A Leibnizian view on why bottom up programing cannot work for the brain
1. In order for the brain to control or govern
there must be a single governor
2. The single governor must be the single most dominant element in the system
and must control downward, not upward
3. Materialistic
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:05 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
A Leibnizian view on why bottom up programing cannot work for the brain
1. In order for the brain to control or govern
there must be a single governor
Why?
2. The single governor must be the single most dominant
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The Mars Rover is controlled from Earth.
That's hardly a bottom-up control
See George Ellis http://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1212/1212.2275.pdf
Hi Richard,
Roger's claim was that Materialistic science and programming
On 02/09/2013, at 12:35 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S089662730700/1-s2.0-S089662730700-main.pdf?_tid=4e78eb70-1321-11e3-bc23-0aab0f01acdnat=1378052132_997e220cfcf62a6d02d5ccd22660a221
The resting brain is not silent, but exhibits
The article doesn't show what you think it shows. Spontaneous doesn't mean
what you think it means.
On 02/09/2013, at 12:35 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very powerful
computer precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the computer didn't tell me what it predicted beforehand,
because then the computer's
Finally, there was a pronounced difference in the effect of regressing
out *spontaneous* activity on the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship
with instructed versus *spontaneous * force variability. With *spontaneous
* force variability, regression of *spontaneous* (right SMC) activity all
On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:
Unconditioned=random works.
I do not think so. I would say that
If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it
would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
conditioning.
Evgenii
Brent
On 9/1/2013 6:39 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi
On 9/2/2013 7:34 AM, chris peck wrote:
The study you're citing firstly claims the 60% of the variance they uncovered is
explained by 'spontaneous' brain activity not 60% of all brain activity. More
importantly, by spontaneous they just mean brain activity that has not been triggered by
On Monday, September 2, 2013 2:11:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2013 7:34 AM, chris peck wrote:
The study you're citing firstly claims the 60% of the variance they
uncovered is explained by 'spontaneous' brain activity not 60% of all brain
activity. More importantly, by spontaneous
On 9/2/2013 8:24 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com
mailto:te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Free will is related to the issue of determinism -- could a very powerful
computer
precisely predict my
future behaviour?
Yes, but only if the
On 9/2/2013 9:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Finally, there was a pronounced difference in the effect of regressing out
*spontaneous* activity on the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship with
instructed
versus *spontaneous * force variability. With *spontaneous* force
variability,
On 9/2/2013 10:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:
Unconditioned=random works.
I do not think so. I would say that
If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it
would be foolish for us to try to do anything with the
conditioning.
?? How do
Likewise the self-driving cars on earth
and consciousness on the brain.
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:20 PM, Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
The Mars Rover is controlled from Earth.
That's hardly a bottom-up
On Monday, September 2, 2013 2:35:43 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2013 9:48 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Finally, there was a pronounced difference in the effect of regressing
out *spontaneous* activity on the left SMC BOLD-behavior relationship
with instructed versus *spontaneous *
Is it scientific?
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to
On 02.09.2013 20:41 meekerdb said the following:
On 9/2/2013 10:11 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
On 01.09.2013 21:52 meekerdb said the following:
Unconditioned=random works.
I do not think so. I would say that
If we say that the unconditioned is random, then it would be
foolish for us to try to
On 9/2/2013 11:29 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, September 2, 2013 2:11:05 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2013 7:34 AM, chris peck wrote:
The study you're citing firstly claims the 60% of the variance they
uncovered is
explained by 'spontaneous' brain activity not 60% of
On 9/2/2013 11:42 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Except the experiment shows *conclusively* that the activity is the same whether the
clocks are wound or not.
No, it just shows that they run a long time without being wound.
Brent
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the
On 9/2/2013 11:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Is it scientific?
As a general principle, determinism is meta-physics. I doubt that it can be strictly
falsified because every possible test depends on auxiliary hypotheses which one might be
willing to give up before declaring a general
2013/9/2 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On 9/2/2013 11:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Is it scientific?
As a general principle, determinism is meta-physics. I doubt that it can
be strictly falsified because every possible test depends on auxiliary
hypotheses which one might be willing to
On 9/2/2013 12:33 PM, Quentin Anciaux wrote:
2013/9/2 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net mailto:meeke...@verizon.net
On 9/2/2013 11:45 AM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Is it scientific?
As a general principle, determinism is meta-physics. I doubt that it can be
strictly falsified
It is difficult to falsify, e.g. it is not strictly correct to say that
local determinism has been falsified, as 't Hooft explains here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.1007
Saibal
Citeren Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com:
Is it scientific?
--
You received this message because you are
Here's a possibly deterministic TOE from t'Hooft.
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.1007
I'm not clear on how superdeterminism is compatible with the big bang and holographic
theory. The latter implies that the total information within the Hubble sphere must have
been much smaller when the
I read through his article. What issue does applying Von Newmann's Cellular
Automata solve in physics? It is akin to saying the cosmos is a program and
because its based on CA, all else follows that it's now superdeterministic. How
would we falsify his hypothesis. What observation can we make?
Hi Craig
Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt show anything. Here
'spontaneous' just means 'originates in the brain in the absence of external
stimuli'. This kind of activity is often refered to as 'task unrelated' which
is to say it is not activity that is bound to some
Hi Brent
I think the researchers would agree. Its definately present stimuli they have
in mind.
All the best
--- Original Message ---
From: meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
Sent: 3 September 2013 4:11 AM
To: everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Determinism - Tricks of the Trade
On
On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:11:51 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote:
Hi Craig
Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt show anything.
Here 'spontaneous' just means 'originates in the brain in the absence of
external stimuli'. This kind of activity is often refered to as
On 9/2/2013 1:15 PM, smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
It is difficult to falsify, e.g. it is not strictly correct to say that local
determinism has been falsified, as 't Hooft explains here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1308.1007
Ah, yes I should have mentioned the superdeterminism option. I'm not sure
On 9/2/2013 3:56 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:11:51 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote:
Hi Craig
Highlighting the word 'spontaneous' with astereixes doesnt show anything.
Here
'spontaneous' just means 'originates in the brain in the absence of external
Hi Craig
your biases are protecting your theory from threats with a vengeance!
I highlighted them to show that the word is not being used in any cryptic
specialized sense
No one is arguing that the use of 'spontaneous' is cryptic but rather that you
have not understood the way they are using
On Monday, September 2, 2013 7:54:45 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2013 4:45 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, September 2, 2013 7:31:57 PM UTC-4, Brent wrote:
On 9/2/2013 3:56 PM, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, September 2, 2013 6:11:51 PM UTC-4, chris peck wrote:
Hi
I liked it until they were on earth. The human's dialogue is too preachy
and cheesy, the preceding parts of the cartoon were fun and more subtle i
suppose. I would have probably ended it after God 2 died
On Friday, August 23, 2013 10:19:37 AM UTC-5, John Clark wrote:
Qualitatively identical experiencers are also numerically identical is
how i sum this position up
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 4:39:27 PM UTC-5, Brent wrote:
On 8/14/2013 7:48 AM, smi...@zonnet.nl javascript: wrote:
Citeren Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au javascript::
On Tue,
Hi Craig,
I've been following the pattern of thought you've be exhibiting this entire
thread, trying to understand why you believe in such a strange way. In all
cases it seems to stem from ignorance of the processes that bring about
your behavior, compounded with the belief that we lose
On 9/2/2013 8:50 PM, Dennis Ochei wrote:
No matter how complex a system is, it can never be complex enough to contain itself, and
is therefore unable to perceive itself directly as a deterministic process. Only in the
special cases, where the major causes of its action are made apparent, such
You mean experiences are purely qualitative, so there cannot be two identical experiences
rather, if identical they must be one (by Leibniz's identity of indiscernibles) and not
two. But then there are no experiencers, only sequences of experiences which may have
some unifying property and
Yes, exactly.
But then there are no experiencers...
I prefer to say that experiencers are their experiences than to say there
are no experiencers (I'm explaining my phrasing more than anything)
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 11:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You mean experiences are
Given that we are elements that might belong to multiple sequences, there
is no fact of the matter as to which sequence we belong to.
On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 12:23 AM, Dennis Ochei do.infinit...@gmail.comwrote:
Yes, exactly.
But then there are no experiencers...
I prefer to say that
39 matches
Mail list logo
