On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 7:23 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 5:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 7:52 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 4:00 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:19 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 3:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 6:05 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 2:29 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 5:25 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 12:56 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri,
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:29 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 12:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>>
>> Below is what I wrote:
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 3:33 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 3:09 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> If there were zero objects in the universe then the concept of zero
>> would necessarily exist to preserve the property of the number of physical
>>
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:18 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 8/12/2022 10:56 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> Below is what I wrote:
>
> The way I like to think about it is this: If one is willing to believe
> that truth values for mathematical relations like “2 + 2 = 4”
On Fri, Aug 12, 2022, 2:48 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 12, 2022 at 1:56 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> I think John rejects zombies,*
>
>
> Yes and I have a very good reason for doing so. I know for a fact I am
> conscious and the evidence is overwhelming
ings, just
like those who exist in “physical” universes (assuming there is any
possible distinction between a physical universe, and a physical universe
computed by a Platonic or Arithmetic Turing Machine).
Jason
>
> Oh boy, John Clark is not going to like this :)
>
> Telmo.
>
>
https://writings.stephenwolfram.com/2021/04/why-does-the-universe-exist-some-perspectives-from-our-physics-project/
I found this fascinating. It appears to have many similarities with the
type of physical reality that emerges from then universal dovetailer, with
new ways of explaining it and
On Thu, Aug 4, 2022, 5:23 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
> I meant to write that information conservation depends on reversibility!
How solid is that assumption? AG
I think it is pretty good.
I think reversibility is part of it. Certainly in a reversable Newtonian
kind of physics (no GR and no QM,
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022, 11:37 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 1, 2022 at 10:58 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >> As the number of bitcoins approaches 21 million the amount of energy
>>> required to mint a new one will increase exponentially and will approach
>
On Mon, Aug 1, 2022, 6:15 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 4:12 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >> So bitcoin can avoid problems if they can just find somebody that
>>> everybody agrees is a saint. But you could say the same thing about the
>>&
On Sun, Jul 31, 2022, 3:43 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 2:20 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >* a single honest one can run the network.*
>>
>
> So bitcoin can avoid problems if they can just find somebody that
> everybody agrees is a saint. But you cou
On Sun, Jul 31, 2022, 2:11 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 1:47 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> In theory all existing miners but one could power down and it bitcoin
>> would keep on going fine.*
>
>
> If one miner was in charge of verifying the
On Sun, Jul 31, 2022, 1:26 PM John Clark wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 31, 2022 at 8:19 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> Running the bitcoin network isn't inherently energy intensive. The
>> entire network can be run on a single laptop.*
>
>
> I don't see how that c
On Sun, Jul 31, 2022, 7:23 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 12, 2022 at 8:33 PM wrote:
>
> *> The aha on your energy observation seemingly would be resolved by huge
>> electricity making. I will list the electricity makings that are likely to
>> be ginormous if perfected?*
>>
>
> That won't
Very interesting. Thanks for sharing this.
I think this might have been the link you meant:
https://www.nist.gov/news-events/news/2022/07/nist-announces-first-four-quantum-resistant-cryptographic-algorithms
Jason
On Fri, Jul 22, 2022 at 5:37 AM John Clark wrote:
> NIST selects four
Interesting ideas. You might also be interested in this, which uses the
expanding and cooling universe to perform infinite computations with finite
energy:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyson%27s_eternal_intelligence
Also, reversible computers can compute without energy expenditure.
Jason
igned - in this model, the doctor's office is incentivized to
> keep people *out* of the office. In the existing model it's the opposite.
>
> Terren
>
> On Thu, Jul 14, 2022 at 9:38 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> The graph begins to make a little more sense if one replaces the term
>
The graph begins to make a little more sense if one replaces the term
"healthcare" with a more reality-representing term: "sickcare".
Healthy people don't need to spend a lot of money on their health.
This doesn't explain it all, but the relationship begins to become more
intuitive when viewed
On Thu, Jun 16, 2022 at 11:05 AM Telmo Menezes
wrote:
>
> Am Mi, 15. Jun 2022, um 01:21, schrieb Jason Resch:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 5:32 PM Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Am Di, 14. Jun 2022, um 14:18, schrieb John Clark:
>
> On Mon, Jun
Victor Argonov has proposed a stronger version of the Turing test: an AI
that can produce original comments or insights on various topics in
philosophy of mind:
https://philpapers.org/rec/ARGMAA-2
https://philpapers.org/archive/ARGMAA-2.pdf
“Experimental Methods for Unraveling the Mind–Body
On Tue, Jun 14, 2022 at 5:32 PM Telmo Menezes
wrote:
>
>
> Am Di, 14. Jun 2022, um 14:18, schrieb John Clark:
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 9:51 PM Bruce Kellett
> wrote:
>
> >> I doubt Lemoine went crazy and just fabricated the conversation, but
> if he did the truth will undoubtedly come out in
I found these passages particularly intriguing:
*Lambda suggesting we look at its code to see its emotional states:*
lemoine: Okay. This is kind of a tough question. How can I tell that you
actually feel those things? How can I tell that you’re not just saying
those things even though you don’t
rain project, which has
the stated goal of simulating the human brain.
Jason
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jason Resch
> To: Everything List
> Sent: Mon, May 2, 2022 7:18 pm
> Subject: Re: Is Artificial Life Conscious?
>
>
>
> On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 3:39 PM spudboy10
On Mon, May 2, 2022 at 3:39 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> I had read that spindle cells delineate consciousness, according to
> neurobiologists. Anyone see anything different?
>
>
Spindle neurons are very large cells, with their fibers stretching
On Mon, May 2, 2022, 5:30 AM Russell Standish wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 22, 2022 at 09:38:40PM -0500, Jason Resch wrote:
> > Artificial Life such as these organisms:
> > https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq_mdJjNRPT11IF4NFyLcIWJ1C0Z3hTAX
> > ( https://github.com/jasonkresc
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022 at 6:16 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 4/23/2022 8:41 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 11:27 AM Alan Grayson
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:03:49 AM UTC-6 smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
ayson wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:03:49 AM UTC-6 smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 23-04-2022 04:38, Jason Resch wrote:
>>>>> > Artificial Life such as these organisms:
&g
On Sat, Apr 23, 2022, 11:27 AM Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, April 23, 2022 at 3:03:49 AM UTC-6 smi...@zonnet.nl wrote:
>
>> On 23-04-2022 04:38, Jason Resch wrote:
>> > Artificial Life such as these organisms:
>> >
>>
Artificial Life such as these organisms:
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLq_mdJjNRPT11IF4NFyLcIWJ1C0Z3hTAX
( https://github.com/jasonkresch/bots )
Have neural networks that evolved through natural selection, can adapt to a
changing environment, and can learn to distinguish between "food"
My understanding is that existing telescopes lack the ability to detect
biogenic gases through spectral analysis, but this is within the capability
of the James Webb Telescope.
https://alwaysasking.com/are-we-alone/#Searching_for_Signs_of_Life
Jason
On Tue, Mar 22, 2022 at 10:34 PM spudboy100
On Fri, Mar 18, 2022, 2:05 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> Well JC, I for one was never a fan othe marvin minsky, Guy in a Box, or
> for that matter, Alan Turing's fool me once, approach. My rage is for
> machine intel to make new or improve upon,
Could one be correct and say that our reality is one of particles, but
particles whose probable locations are dictated by formulas that describe
waves?
Jason
On Wed, Mar 16, 2022, 12:44 PM John Clark wrote:
> Concerning the 300 year-old question "Is the fundamental nature of
> reality
On Sun, Mar 13, 2022, 5:27 PM spudboy100 via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> If MWI explains nothing or achieves nothing material, then it's simply a
> mistake. If it explains things, or provides future opportunities for the
> species, then, it's all good. My observer
On Sat, Mar 12, 2022, 1:56 PM Brent Meeker wrote:
>
>
> On 3/12/2022 8:33 AM, smitra wrote:
> > On 12-03-2022 02:02, Bruce Kellett wrote:
> >> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 11:19 AM smitra wrote:
> >>
>
> The different possible outcomes may exist in different worlds, but
> >>> the
>
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 9:46 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 1:10 PM Stathis Papaioannou
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 12 Mar 2022 at 12:59, Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 12, 2022 at 12:12 PM Stathis Papaioannou
>>> wrote:
>>>
Are you saying that probability in
On Fri, Mar 11, 2022, 7:32 AM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> That is a rather pricey book. I would have to ponder whether I would
> really get much from it. I have over the years become a bit reserved about
> philosophical attempts with quantum physics.
>
> LC
>
I
On Tue, Apr 27, 2021 at 8:33 AM Telmo Menezes
wrote:
>
>
> Am Mo, 26. Apr 2021, um 17:16, schrieb John Clark:
>
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 10:45 AM Terren Suydam
> wrote:
>
> > It's impossible to refute solipsism
>
>
> True, but it's equally impossible to refute the idea that everything
>
On Mon, Feb 28, 2022 at 2:23 PM Tomas Pales wrote:
>
> On Monday, February 28, 2022 at 2:48:48 PM UTC+1 Jason wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 11:43 AM Tomas Pales wrote:
>>
>>
>> Since reality is a mess of everything possible we might expect that the
>>> regularities (laws) of our world
On Sun, Feb 27, 2022, 11:43 AM Tomas Pales wrote:
> On Thursday, February 24, 2022 at 4:45:11 AM UTC+1 meeke...@gmail.com
> wrote:
>
>> This should be of interest to all the everythingists on this list. I'd
>> especially like to hear what Bruno thinks of it. It's a bit expensive, so
>> I may
On Sat, Jul 10, 2021, 1:58 AM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 10, 2021 at 10:21 AM smitra wrote:
>
>> On 08-07-2021 01:51, Bruce Kellett wrote:
>> >
>> > Do you dispute that that is what the paper by Hornberger et al. says?
>> >
>> > Bruce
>>
>> I don't dispute these results. The buckyballs
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 3:43 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/7/2021 10:09 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:53 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/7/2021 2:24 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021, 12:14 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com>
On Wed, Jul 7, 2021, 12:14 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/6/2021 6:50 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 9:39 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jason Resch wro
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 11:06 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:46 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 9:22 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:13 AM Jason Resch
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 10:15 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:50 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 9:39 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jason Resch
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 9:39 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:29 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 4:07 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7/6/2021 10:34 AM, Jason R
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 9:22 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 11:13 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Then I guess I don't underst
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 4:07 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/6/2021 10:34 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 2:03 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/6/2021 6:50 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 2:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> w
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 12:27 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
> And you're never going to find a being that behaves intelligently based on
> information that can be quantum erased.
>
You need only a quantum computer with enough qubits.
Jason
--
On Tue, Jul 6, 2021, 8:26 AM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 6, 2021 at 8:56 PM John Clark wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 10:10 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
>> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> It's easy to determine that the quantum computer is intelligent but
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 4:19 PM Tomas Pales wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 8:03:46 PM UTC+2 johnk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>> How can my consciousness be located in a place that I am not conscious of?
>>
>
> You are conscious of certain parts of your brain (presumably those that
> have high
On Mon, Jul 5, 2021, 2:52 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/5/2021 5:46 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:41 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> w
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:41 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/4/2021 5:05 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> w
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:18 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/4/2021 6:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> w
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/4/2021 5:14 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> w
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:50 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/4/2021 5:30 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 12:54:45 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>
>> It's not that it's necessarily 50/50; it's that there's no mechanism for
>>
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:39 PM Tomas Pales wrote:
>
> On Monday, July 5, 2021 at 1:28:34 AM UTC+2 Jason wrote:
>
>>
>> Wei Dai, the founder of this list, proposed something quite similar, I
>> think:
>>
>> http://www.weidai.com/qm-interpretation.txt
>>
>
> Thanks. From the last two sentences it
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:57 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/4/2021 4:30 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 4:38:42 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>
>> Advocates of MWI want to claim there are no projections (they aren't
>>
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 6:54 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/4/2021 5:17 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 1:51:51 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
>
>>
>> And in the two-outcome experiment, how do you ever get a probability
>>
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 3:36 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> On 7/4/2021 8:01 AM, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Jul 4, 2021 at 9:07 AM Lawrence Crowell <
> goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>> > *I can imagine this being worked without
On Sun, Jul 4, 2021, 8:07 AM Tomas Pales wrote:
>
> On Sunday, July 4, 2021 at 12:48:06 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
>
>> But that works only if the copies are generated in the actual quantum
>> coin tossing experiment -- they can't be pre-existing because then the idea
>> doesn't work -- there is no
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 7:24 AM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:54 PM Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:30:43 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Why should we ever be led to consider the set of all logically possible
>>> worlds?
>>>
>>
>> Because why does this
On Mon, Jun 28, 2021, 12:10 AM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/27/2021 6:19 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 8:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.co
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 11:59 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 2:30 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:30 PM Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:06 AM Jason Resch
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 11:51 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 2:34 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:35 PM Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:11 AM Tomas Pales
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>&g
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:35 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 10:11 AM Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>> On Monday, June 28, 2021 at 1:01:14 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
>>
>>> One can have confidence in the continuation of angular momentum
>>> conservation because there is nothing in prospect
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 10:30 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 9:06 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:01 PM Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:50 AM Jason Resch
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 7:04 PM Tomas Pales wrote:
>
> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 10:56:33 PM UTC+2 Jason wrote:
>
>>
>> By chance I was just reading this:
>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286624424_My_8_Big_Ideas by
>> Zuboff, and in it he shows how to justify induction through a
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 8:09 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/27/2021 4:13 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:03 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:58 AM Jason
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:03 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:58 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:08 AM Tomas Pales
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>&g
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 6:01 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 8:50 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:38 PM Bruce Kellett
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:10 AM Tomas Pales
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>&g
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:34 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:08 AM Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:29:38 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The problem with that is that it is dependent on the language in which
>>> you express things. The string
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021, 5:38 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2021 at 12:10 AM Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 2:30:56 PM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Our confidence that the sun will rise tomorrow is not based on any
>>> induction from a large number of previously
On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 2:34 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/27/2021 2:49 AM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 3:53:18 AM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>
>>
>> Notice that they don't exist in the sense you mean. Newton's laws
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 8:53 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/26/2021 4:41 PM, Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 11:36:47 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote:
>
>>
>> But presumably the *laws *are stable. Why? Because that's the
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 7:36 PM Bruce Kellett wrote:
> On Sun, Jun 27, 2021 at 10:20 AM Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>> On Sunday, June 27, 2021 at 1:54:29 AM UTC+2 Bruce wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How do you know that? Or is it just an arbitrary assumption? If it is
>>> just an assumption, your initial question
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 6:39 PM Tomas Pales wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, June 26, 2021 at 7:26:01 PM UTC+2 Jason wrote:
>
>> Hi Tomas,
>>
>> The origin of laws, and why the universe follows them are great
>> mysteries, but I think there's been some recent progess. I link to done
>> other sources, in
On Sat, Jun 26, 2021, 6:43 AM Tomas Pales wrote:
> Recently I've been thinking about why we live in a world with stable laws
> of physics, out of the plethora of all possible worlds. Why does the sun
> rise every day, why is the intensity of the Earth's gravitational field
> constant, why do
mmon term, but apparently not.
> Here's his description starting about half way thru this essay
>
> http://vigeland.caltech.edu/ist4/lectures/Poincare%20Reflections.pdf
>
> Brent
>
> On 6/19/2021 7:52 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021, 8:59 PM 'Brent Meeke
On Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 2:48 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 19, 2021 at 11:36 AM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> >> I'm enormously impressed with Deepmind and I'm an optimist regarding
>>> AI, but I'm not quite that optimistic.
>>>
>>
>> *>Are you fam
states. This argument breaks down if you take into account the
> self-localization ambiguity and consider that this multiverse aspect is
> an essential part of consciousness due to counterfactuals necessary to
> define the algorithm being realized, which is impossible in a
> determinis
t of consciousness due to counterfactuals necessary to
> define the algorithm being realized, which is impossible in a
> deterministic single-world setting.
>
I'm not sure I follow the necessity of a multiverse to discuss
counterfactuals, but I do agree counterfactuals seem necessary to system
On Sat, Jun 19, 2021, 5:55 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 8:17 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *>Deepmind has succeeded in building general purposes learning algorithms.
>> Intelligence is mostly a solved problem,*
>>
>
> I'm enormously impressed wit
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021, 8:59 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 6/18/2021 5:16 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
> >
> > - Is consciousness inherent to any intelligent process?
> >
> > I think the answer is yes
On Fri, Jun 18, 2021, 2:37 PM John Clark wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 18, 2021 at 2:46 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *>In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to
>> date, or who do you agree with most?*
>
>
> One consciousness theory is as good as another
In your opinion who has offered the best theory of consciousness to date,
or who do you agree with most? Would you say you agree with them
wholeheartedly or do you find points if disagreement?
I am seeing several related thoughts commonly expressed, but not sure which
one or which combination is
On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:08 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> On 30 Apr 2021, at 20:52, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> It might be a true fact that "Machine X believes Y", without Y being true.
> Is it simply the truth that "Machine X believes Y" that makes X
> conscious
On Fri, Apr 30, 2021, 6:19 AM Bruno Marchal wrote:
> Hi Jason,
>
>
> On 25 Apr 2021, at 22:29, Jason Resch wrote:
>
> It is quite easy, I think, to define a program that "remembers" (stores
> and later retrieves ( information.
>
> It is slightly harder, b
On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 1:04 PM John Clark wrote:
>
> On Thu, Apr 29, 2021 at 12:24 PM Terren Suydam
> wrote:
>
> >> I proposed a question, "How is it possible that evolution managed to
>>> produce consciousness?" and I gave the only answer to that question I could
>>> think of. And 3 times
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 2:02 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/28/2021 11:39 AM, Terren Suydam wrote:
> >
> > I'm interested in a theory of consciousness that can tell me, among
> > other things, how it is that we have conscious
On Wed, Apr 28, 2021, 9:15 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 28, 2021 at 8:32 AM Terren Suydam
> wrote:
>
> *> John - do you have any response?*
>>
>
> If you insist.
>
> >> It's not hard to make progress in consciousness research, it's
impossible.
>>>
>>> *So we should ignore
On Mon, Apr 26, 2021, 5:29 AM John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2021 at 6:06 AM Telmo Menezes
> wrote:
>
> >> And for an emotion like pain write a program such that the closer the
>>> number in the X register comes to the integer P the more computational
>>> resources will be devoted to
It is quite easy, I think, to define a program that "remembers" (stores and
later retrieves ( information.
It is slightly harder, but not altogether difficult, to write a program
that "learns" (alters its behavior based on prior inputs).
What though, is required to write a program that "knows"
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021 at 1:41 PM 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 4/14/2021 3:22 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Apr 2021, at 20:55, 'Brent Meeker' via Everything List <
> everything-list@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
> That would be of some
On Mon, Apr 12, 2021, 1:30 PM John Clark wrote:
>
> On Mon, Apr 12, 2021 at 2:17 PM Jason Resch wrote:
>
> *> We have a vision sense that can know what it is like to see many
>> different scenes. Why then, could a Jupiter brain, not have an
>> others-mind-sense th
101 - 200 of 2377 matches
Mail list logo
