'feeling' of being outside your body is just that, a feeling, specifically the manipulation of the proprioceptive modeling of our embodied system. Neural modulation of the relevant brain areas responsible for maintaining said proprioceptive model does not prove that consciousness can leave the brian/body, it just shows that the part of the brain that maintains a model of our embodiment is manipulatable, so we can induce the feeling of floating outside the body etc. If you want to prove that our consciousness does indeed extend outside the body, then you'd need a study where the floating consciousness reports back novel information (say a changing sequence of random numbers on an led display somewhere the person's eyes can't see) that would be physically impossible for the person to have perceived. In that regard, there is an ongoing study where they place displays that cycle numbers or images, forget which, in operating rooms positioned so that the patients cannot see them, but if you hover above the body and observe the operating theater like so many have reported, then it would be visible. I have a very low probability of expecting such positive data points in these experiments, the simpler conclusion is that it is just the feeling of leaving your body, aided by your additional senses, to recreate the scene from a different, imagined vantage point.- AnonymousNovember 17, 2012 5:05 AM
Hi Nonzero,
I agree. :) I was probably a bit vague with the, in quotations, "leave". I don't think that consciousness is like a spirit that can leave the body and independently experience the world.
I was working with a definition of consciousness where there is a distinction between the functions of the brain that give rise to consciousness and the awareness and subjective experience of consciousness that emerges.
It may be a stretch, but I would say that consciousness extends to wherever sensory signals come from. Of course, in normal situations that only extends to the sensory receptors in the body.
However, we could, for example, imagine a living brain in a jar receiving all of the sensory signals from, and sending all the motor signals to, a distant human body. Or, we could use the real examples of implants (cochlear and artificial retinas) that allows us to be aware of signals from sensors (sound or vision) outside of the body.
I would say that "consciousness" extends to the site of these sensors. So consciousness could, in this sense, "leave" the body.
The Internet reacts to our requests. It has elements that calculate at our request. I know this from logically reacting to my observations. ("Know" being a term of probability in my case, if not in yours.)
All things that react are in that sense aware of the reaction process. The Internet computers are not aware of the extent to which their masters are humans, or the extent to which humans have purposes. Your computer for example was likely taught that we have none.
And physicists may have informed you that (in their professional opinion) there is an awareness involved in every physical reaction process in the universe, but again they are speaking from a logical analysis of their observations. And of course you have logically analyzed this particular bit of knowledge and found it wanting. In your "oh boy" opinion that is. Oh brother.mindtheleap,
> I seem not have the same narrow definition of "consciousness" as you, since you've implied that only humans are conscious. <
No, I don't. I explicitly said in the post that consciousness is a matter of degrees, as to be expected from pretty much anything that evolved. However, that to me is even more of a reason to think that the phenomenon is substrate dependent.
> Would you be concerned that the photosynthesis was only simulated if the physical result was still the same? <
The point of that analogy is precisely that if photosynthesis were only simulated there wouldn't be any physical result. Your "molecular assembler" simply sneaks in the physical substrate.
> Though I don't see how the China brain producing consciousness raises questions of any greater difficulty (where and how consciousness arises) than in a biological brain. <
I do, since the substrate is entirely different (and so is the connectivity).
> Consciousness emerges from the collective activity of neurons, so it seems to me that consciousness is actually the combination and interaction of these abstract representations. <
We don't actually know how consciousness emerges from neural activity (though it doubtless does). I don't think I can make sense of the idea of neurons having representations.
> Scientific experiments with out-of-body experiences would seem to suggest that, while consciousness is a product of the brain, ambiguous sensory information or direct chemical manipulation can cause our consciousness to "leave" the body. <
That's a well documented illusion, there is no leaving the body, as the body seems to be necessary for consciousness (yet another argument against "mind uploading" fantasies).
> But if consciousness emerges from the abstract representations resulting from perceptual brain processes, by the nature of abstraction, the physical substrate of consciousness becomes non-critical. <
But that's begging the question. I don't think consciousness emerges from abstract representations of logical inputs / outputs. That's precisely what one needs to demonstrate (rather than assume) for the computational theory of mind to go through.
> All things that react are in that sense aware of the reaction process. <
Nonsense on stilts, as I have argued to you many times in the past.
> physicists may have informed you that (in their professional opinion) there is an awareness involved in every physical reaction process in the universe <
Physicists have not informed me of any such thing. And what would physicists known about awareness, given that the latter is a biological phenomenon, to the best of our knowledge?Massimo, if awareness is more than a biological phenomenon, than who better to have realized that than physicists.
And because you've persisted in arguing that only biological forms have awareness, does such persistence alone make you right?
Physicists (John Wheeler, et al) have also argued that the universe operates and evolves intelligently, and yet your argument seems to be that intelligence was only evolved by life - along with, I suppose, by life's self invented and self evolved awareness.
Of course it's long been obvious that you won't and apparently can't change your mind on these matters, but many of us feel that some forms of intelligent change are a necessity for learning. And when so many learned folks have stressed the need to look for purposes, you're refusal to consider purpose as a function of all intelligent processes is problematic to say the least.>" One can indeed simulate every single reaction that takes place during photosynthesis, all the way down to the quantum effects regulating electron transport. But at the end of the simulation one doesn't get the thing that biological organisms get out of photosynthesis: sugar."
But you do get sugar! If you were to simulate, with appropriate resolution, yourself (forget the feasibility for the moment), then you'd be able to interact with the simulated sugar in the same way you'd interact with 'physical' sugar here in the 'real' world. I don't buy the argument that a simulation is different from the real thing.
Now, if there are some physical phenomena that are not amenable to computational simulation, either for computability or computational complexity constraints, then that is another story. But what can be simulated, at appropriate details, is not different from the 'real' thing except for the divide of the interface between the agent and the simulation.Philosophy is hard enough to do when definitions are rigid and clear, even harder when the subject matter becomes as murky as consciousness. While it is is intriguing to consider the internet's point of view due to all its underlying complexity, why bother? A car might be a useful analogy to seeing consciousness as a 'simple' thing. Yes, there might be hundreds of systems within the car allowing it to drive at 80mph, but such movement can be achieved using any number of methods. Same could be true with consciousness. Isn't the mystery of consciousness supposed to be not so much the interaction with the environment, not so much the 'awareness' of the environment (if you believe that anything in this environment even exists outside the awareness of others) but simply this - the soundless hum you feel when you wake up, barely sensing anything except your own thoughts. That's the lodestone I think we are trying to mine, and I think we do ourselves and the science such a disservice by thinking this is only a property of a living thing, whatever that is supposed to mean.
I know philosophy is about humans, but the problem of consciousness is bigger, and you can play simple games to switch scope so that the internet, hammer, or thermostat get a fairer shot at it. Create a film of the real world except 40 years pass between each frame. Who is more alive, who is more reactive to the environment, who exhibits more awareness in the film - the rocks or the quark-like people? Why must it always be about us?I saw a talk recently entitled "Computing like the brain" by Jeff Hawkins. In it you can get a feel for how different modern computers are from how a brain works. They try to mimic the way the brain works and manage to build a good a classifier. Another BIG point in that talk is that building a brain simulation in software is computationally prohibitive if it is going to have anywhere close the number of neurons we have. We need _fundamentally_ different computer architectures to make that possible.
The internet is most probably connected in the "wrong" way to produce consciousness. "Braining" is all about how connections are made and broken.
It's a very interesting talk, and I learned some neurobiology as well, highly recommended.
> if awareness is more than a biological phenomenon, than who better to have realized that than physicists <
It isn't, as far as anyone can tell, since it is manifested only in (certain) biological systems.
> does such persistence alone make you right? <
You do realize that that is the sort of sophistic rhetoric that can be turned against anyone, yes? You are not making an argument, just substitute your own name for mine in your sentence and contemplate the effect.
> maybe we need to talk about human/internet "symbiosis" rather than just the internet. <
Well, it's an intriguing suggestion, but the term refers to interactions among living organisms (as the "bio" part implies). I don't doubt that we will soon be looking to more and more *integration* between computers and biological beings, but that doesn't qualify as symbiosis, at least not in the way biologists understand the term.
> But you do get sugar! If you were to simulate, with appropriate resolution, yourself (forget the feasibility for the moment), then you'd be able to interact with the simulated sugar in the same way you'd interact with 'physical' sugar here in the 'real' world. <
No, you would just get a *simulated* interaction between the simulated plant and the simulated sunlight, resulting in simulated sugar. No *actual* sugar involved. Of course there is a difference between simulations and the real thing, unless you think the universe itself is a simulation (which, I admit, is a possibility - but that's a whole other story, already covered at RS).
> Create a film of the real world except 40 years pass between each frame. Who is more alive, who is more reactive to the environment, who exhibits more awareness in the film - the rocks or the quark-like people? <
As usual, I have no idea what you are talking about.Massimo
As usual, I have no idea what you are talking about
Sure you do - you have some idea, right? No need to be short
Isn't the argument against rock consciousness that we can't see any evidence for it? What if we were to look at them at higher speeds from beginning to end, would we not see stuff that could lead us to reconsider?
Do me a favor and define consciousness or point to a definition you like. Then contemplate how human-centric that definition will have to be in order to make any sense.
I'm not saying that that is wrong, we cannot proceed with meaningful work without borders and assumptions. I am saying it is shortsighted to say consciousness in the non-living cannot exist. Far better to say, we have a hard time conceiving it, and leave it at that.Massimo turns my question back at me: "does such persistence alone make you right?"
No, Massimo, neither me nor you, but note the word "alone" in that question.
You've persistently repeated, without references, that awareness is no more than a biological phenomenon "as far as anyone can tell, since it is manifested only in (certain) biological systems."
My persistence in that area was not alone, yet you've ignored my references completely.
What would physicists in particular, know about awareness, you ask, as if they have no right to a contrary opinion where you're concerned. Not even John Archibald Wheeler.
Of course he's dead, so he's no longer "anyone" I suppose.
Then how about Charles Sanders Peirce, scientist AND philosopher? Well, he's even deader.
I have more, but that would be persistent, I suppose, to a fault.Here's a nice little article about the awareness of electrons.
At Small Scales, Tug-of-War Between Electrons Can Lead to Magnetism Under Surprising Circumstances
Also check out this paper at: http://www.cogsci.uci.edu/~ddhoff/ConsciousRealism2.pdf
Conscious Realism and the Mind-Body Problem
Donald D. Hoffman
Department of Cognitive Sciences
University of California
Irvine, California 92697DaveS,
> Isn't the argument against rock consciousness that we can't see any evidence for it? <
No, it's that we have no reason whatsoever to think that rocks are conscious, just like we have no reasons to believe that human beings are rocks.
> Do me a favor and define consciousness or point to a definition you like <
I did, in the post. Of course it looks human-centric, since that's the only experience of the phenomenon we have. That's true also for language. D you suspect that rocks talk and we don't hear them because we are not using the right frequency?
> Here's a nice little article about the awareness of electrons <
There is absolutely nothing about awareness in that article, it is about magnetism. You see why I don't take seriously the sources you keep invoking?
> What would physicists in particular, know about awareness, you ask, as if they have no right to a contrary opinion where you're concerned. <
They have a right to their opinions, but they don't know any more about consciousness than biologists know about quantum mechanics. Just like there is no particular reason to ask a biologist about quantum mechanics there is no particular reason to listen to a physicist when he talks about consciousness.
> Then how about Charles Sanders Peirce, scientist AND philosopher <
You will always find all sorts of strange opinions being held by all sorts of smart people. That's an argument from authority, a basic logical fallacy. I see no reason to talk about consciousness outside of biological systems, and nothing you have written or linked to has provided me with a compelling reason to change my mind. But you are more than welcome to kee trying.Massimo,
The article on magnetism was about how the mobile electrons act as "magnetic messengers," using their own spins to align the spins of nearby manganese atoms. And if you've ever studied anticipatory systems, you'd perhaps see that the atoms were acting in an anticipatory fashion, which causes some of us to realize that they have to be aware of each others application of forces to reactively make the process work as predictably as it invariably does. If atoms don't and didn't operate with this form of awareness of each others presence, there'd be no magnetism, and in the end, no regulated universe. (Assuming you accept of course that the "laws" we've observed in operation are regulatory.)
There is information being meaningfully exchanged here, as Wheeler would have told you, and he was far from a merely smart person with a strange opinion. (And the talk here is about awareness, not just our forms of conscious awareness, but nice try.)
And you must know that arguments from authority are not fallacies per se. They're your own primary form of argument here, are they not?
We find some authorities strange because of their previous opinions, but the opinions of those like Wheeler and Peirce have made them icons as tellers of our modern truths. (Relatively and rationally speaking, of course.)Massimo: >"No, you would just get a *simulated* interaction between the simulated plant and the simulated sunlight, resulting in simulated sugar. No *actual* sugar involved. Of course there is a difference between simulations and the real thing, unless you think the universe itself is a simulation (which, I admit, is a possibility - but that's a whole other story, already covered at RS)."
That is the point I was trying to get across, the difference between *simulation* and *real* is not as strong as you'd like to think. My thought experiment was trying to address this by showing that if you could simulate a human along with the photosynthetic plant, then the simulated human would interact with the plant (and the sugar output) just the way a *real* person would interact with *real* sugar. You do not give any rational explanation for why this would not be so.Baron,
> The article on magnetism was about how the mobile electrons act as "magnetic messengers," using their own spins to align the spins of nearby manganese atoms. <
I read the article, and nothing there implies anything at all about awareness of atoms. You are simply misreading a metaphor, as you keep doing when twisting the scientific literature to fit your preconceived panpsychist view of the world.
> the talk here is about awareness, not just our forms of conscious awareness, but nice try <
No, the talk here is about consciousness. Just re-read the title of the post, if not the post itself. But nice try.
> They're your own primary form of argument here, are they not? <
No, I try to present arguments and evidence in favor of my positions. You may or may not buy either, but it is a willful mischaracterization of this blog to say that I argue from my own authority.
> My thought experiment was trying to address this by showing that if you could simulate a human along with the photosynthetic plant, then the simulated human would interact with the plant (and the sugar output) just the way a *real* person would interact with *real* sugar. <
I don't get it: you either simulate the whole thing, in which case you don't get sugar, or you simulate part of the process and then connect the output to something that actually makes sugar, in which case you are cheating. If I'm missing something, please explain.
> Likely the principle of organizational invariance <
Sorry, I long stopped taking seriously anything David Chalmers says. He started with zombies and recently even endorsed Singularitarianism. Besides, I was talking about an empirically-established scientific principle, not the sleight of hand of a misguided philosopher.Massimo. it's unfortunate that you don't see a difference between awareness in general and conscious awareness in particular. Because any talk on consciousness is about awareness, but awareness is not necessarily conscious (regardless of the varied views of either you or that somewhat more nutty Chalmers).
And although I'm not what you'd like to label a preconceived panpsychist (whatever the hell that really means), I'd accept the label of panprotoexperientialist, if labels help you think.
And of course you argue all the time from your own authority; it would be a mischaracterization to say otherwise. Not that I've said there's anything wrong with that per se. But your arguments make your authority questionable when you put physicists on a lower pedestal where it comes to your version of philosophy.
The physical sciences sprang from philosophy, and not the other way around. You for example may be a better philosopher than Lawrence Krauss (but who isn't) yet Wheeler (who you've studiously ignored here) was much better at the philosophical side of physics than you.
As Peirce was about its purposes as well.RepliesBaron,
> it's unfortunate that you don't see a difference between awareness in general and conscious awareness in particular <
Where on earth did you get that? I'm perfectly aware of that distinction. I simply pointed out that *my* discussion in this post pertained to consciousness, but you highjacked it to turn it into your perennial favorite.
> I'd accept the label of panprotoexperientialist, if labels help you think. <
No, not at all, I'm afraid.
> Wheeler (who you've studiously ignored here) <
Once again, you simply drop names (Wheeler, Pierce), which amounts to arguing by authority. Tell me what you find so compelling (and pertinent!) in Wheeler and maybe we can have a conversation.
Well, Peirce wrote: "In the pragmatic way of thinking in terms of conceivable practical implications, every thing has a purpose, and its purpose is the first thing that we should try to note about it."
But you knew that, and you disagree, and apparently there's no curing you on that score.
Wheeler, on the other hand, wrote something that was more to the point, where awareness is concerned:
From Wikipedia:
"In 1990, Wheeler suggested that information is fundamental to the physics of the universe. According to this "it from bit" doctrine, all things physical are information-theoretic in origin.
Wheeler: It from bit. Otherwise put, every "it" — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely — even if in some contexts indirectly — from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. "It from bit" symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has at bottom — a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source and explanation; that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes — no questions and the registering of equipment-evoked responses; in short, that all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and that this is a participatory universe."
Awareness in a nutshell, or as you might say, on stilts.
You could also look at some of his books and papers, such as this one oft referenced at SEP:
Wheeler, J.A. and Zurek, W.H. (eds) (1983) Quantum Theory and Measurement (Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press).RepliesRe Peirce:
First, there's more than one use of the word "purpose." Second, people as reductionistic as Dennett and Dawkins have used words such as "purpose" in an anthropomorphic way about evolutionary processes. I would say, rhetorically, that "surely you don't believe that means the process of evolution itself is conscious," but I'm not sure that you just maybe you DO believe that.
Third, what Massimo said.
Re Wheeler:
If you can show me a statement by Wheeler supporting your original claim that hammers are sentient, I'll eat my hat.
As for Wheeler's actual statement, as cosmologists around the world know, nobody knows what is the "correct" interpretation of what wavefunction collapse really means. Is it Everett's Wheeler-inspired multiverses? Greene's string theory? Some neo-Einsteinian quantum realism?
And, taking a shot at Dave while here:
If this is just about "playing word games" and a change in games would let us talk about the consciousness of a hammer or thermostat, as soon as a hammer or thermostat can read Wittgenstein, understand linguistic game-playing and "deal itself in," call me back. (Or ask Nagel to write, "What Is It Like To Be a Thermostat?")
Per Massimo, our "returns" are diminishing to marginal status indeed.Oh, and having clicked Baron's blogger profile ... wow. If you agree with 10 percent of what this Anthony Peake claims, Massimo has been far more than generous on the amount of time he's spent responding to you.
DeleteWhoops Gadfly, that was my profile with the Peake reference, not Baron P's. I like to read interesting ideas and Peake sure concocted some interesting ones
Baron P has pointed out what is compelling about Wheeler's work. His ideas about the anthropic universe in the 60s led him to the work on information in the 90s. The centerpiece of this work was the 'delayed choice' variation on the 2-slit experiment, ostensibly proving that the way an experiment was set up not only determined the path of an electron in a beam being observed, but also paths that had already taken place. Again, what you call the most successful science to date. Worth mentioning that unlike Bohm, he avoided parapsychological pursuits (and their proponents) like the plague, and he despised pseudoscience.
The pertinence of Wheeler's ideas are interestingly enough, that he did NOT require consciousness for stuff to exist, inanimate observers would do just as well. Well if the internet can be said to be conscious, wouldn't we be back to square one, whereby stuff is only in our minds, and that what we think about and what "is" are not much different. But different they are, according to Andrei Linde and John Smythies. While at pains to proclaim the existence of matter, they are both quite clear that any description is not complete unless consciousness is invoked. They draw on the work of Kaluza and Klein to distinguish between a physical space of > 3 dimensions, and phenomenal space having only 3 dimensions.
To me, this stuff is both science and philosophy, it takes place in universities, not everyone agrees or follows, but it it's done by some of the best in the field, ignore it if you like.
Consciousness's role in the universe is why I asked you about your definition. I do see that you wrote something about it being a biological phenomenon, was hoping for something a bit more substantial.Consciousness is a biological function because biological forms make proactive choices. (I'd argue that to do so purposely is to be conscious of the purposes, but that won't fly here.) But the choices in any case are formative and it's the choice making function that evolves its forms. If these functions evolved to form our creatures, they may well have evolved elsewhere to accommodate other formations, and we would likely call these other forms life, but not necessarily find them biologically constructed. But we could find that they at the same time have the sensory capacities to consciously respond intelligently to whatever efforts we've made to contact or respond to them.
as usual we are hitting diminishing returns here, but a couple more comments before I sign off from the discussion:
> Peirce wrote: "In the pragmatic way of thinking in terms of conceivable practical implications, every thing has a purpose, and its purpose is the first thing that we should try to note about it." <
Yes, but he wrote that in the context of his 1908 essay on "A Neglected Argument for the Reality of God." I don't take seriously any argument that refers to the existence of supernatural entities. See? Even very smart people write nonsense on stilts, from time to time.
As for Wheeler, I suspect you are either taking him out of context or over-interpreting him, as I have grown accustomed to see you do. Even if we agree that "information is fundamental to the physics of the universe" (whatever that may mean, precisely), the book by Ladyman and Ross that I discussed several times at RS is an example of how such a statement is perfectly compatible with a standard naturalistic interpretation of reality, and one that doesn't require everything to have purpose or awareness. Take DNA molecules: if there is anything that everyone agrees carries information that's DNA. Yet DNA is not aware of anything, and if you maintain such a notion you will be laughed out of the room in any serious biological conference.
> The centerpiece of [Wheeler's] work was the 'delayed choice' variation on the 2-slit experiment, ostensibly proving that the way an experiment was set up not only determined the path of an electron in a beam being observed, but also paths that had already taken place. <
Which as far as I can tell has nothing whatsoever to do with anything being discussed here. Whatever you wrote after that is so garbled that I couldn't get any meaning out of it.Do you even have a working definition of consciousnness? You put in all this time writing about it.
ReplyDeleteReplies"An international group of prominent scientists has signed The Cambridge Declaration on Consciousness in which they are proclaiming their support for the idea that animals are conscious and aware to the degree that humans are ....What's also very interesting about the
declaration is the group's acknowledgement that consciousness can emerge in those animals that are very much unlike humans....Consequently, say the signatories, the scientific evidence is increasingly indicating that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness....The declaration
was signed in the presence of Stephen Hawking ...."
Hawking was not only present at the declaration, but made some statements of his own (on other occasions):
"There is a real danger that computers will develop intelligence and take over. We urgently need to develop direct connections to the brain so that computers can add to human intelligence rather than be in opposition".
"I think the brain is essentially a computer and consciousness is like a computer program. It will cease to run when the computer is turned off. Theoretically, it could be re-created on a neural network, but that would be very difficult, as it would require all one's memories".
Now, I am only making a Devil's Advocate argument here (an argument from authority!).
P.S. Dawkins also supports the notion of consciousness in animals
> Do you even have a working definition of consciousnness? You put in all this time writing about it. <
Do you even read what I write? You put all this time into commenting on it...
> Hawking was not only present at the declaration, but made some statements of his own <
Indeed, which only goes to show that Hawking sometimes talks about stuff he does not understand. Like when he comments on the uselessness of philosophy...
> Dawkins also supports the notion of consciousness in animals <
If you qualify that statement to "some" animals and "some degree of" consciousness I'm on board.Massimo, as expected, you have found your usual excuses not to have to change your stance on the fundamental pillars of your own outdated philosophical structures. Find what you consider one mistake in someone else's philosophical house and declare the place uninhabitable.
Peirce, I suppose, is no longer (or never was) one of our greatest logicians, because he was not the agnostic that in your view he should at least have been.
The God that Peirce "believed" in was not the more silly God that most of today's religionists believe was the Creator of humans and our human world. Was he wrong in any case, yes, I'm quite sure so. Aristotle was much more wrong in his beliefs in Gods, yet you still admire his more sustainable discoveries as to how his God has worked the world. And if I'm not wrong, you still have great respect for the believer, Kant. And of course the agnostic, Russell.
Peirce wrote: "I am inclined to think (though I admit that there is no necessity of taking that view) that the process of creation has been going on for an infinite time in the past, and further, during all past time, and, further, that past time had no definite beginning, yet came about by a process which in a generalized sense, of which we cannot easily get much idea, was a development." So his God was a much different one than you'd like us to believe, and certainly from the one that your friend Kenneth Miller believes in.
And yes, people that believe in purpose would seem more likely to believe in a purposive God than those who don't. And so in your logic, as exhibited here, they should not have believed in purposes at all.
Of course I'm writing this for the benefit of some in your audience to ponder, since it's long been clear you won't.
As to your dismissal of Wheeler, it's just derisible. You write: "Yet DNA is not aware of anything, and if you maintain such a notion you will be laughed out of the room in any serious biological conference." Yet DNA is the quintessential site of our awareness functionality. I can name a dozen modern biologists who would laugh you out of the whole building for not knowing that.Baron,
golly, you truly are unbelievable. If you could only step back and examine the logic of what you write, and how nicely you twist what I write, you might pause for just one second and reconsider. But you won't, which is why I — as you do — write for the benefit of the broader audience, not because I have the slightest hope of changing your mind.
On Pierce:
> Aristotle was much more wrong in his beliefs in Gods, yet you still admire his more sustainable discoveries as to how his God has worked the world. And if I'm not wrong, you still have great respect for the believer, Kant. And of course the agnostic, Russell. <
I never said, nor will ever say, that belief in gods is a litmus test for rejecting *everything* someone says, so your list is entirely irrelevant. But Pierce gets his belief that everything has a purpose from his belief in god, regardless of which particular kind of god he believed in. As such, I consider his argument flawed and irreparable. But he was still a great logicians in other respects.
On Wheeler:
> Yet DNA is the quintessential site of our awareness functionality. I can name a dozen modern biologists who would laugh you out of the whole building for not knowing that. <
That is not at all what I wrote, is it? Of course DNA is the basis (I'm not sure about "quintessential") for our capacity to be aware. But that is not even close to what we were talking about, since the discussion was about the awareness of molecules like DNA. And I repeat that in that case you are the one that would be laughed out of the room.No, Peirce does not get his belief in purpose from belief in God.
But even if he, as you'd like to imagine, had, other philosophers such as Russell haven't.
Russell wrote: "Has the universe any unity of plan or purpose, or is it a fortuitous concourse of atoms? Is consciousness a permanent part of the universe, giving hope of indefinite growth in wisdom, or is it a transitory accident on a small planet on which life must ultimately become impossible? Are good and evil of importance to the universe or only to man? Such questions are asked by philosophy, and variously answered by various philosophers. But it would seem that, whether answers be otherwise discoverable or not, the answers suggested by philosophy are none of them demonstrably true. Yet, however slight may be the hope of discovering an answer, it is part of the business of philosophy to continue the consideration of such questions, to make us aware of their importance, to examine all the approaches to them, and to keep alive that speculative interest in the universe which is apt to be killed by confining ourselves to definitely ascertainable knowledge."
As to DNA, you now say, "But that is not even close to what we were talking about, since the discussion was about the awareness of molecules like DNA."
So your argument now is that DNA is aware but its molecules aren't. Well in fact the argument was also about atoms that make up molecules, so apparently your use of DNA as an example was only arbitrarily relevant, as you could have used the example that brains carrying information are not aware on the level of their atoms.
Except that Wheeler says they, the atoms, are aware, and other than doing the name dropping you've accused me of, you haven't made an argument to refute that.
So we can leave the argument at that or not. But probably not.RepliesBaron,
you really need to make an effort not to twist what others write. I'm ok debating things almost ad nauseam, but sometimes it looks like you are not even trying.
> Peirce does not get his belief in purpose from belief in God. <
Yes, he did, as it's clear from the context of the quote we were discussing.
> other philosophers such as Russell haven't. <
Except that absolutely *nothing* in the Russell quote you gave hints at the conclusion that Russell himself believed in cosmic purpose. C'mon, man, that's just reading other people through incredibly thick ideological glasses.
> So your argument now is that DNA is aware but its molecules aren't. <
NO, IT ISN'T! Please re-read what I wrote. I agreed that DNA is part of what gives *us* the ability to be aware. I never agreed that either DNA or any of its constituent molecules are themselves aware. Because that is pure nonsense, as far as the available empirical evidence and theoretical foundation of biology are concerned.
Massimo, you've agreed that Peirce was a great logician, yet argue that his capacity for logic was somehow perverted, as it did not prevent, but in fact was causing him, to see purpose in everything because he illogically believed there must be a god out there in some amorphous form.
Now you'll say I've twisted what you've written so that it no longer makes sense. Exactly. Although I'd call it parsing or dissecting. Because it doesn't make sense logically that a great logician based perhaps his most important logical proposition on superstition. And I've found nothing in his writings that says otherwise, even though in "context" you have.
What we usually find is that these people are prompted and confounded by their superstitions with the compulsion to make rational sense of them, but true greatness won't ordinarily ensue from that. More like Chopraesqueness. Or perhaps Dawkinsistics.
And regardless of your reading of my quote from Russell, in that there's no evidence he believed in cosmic purpose, the fact is that he clearly did, and in his case it came from his disbelief in a god that he had once believed in. (He threw out the baby but not the bath, it seems.) His pal, Whitehead, was similarly inclined, as you'll recall.
And then you wrote: "Of course DNA is the basis (I'm not sure about "quintessential") for our capacity to be aware."
But now you say DNA is not in itself aware; but it gives us that ability.
Does awareness thus spring from non-awareness? I find it hard to think so - it's a lot like saying that life's intelligence sprang from non-intelligence.
But then you have your pure nonsense and I have mine.RepliesMassimo (or anyone else),
Can you help me to understand Searle's "Chinese Room"? In particular, I'm puzzled by the "semantics/syntax" thing.
Searle suggests that computers just process syntax and so can never truly "know" things. But in the example of the person (in the room) who internalized the rules for manipulating Chinese characters -- can we not say that he will come to know Chinese? He can certainly reply to any question posed in Chinese. To an outside observer, he will appear to be a speaker. To say (as Searle does) that he does not understand what a "hamburger" is would surely just be a temporary obstacle. That is, as the man walked around and experienced things outside the room, he would come to note that the Chinese character (let's call it #32) is constantly associated with a hamburger. He would see pictures of hamburgers with #32 underneath it. From there, he may make associations of someone reading character #32 with a particular sound and learn to associate the sound with the character, etc. (Edgar Rice Burroughs's first "Tarzan" story describes Tarzan teaching himself English -- solely from Tarzan looking at picture books and the dictionary!)
Of course, coming to understand what a hamburger is requires making inferences and generalizing beyond what one is specifically taught. I'm not sure to what extent computers are able to do this. But the man in the Chinese room certainly could. Indeed, how else could a foreigner come to know the language of another land (other than by making inferences from a large group of experiences)? In short, I don't see the barrier of obtaining semantics from syntax. I also wonder why Searle focuses on syntax, since I am assuming here that the information received by the computer or the man in the Chinese room is not only syntactically correct, but consists of accurate and meaningful examples from which to generalize. (i.e. syntactically correct, but meaningless statements like "The water is triangular" are excluded). It seems to me not so much a question of semantics/syntax, but of receiving accurate examples/information and being able to make inferences and generalizations.
For example, if a computer is taught that a red ball is a ball, a green ball is a ball, etc. is it able to generalize that the color is irrelevant and it is the shape that gives us the category of "ball"? If so, it
would seem to me that links could be made from symbols to objects that would qualify the computer as "knowing" what a hamburger is.Tom,
I think we are supposed to imagine that the man in the room is just like a microprocessor, taking inputs and processing a list of instructions. We aren't allowed to equate the man's own consciousness with the idea that the room + list + man is a conscious system. The room + list + man is a system that presents to the outside world as an apparently conscious system that understands the inputs it is taking. But if the man does not know Chinese, he does not have an understanding of those inputs, he just understands the language that that book of instructions is written in, just as a microprocessor in an apparently aware computer only understands its own machine code.
I think the argument is flawed. It is meant to imply that no simulation of consciousness ever can develop real consciousness. That might be true if our consciousness were some mystical aspect of our minds, but Searles' argument doesn't refute the idea that our own consciousness is material in its origin -- it just gives an example of a material system that presents as conscious but isn't.
Computers might become conscious if sufficient criteria are met -- richness of algorithms, amount of memory, coherence of sensory data, ability to interact with the environment (for example, to perform experiments that yield interpretable results), etc.Richard,
Thanks for your reply.
What I have a hard time understanding is that Searle speaks of processing the symbols without "knowing" what the symbols mean. But it seems to me that properly responding to the symbols demonstrates knowledge. What other evidence is there of "knowing" beyond behavior? How do we know that you or I understand what a hamburger is other than our behavior will link the word hamburger to the characters or the sound or the picture -- we see the picture and say "that is a hamburger".
Searle seems to me to cheat a bit about the man in the room processing Chinese characters for hamburger, then entering the outside world and not recognizing a real
hamburger. That is unfair. It is as if I taught a group of young students about geometry, then tested them about trigonometry. I would say, "all the students failed so that proves you cannot teach them mathematics". Unfair. You have to match the testing to the teaching. The man in the room was taught only about linking characters to characters. He was never taught about linking visual data of an object to the character, or linking the character to the word sound,
taste, texture, etc. of a hamburger. If he WAS taught these things, his behavior (or a computer's behavior) would be indistinguishable from someone who "knows" what a hamburger is.
If there is some other "knowing" or "understanding", then Searle is being pretty vague about exactly what it is. I saw some talk about "intentionality", but I really didn't understand what he was getting at. Thomas Nagel writes in "What is it Like to be a Bat?" that it is very difficult to say what provides evidence of consciousness. I can understand that we cannot say
"we have achieved consciousness in a computer" if we do not know exactly what consciousness is. But on the other hand, we also cannot say "it is impossible to achieve consciousness", as Searle seems to say. If the definition is vague, it seems to me that we are obliged to stick to observable behavior. The burden of proof is on those who claim that there is something beyond that.
Richard, thanks again for your reply. Please know that any anger/hostility/impatience that you might detect in the lines above is not directed towards you.Tom, I didn't read your post as hostile at all. I think we both find the China room argument flawed, but for different and perhaps equally valid reasons. I'm trying to be as fair to Searle as possible as I'm sure you are. The best of my ability to interpret his argument is that the man is the only intelligent component in the room, the room "behaves" as if it understands Chinese, but the man knows no Chinese whatsoever, so any appearance the room presents as an intelligent Chinese-speaking entity is can't be true awareness. The instructions in the book might be so cryptic (If the input character looks like such-and-such then write the number 772 in column 55 of Table 37, then if column 91 of Table 107 has a 6 in it, go to step #5934266, else go to step #6823449) that the man has no hope of ever figuring out what he is doing. Unless he follows the instructions blindly to the letter, he fails utterly at this job. The same man when it comes time to file his tax returns might follow the line-by-line instructions and fill out a perfectly accurate return without ever understanding a thing about the tax code.
So you are right that intelligence can't be judged on whether the man actually does know the Chinese symbol for hamburger, etc. And the China room argument may have a flaw based on that issue alone, but the flaw has a dodge in the form of "but you can replace the man with a microprocessor that only knows machine code, and the instructions are so mechanical that they could be rewritten in the microprocessor's machine code. Repeat the thought experiment and you have to conclude, since the microprocessor is just an unintelligent automaton, that this time there really is no intelligence in the room, but there still is an appearance of it." I have a strong suspicion that this dodge is also flawed, but the flaw is more subtle and difficult to articulate. Perhaps you put it best by pointing out where the burden of proof should fall.
But I do think the Chinese room argument is flawed on the basis that a single example of an automaton displaying fake intelligence, if that *is* the case, does not refute the concept of intelligence being created on a non-biological substrate. There could be routes that lead to actual intelligence, which emerges from the system as a whole and not from a single component.The reply above is more or less correct, but a simpler way of putting it is to say that human awareness is more than automatic tabulation (or computation) per se. The room is just a tabulator and no more. A human might be a tabulator in some ways in neuronal processing, but is more than that. It doesn't mean that a human isn't computational in some ways, only that we are more than an automatic tabulator of the chinese room variety.
DeleteThe obvious crucial example of how human awareness is more than automatic tabulation is that is it as much a product of our environment as ourselves (nature - nurture, and so on). We might need some automatic tabulation in neuronal processing, but that serves an interaction between oneself and one's environment, and is adaptive. Soldier on, tech people, but a reproduction of a human is a long way off.
Which part of this exchange is the "with friends" part? I'm afraid the language of dismissiveness in the original post, compounded by the relentlessly combative tone of the comments on all sides, makes it difficult for me to see the conviviality implied in that inspiring tag line.
Well, the friendliness thing is an ideal. I don't always live to ideals... Everyone else, sorry, but I'm traveling now, so I'll be able to check in the discussion only from time to time.Interesting item from the book "Human", by Michael S. Gazzaniga:
"They [computer scientists] reason that once computers can match the amount of parallel connections in the brain, they will have the equivalent of human intelligence. But [Jeff] Hawkins points out a fallacy in this reasoning, which he calls the hundred-step rule. He gives this example: When a human is shown a picture and asked to press a button if a cat is in the picture, it takes about a half second or less. This task is very difficult or impossible for a computer to do. We already know that neurons are much slower than a computer, and in that half second, information entering the brain can traverse only a chain of one hundred neurons. You can come up with the answer with
only one hundred steps. A digital computer would take billions of steps to come up with the answer. So, how do we do it?
"And here is the crux of Hawkins's hypothesis: 'The brain doesn't "compute" the answer to problems; it retrieves the answers from memory. In essence, the answers were stored in memory a long time ago. It only takes a few steps to retrieve something from memory.
Slow neurons are not only fast enough [to] do this, but they constitute the memory themselves. The entire cortex is a memory system. It isn't a computer at all. [page 366].Now that's nonsense on a step ladder. If you could invent a stepladder to solve a problem by memory of some ancient version of a ladder.
DeletePeirce might then have had to say that God invented ladders for our purpose..
DeleteGood reply about memory. What complex computation is needed for automatic flow through past patterns by chemical commonalities (or some such thing)? If there is automatic tabulation or pattern matching at a basic level, it might be by basic commonalities in a flow through past patterns. Maybe that can be reduced to an algorithm, or is better defined as chemical affinities, or chemical affinities can be defined algorithmically. We shall see in time.
Yes, Tom D, Hawkins is fascinating.
Note that he is very clear in saying that he is NOT creating some sort of artificial consciousness.
Even so, if our brain is a memory system it is interesting to speculate on how our consciousness relates to this and how it could work as a memory system instead of as a computing system. Where does this rabbit hole go? If only I could do a couple of PhDs on that as well :).The point that Koch misses is that complexity of a system is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the phenomenon of consciousness to arise.
He is not alone in this. Bamber and most others who concern themselves with this issue, whether agreeing or disagreeing with the proposition that the Internet can, or will, become conscious, fall into the same trap.
Along with those who consider consciousness to be mystical or metaphysical, they overlook the fact that consciousness is a product of evolutionary processes.
Within the context of modern science, particularly evolutionary biology, there can be no question but that consciousness is a feature of most, if not all organisms.
Firstly, and most importantly, from our understanding of biological evolution by natural selection it becomes quite clear that the provision of a navigational feature that involves some degree of self awareness is required for an organism to interact optimally with its environment.
It is a measure of its fitness for the prevailing environment and subject to selection pressure accordingly.
There is, of course, a great gulf between the level of consciousness exhibited by our species in comparison to any other.
Simply because the level of interaction with the environment required by our particular ecological niche is incomparably higher. As evidenced by the billions of artifacts and systems that have resulted from human activities.
Furthermore, there is a good case to be made for the proposition that, from what we at present call the Internet it is probable that we will, quite soon, have a new cognitive and consciousness entity on this planet that will greatly surpass those of the human.
A product of the observed autonomous evolution of technology within the collective imagination of our species.
This topic is part of the broad evolutionary model very informal outlined in "The Goldilocks Effect: What Has Serendipity Ever Done For Us?" (free download in e-book formats from the "Unusual Perspectives" website)
New comments are not allowed.


text:
LOCAL STOCK on most hardwoods that we carry !! Diablo Flooring, Inc
by brian | Sep 25, 2018 | Uncategorized
Contact Diablo Flooring TODAY to discover why contractors, homeowners and builders choose to purchase their hardwood, laminate and Water proof flooring from us.Provenza Premier Hardwood Floor Collections – Diablo Flooring, Inc
by brian | Sep 11, 2018 | Uncategorized
Provenza® Hardwood Floors is a manufacturer of Custom, Commercial, Residential and Eco-friendly flooring. With over 36 years of experience in creating the most innovative, stylish, and unsurpassed quality hardwood flooring, Provenza offers wood floor collections that...FREE FLOORING ESTIMATE
- February 2024
- January 2024
- October 2023
- August 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- October 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- August 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- December 2008
Michael Hawes
19:23 24 May 20
We received excellent advice about the different types of floors, and help with choosing the actual product, an engineered wood. Our house is about 2000 sq ft. The installers did a great job and completed within 4 days despite some serious issues with the sub-floor. It looks fantastic and the price was good too! Highly recommended.
Stephanie R
18:30 20 Apr 20
We had a great experience with Diablo Flooring. We were greeted with helpful and friendly customer service when we were shopping around and ultimately picked a durable carpet we are happy with. The installation appointment was made super quickly—it was installed the next day. I'd happily buy from these guys again.
John Burgess
22:12 25 Feb 20
The store has a good selection of flooring products. The staff is friendly and knowledgeable. Flooring products include carpet, engineered wood, real wood and luxury vinyl.
Li Alvin
18:54 30 Oct 19
The reason why I chose Diablo Flooring is not only based on their review on Yelp but also because Dave's advice and service is superb! The installers did an amazing job - true professionals, incredibly skilled. We are very pleased with our new hardwood floor! Highly recommended!
William Neil
17:46 12 Oct 19
Amazing experience from beginning to end. Brian and Dave were so great to work with and made it so easy for us. The carpet was installed and looks great. The installers were great to work with and they worked really hard to get it all done in one day and took time to really protect the carpet when it unexpectedly started to rain. I couldn't be happier with the whole thing and would 100 percent recommend using them. Off course, I comeback again!!
Nicely Velosy
18:44 02 Oct 19
Highly recommend. Quick, professional, and extremely detail-oriented (which is a huge bonus for someone with a type A personality like myself). The floors are gorgeous and installation was a breeze. Again thanks to Diablo Flooring Inc for your nice job.
Paul Gray
08:08 01 Sep 19
My floors are beautiful. The guys worked so hard. Kind, professional guys. This is my 2nd time to use this company. They are great!
Roberto Gomez
13:55 27 Aug 19
Amazing experience from beginning to end. Brian and Dave were so great to work with and made it so easy for us. The carpet was installed and looks great. The installers were great to work with and they worked really hard to get it all done in one day and took time to really protect the carpet when it unexpectedly started to rain. I couldn't be happier with the whole thing and would 100 percent recommend using them.
00:52 24 Aug 19
Superb selection and knowledgeable employees. Bought new, high quality carpet and their installers were top notch.
Torry Mow
07:50 17 Aug 19
The whole experience of buying new hardwood floors was excellent. Brian was very helpful on purchasing our floors, Brent installed the flooring, did and excellent job, explaining each step that he did. Thank you Diablo Flooring.
Richard Martinez
18:23 15 Aug 19
Highly recommend. Quick, professional, and extremely detail-oriented (which is a huge bonus for someone with a type A personality like myself). The floors are gorgeous and installation was a breeze.
Bonnie Antonini
19:34 23 Jul 19
I chose Diablo Flooring based on their excellent Yelp reviews and was not disappointed.Brian helped us choose our hardwood, which we wanted to cover the three carpeted bedrooms coming off a hardwood hallway. It was perfect.The guys who installed were courteous and hardworking. They did a great job.We could not be happier and will use them again in future when we get around to our upstairs guest room.
03:57 23 Jun 19
Great advice from Dave on how to take care of the laminate and vinyl floors. Very knowledgeable about installing floors and not pushy sales person. The floor installers Jaime and Alejandro did a very nice/professional job. I'm very pleased with my new floor and would recommend Diablo Flooring.
Ed McNally
18:00 03 Jun 19
Dave was a pleasure to deal with. He explained the various choices of carpeting. We priced similar carpeting at Lowes who were less expensive but we did not feel comfortable going with Lowes. Dave worked with us and we were happy we went with Diablo flooring. The installers were terrific moving lots of heavy furniture. I would recommend Diablo Flooring for your flooring needs.
Ray Welch
01:54 21 Mar 19
Great customer service! I recently had flooring installed. The floors look great but the installation didn't quite go as planned. I was initially unhappy and I called Brian. He did not make excuses and did everything possible to make me happy. His integrity and sincerity are what have made me a customer for life. A true professional!
George High
23:06 14 Mar 19
I have worked with Brian on several flooring projects and have always found that he is honest and very reliable. His costumer care and service are top notch. Highly recommend!!!!
Jen Platts
21:58 04 Mar 19
I have been purchasing carpet & hardwood flooring from there stores for several years and have always received nothing but professional service each time without exception. On one occasion there was a installation concern and it was corrected without any delay. In general, treat people with respect and you will likely receive the same n return, or at least more often. I for one am very grateful to Diablo Flooring for the manufacturers they represent and the products they sell and install. Above all, I'm grateful for their commitment to their customers and to overall quality at every level.
Dana Robinson
22:10 12 Dec 18
We hired them to install carpeting in a home we had recently bought. This was about a year and a half ago. The install quality has proven to be terrible. Almost every room in the house has severely buckled carpet. I've attached photos to show the awful quality. They are side-lit so you can better see the bumps and wrinkles. I really wish we had picked a different company and would not hire them again. Learn from our mistake and hire someone more competent.Note to Diablo Flooring: It's under my wife's name: Carol. You did the work in March of 2017 and it was definitely you because I clicked the review link in the email you sent her.
Liz harper
01:04 01 Dec 18
We had a quick turn around time to get the carpet in our house replaced. Diablo was able to measure the next day. We had a budget and they showed us samples that kept us at the price point we wanted. They were able to order immediately and scheduled our install two weeks out. Install was flawless. The crew showed up promptly and finished all the work in one day. Overall, I'm very satisfied.
Traci Tupper
03:00 02 Nov 18
From start to finish Diablo Flooring exceeded our expectations. Dave was great to work with and we had hardwood installed throughout the downstairs and carpet upstairs. He was very knowledgeable in helping us pick the flooring type for our families needs. The floors look fantastic and I would highly recommend Diablo Flooring. The installers did an excellent job also. All around 5 stars!!
Enzo DeOliveira
15:40 29 Sep 17
An excellent company to work with - great service, quality and price! The staff is amazing to work with. Could not be happier with our floors!
Shelley Sirmans
13:49 26 Jul 17
New carpet installed yesterday by Diablo Flooring....we LOVE it. Thanks so much for such an awesome experience. Dave came to our house to measure, we ordered, then the amazing installing team arrived and were in and out within 3.5 hours. It's beautiful. Thanks
Kelly Nixx
12:43 02 Jul 17
If I could give higher than five stars I would. Diablo Flooring did incredible work! They worked within my time frame and even finished quicker than originally quoted. The hardwood floors look amazing. Everyone who comes to my house is asking me about them and who did them. They were the most reasonable of three bids by $1000. The whole crew was incredibly professional and did wonderful work.
Larry Hrubesh
04:55 29 Jun 17
Entirely pleased with the entire experience with Diablo Flooring - start to finish. The flooring products are excellent quality and the installation went especially well. We will recommend Diablo Flooring to others.
Paula Meo
23:40 26 Apr 17
Diablo Flooring has been wonderful in all aspects, I have been a returnee doing business with them over and over. I like Brian, Dave, they are wonderful, they are honest, tell you exactly what needs to be done, no surprises. The installation team are great as well, they were courteous,kept everything clean after the job was done, and the best, the product looked amazing to perfection. I will go back over and over again. Thank you team for being timely in all aspects whether it was getting the product timely and the installation.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
"Men in Black" agents K and J may be about to recruit a new Russian assistant: Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev.
Medvedev has spoken about top secret files on aliens that may have landed in Russia.
In footage recorded Friday after a television interview, the former president joked that each Russian leader gets two folders with information about extraterrestrials that visited our planet — and stayed here.
Unseen on camera footage, he is heard telling a Ren TV journalist he could not tell "how many of them are among us, because it may cause panic." He said more details could be found in Barry Sonnenfeld's "Men in Black" films.
During his 2008-2012 presidency, Medvedev showed a sense of humor slightly more subtle than Putin's sometimes brutal jokes.


text:
Clayton Kershaw has started 8 times in a career with a chance to sweep a series. Dodgers are 7-1 in those games. Kershaw 5-1, 2.82 ERA
— Eric Stephen (@truebluela) July 21, 2013
Clayton Kershaw (8-6, 1.98) vs. Jordan Zimmermann (12-4, 2.58).
The Dodgers have ridden their hot hand straight through the All-Star break, taking this series from the Nats and putting themselves in a position for a sweep. And who's taking the mound today? Oh look, it's Kershaw, out for blood after taking a loss against the Rockies in his last start. Let's get him some runs before moving on to Toronto.


text:
Roger Ebert dies at 70; Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic
Roger Ebert, the Pulitzer Prize-winning movie critic whose gladiatorial "thumbs-up, thumbs-down" assessments turned film reviewing into a television sport and whose passion for independent film helped introduce a new generation of filmmakers to moviegoers, has died. He was 70.
Ebert, who had battled cancer in recent years, died Thursday in Chicago, according to the Chicago Sun-Times, where he had been film critic for 46 years. He had undergone several surgeries to remove cancerous tumors from his thyroid and salivary glands, ultimately losing his jaw and speaking voice to the disease.
While his cancer diagnosis and the resulting treatments forced him briefly to pull back from criticism in 2006, he remained active as a writer and maintained a powerful presence on social media sites that included his award-winning blog, Roger Ebert's Journal, where he candidly discussed his failing health. By his count, in 2012 he wrote more than 300 reviews, more than in any year of his career.
RELATED: Fans, celebs react to Ebert's death
Earlier this week he announced on the blog that he would be taking "a leave of presence" and scaling back from writing.
"Roger through his reviews, blog posts and tweets brought the appreciation of film, and film criticism, to the widest possible audience and into the 21st century," Times film critic Kenneth Turan said Thursday. "And his refusal to give an inch to a terrible disease was beyond inspirational."
In May 2008, Ebert had returned to writing movie reviews for the Chicago Sun-Times but essentially said goodbye to the TV show that made him famous. Cancer had robbed him of his voice, and Ebert refused to face another surgery that could restore it.
PHOTOS: Roger Ebert - Career in Pictures
"I still have all my other abilities, including the love of viewing movies and writing about them," Ebert wrote in 2008 in the Sun-Times.
As the longtime and prolific critic for the Chicago newspaper, he wrote reviews while co-hosting a popular nationally syndicated TV show that, in the 1980s, was known as "At the Movies." Ebert was the first movie critic to win journalism's most prestigious award, collecting his Pulitzer in 1975, but he had the greatest impact through his TV forum, which began that same year on Chicago public television.
The TV reviews were not always the most sophisticated or reasoned, but they were widely influential. Ebert and his co-host — most famously, rival Chicago Tribune newspaper critic Gene Siskel, his broadcast partner for 23 years — would quarrel over a film's merits, then render judgment with a simple thumbs-up or thumbs-down score.
While the impact of any single film critic has declined in recent years—moviegoers typically rely on aggregate scores and word-of-mouth advice—the power of that single digit was profound. Hollywood marketing chiefs considered a dual thumbs-up recommendation more important (and marketable) than any other reviewer's praise, and prominently featured the marks in advertising. The thumbs even were registered as a trademark.
PHOTOS: Notable deaths of 2013
Approval from Ebert and his sidekick not only could influence mainstream box office fare but also deliver ticket buyers to more daring, artistic works that relied upon critical word-of-mouth. This was how Ebert, with other critics, successfully encouraged audiences to seek out independent films, which in recent decades have come to dominate the Academy Awards.
To encourage its theatrical prospects, Ebert glowingly reviewed the documentary "Hoop Dreams" before the independent film even premiered at the 1994 Sundance Film Festival. He later named the high school basketball film the best cinema work of the 1990s. He and Siskel also pushed audiences to see such movies as diverse as 1986's "Tampopo" and 1992's "One False Move."
Ebert remained a champion of quality movies that had failed to attract wide attention. In 1999, he launched a film festival now known as Ebertfest, an annual celebration of usually independently financed films staged at his alma mater, the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
At the 2009 Ebertfest, Ebert and his wife, Chaz, announced that they had given the university a $1-million gift toward the creation of a film studies program.
When Siskel — who died at 53 from brain cancer in 1999 — and Ebert started their movie review show more than 35 years ago, cineastes could browse highbrow film journals and take in Francois Truffaut retrospectives at museums and universities.
Average moviegoers subsisted on occasional magazine profiles or brief wire service reviews in newspapers. Most coverage preceded a film's opening; opinions about its execution were harder to find, particularly on television.
"What Siskel and Ebert did was to pioneer the middle ground," said Robert J. Thompson, director of the Center for the Study of Popular Television at Syracuse University. "They had a significant impact on film criticism."
RELATED: Fans, celebs react to Ebert's death
Ebert also was one of the first journalists caught in the crossfire of media consolidation. When the Walt Disney Co. began distributing his show in 1986, analysts wondered if Ebert's integrity would be compromised, since a movie company was writing his paycheck. Ebert insisted that while the Disney deal made him rich, his independence was untarnished.
Ebert's criticism could be unsparing. He said of J.J. Abrams' "Mission: Impossible III" (2006) that "modern high-tech action sequences are just the same damn thing over and over again." In a 2000 book, "I Hated, Hated, Hated This Movie," Ebert rounded up some of his more scathing reviews of films whose "degree of badness" ranged from "deplorable" to "merely hilariously misguided," he wrote.
The critic had his own detractors. Some film veterans believed that his "thumbs-up, thumbs-down" rankings (really good movies earned two thumbs "way up") made criticism less thoughtful, even infantile. During the late 1980s, influential New Yorker magazine critic Pauline Kael ridiculed Siskel and Ebert as "the Katzenjammer Kids," the comic strip's goofball twins.
In 2008, Ebert came under fire for writing a negative review of the independent film "Tru Loved" after viewing only eight minutes of it, a fact he revealed at the review's conclusion. Ebert apologized on his blog and posted a review of the film, which was still negative, after watching it in its entirety.
Roger Joseph Ebert was born June 18, 1942, in Urbana, Ill., the only child of Walter, a University of Illinois electrician, and Wanda, a bookkeeper. He often saw movies with an aunt.
PHOTOS: Roger Ebert - Career in Pictures
Shortly before his father died of cancer in 1960, Ebert won first place in an Illinois Associated Press sportswriting contest. The high school senior already worked for a local paper.
At the University of Illinois, Ebert edited the student newspaper and freelanced for Chicago newspapers. After receiving a bachelor's degree in journalism, he dropped out of a University of Chicago doctoral program to take a Sun-Times feature-writing job.
Before he became a recognizable critic, Ebert wrote several 1970s B-movie screenplays, including "Beyond the Valley of the Dolls" and "Beneath the Valley of the Ultra-Vixens"; none attracted terribly strong notices.
His writing ease amazed and annoyed colleagues. While others agonized, he was known to stroll into the office half an hour before deadline, tell some jokes, then pound out his piece.
The idea for the TV show that would make him a multimillionaire was hatched by two Chicago public television producers. One, Thea Flaum, insisted on pairing Ebert with Siskel — the two were fierce archrivals — since Siskel wrote for the competing Chicago Tribune.
Ebert was "the most hated guy in my life," Siskel once said. Ebert later said, "I think each of us initially said yes because we didn't want the other guy to do it first." Well after the show was a hit, they could refuse to share an elevator.
"Opening Soon at a Theater Near You" debuted in 1975. The format remained relatively constant: Two critics sit in movie seats, one offers a synopsis of a new film, clips are shown, and the critics debate the film's merits.
Even though their tastes were often similar, Siskel and Ebert made much of their differences — one was bald, the other overweight, Siskel the more intellectual, Ebert the more populist. They could bicker like an old married couple, which made the show endearing to many and unbearable to a few.
"Sometimes, in the heat of argument, it sure feels like hate," Siskel said in 1998 of his relationship with Ebert. "You can't pay two guys all of their adult lives to have opinions and not expect them to have strong opinions about each other."
By the end of the first season, the show was on more than 100 public television stations. In 1978, it was named "Sneak Previews" and moved to PBS, reaching 180 markets, making it the highest-rated entertainment show in the history of public broadcasting, Television Week reported.
By 1982, the program was syndicated by Tribune Entertainment and called "At the Movies." Four years later, along with another name change, to "Siskel & Ebert at the Movies," came yet another syndication distributor — Disney's Buena Vista Entertainment, and the idea to incorporate the opposable thumb into their on-air reviews, a concept that Ebert claimed as his own.
"The Siskel-Ebert chemistry was perfect," Thompson said. "They were both curmudgeons, and neither one was attractive in conventional TV terms. The style of the show was one step up from cable access.... That was a good, shrewd choice for them, because so much in the film world had been slicked-up to within an inch of its life."
At the University of Chicago, Ebert taught film studies for years, and he recorded DVD commentaries for favorite films, including "Citizen Kane."
Ebert's books included the predictable but popular collections of reviews, but also fiction ("Behind the Phantom's Mask") and travelogues ("The Perfect London Walk"). In 1987, he published a memoir of the Cannes Film Festival, "Two Weeks in the Midday Sun" and in 2012, a personal memoir, "Life Itself."
After Siskel died, Ebert auditioned 38 potential co-hosts. His last TV partner, Richard Roeper, had not sought the job; he is a Sun-Times pop culture columnist. When cancer left Ebert unable to speak, Disney covered for his absence with a series of fill-in hosts before settling on Michael Phillips of the Chicago Tribune.
In 2008, Ebert and Roeper cut ties with Disney and the show. They announced plans to put together a new review show featuring the pair but it did not materialize.
With professional help, Ebert had lost about 100 pounds but was frustrated that people linked his initial weight loss to his cancer. The once-robust, stout and avuncular critic had given way to a much frailer man who relished the voice he still had through the written word.
"It is saving me," he said in 2010 in Esquire.
Ebert often said what he admired most about Siskel was his obvious love for his wife and children. When Ebert married Chaz Hammelsmith, an attorney, in 1992, she was a divorced mother of two in her 40s. He was 50.
He was "so grateful to have a family," Marsha Jordan, a Chicago television producer, said in 2005. "This woman came along at a time when she brought exactly what he needed."
Ebert's wife survives him along with two stepchildren and four grandchildren.
At the conclusion of his final blog post this week, Ebert wrote, "On this day of reflection I say again, thank you for going on this journey with me. I'll see you at the movies."
Times staff writer Scott Collins contributed to this report.
More to Read
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for the L.A. Times biggest news, features and recommendations in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.


text:
James Quillen on Civil RightsFormer Republican Representative (TN-1) |
| |||
Other candidates on Civil Rights: | James Quillen on other issues: | ||
TN Gubernatorial: Phil Bredesen TN Senatorial: Bill Frist Bob Clement Fred Thompson Lamar Alexander Tipper Gore Presidential: George W. Bush (GOP) V.P.Dick Cheney (GOP-V.P.) Sen.John Kerry (Dem.) Sen.John Edwards (Dem.V.P.) Ralph Nader (Reform) Peter Camejo (Reform V.P.) David Cobb (Green) Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) Michael Peroutka (Constitution) |
Budget/Economy Civil Rights Corporations Crime Drugs Education Energy/Oil Environment Families/Children Foreign Policy Free Trade Govt. Reform Gun Control Health Care Homeland Security Immigration Infrastructure/Technology Jobs Principles/Values Social Security Tax Reform War/Iraq/Mideast Welfare/Poverty |


text:
Full Size car rental Aqaba, Jordan
Why use RentalCars24H.com?
- No Hidden Charges
- Lowest price guarantee
- You are guaranteed a car from a leading supplier
- Amend or cancel your booking online quickly and easily
- Break Down Assist
- Beersheba 119.91 mi / 192.98 km
- Tabūk 123.76 mi / 199.18 km
- Rafaḩ 129.56 mi / 208.51 km
- Khān Yūnis 132.11 mi / 212.6 km
- Al 'Arīsh 132.3 mi / 212.91 km
Car rental near Aqaba
Car rental in airports near Aqaba
Eilat - Airport [ETH]
3.65 mi / 5.87 km -
Aqaba - King Hussein International Airport [AQJ]
5.93 mi / 9.54 km -
King Hussein Airport Aqaba [AQJ]
6.02 mi / 9.69 km
RentalCars24h.com offers any type of car rental vehicles for your comfort and safety! Are you going to have a vacation? Or planning a big shopping program? Than a full-size car rental vehicle is the best solution for you because there will be enough trunk space for your luggage and purchases. Also we know how costly is to travel for business needs. So we can help you to cut the costs on your car rentals! A compact car rental vehicle will make the fuel spending efficient, and the full-size car rental booking in advance will provide you comfort and support your business image. RentalCars24h.com has collected all the best rated for economy to full-size car rental vehicles!
Our fleet of full size vehicles consists of all existing car rental companies' fleets, so we combined all the vehicles to save your time and stop the endless wandering at numerous web pages in the search of the lowest price. You can get a full size car rental vehicle as Chevrolet Impala, Nissan Altima, Nissan Maxima, Dodge Charger, BMW 3 Series, Mercedes C Class, etc. Check all our variants!
We can offer you both types of transmissions: book a manual car rental vehicle if you're used to this way of driving and fell yourself safe and comfortable! Or reserve an automatic car rental one to make the driving process simpler.
You can choose not only the full size car rental model but also its price! Just use our car rental form to compare full size car rental prices in such companies as Enterprise , AVIS , Budget , SIXT , Hertz , Thrifty , Alamo , Dollar , Fox , Payless , Ace , National , Europcar , E-Z and 800 more companies to choose the most affordable! You'll get the best full-size cars from the top car rental companies with the help of our long-term relationship with these market leaders.