On Thursday, May 15, 2014 6:06:00 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 16 May 2014 08:22, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:19:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2014, at 14:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:34:55 PM UTC-4,
On Friday, May 16, 2014 3:20:24 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:19:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2014, at 14:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:34:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
On 15 May 2014, at 22:22, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:19:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2014, at 14:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:34:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 May 2014, at 03:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:34:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 May 2014, at 03:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm showing that authenticity can be empirically demonstrated, and that
the failure of logic to detect the significance of authenticity can be
empirically demonstrated, but
On 15 May 2014, at 14:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:34:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 May 2014, at 03:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm showing that authenticity can be empirically demonstrated, and
that the failure of logic to detect the significance of
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:19:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2014, at 14:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:34:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 May 2014, at 03:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm showing that authenticity can be empirically
On 16 May 2014 08:22, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 15, 2014 2:19:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 May 2014, at 14:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, May 14, 2014 6:34:55 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 May 2014, at 03:45, Craig Weinberg
On 14 May 2014, at 03:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm showing that authenticity can be empirically demonstrated, and
that the failure of logic to detect the significance of authenticity
can be empirically demonstrated, but that neither authenticity or
the failure of logic to detect it can
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Monday, May 12, 2014 1:50:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2014, at 03:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
We don't know that. It could be the case that all detections used by the
abstraction of the universal
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:43:16 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Monday, May 12, 2014 1:50:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2014, at 03:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
We don't
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:43:16 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
On Monday, May 12, 2014 1:50:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 7:56:53 PM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Wed, May 14, 2014 at 12:12 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Tuesday, May 13, 2014 9:43:16 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Tue, May 13, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Craig
On 12 May 2014, at 03:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
We don't know that. It could be the case that all detections used by
the abstraction of the universal machine are done by the sensory
substrate in which the machine-program is instantiated. The machine
is only an automated map as far as I
On Monday, May 12, 2014 1:50:45 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 12 May 2014, at 03:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
We don't know that. It could be the case that all detections used by the
abstraction of the universal machine are done by the sensory substrate in
which the machine-program is
On 07 May 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:53:54 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 May 2014, at 21:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:26:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then you can study how to define sequence in that theory.
Only
On Thursday, May 8, 2014 9:56:44 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 May 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:53:54 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 May 2014, at 21:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:26:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
On Monday, May 5, 2014 9:12:45 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote:
On 3 May 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:07:13 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
Do you believe that mathematical truths are true independent of mind?
I'm not sure what mind is. I
On Tuesday, May 6, 2014 8:53:54 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 May 2014, at 21:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:26:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then you can study how to define sequence in that theory.
Only because you have an a priori expectation of
On 05 May 2014, at 21:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:26:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Then you can study how to define sequence in that theory.
Only because you have an a priori expectation of sequence which can
be inferred. Otherwise nothing is defined and you
On Saturday, May 3, 2014 3:53:48 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 May 2014, at 23:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:15:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 May 2014, at 20:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
On 05 May 2014, at 14:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, May 3, 2014 3:53:48 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 May 2014, at 23:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:15:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 May 2014, at 20:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday,
On Monday, May 5, 2014 10:26:27 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 May 2014, at 14:27, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, May 3, 2014 3:53:48 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 May 2014, at 23:58, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:15:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
On 3 May 2014 09:39, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:07:13 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
Do you believe that mathematical truths are true independent of mind?
I'm not sure what mind is. I understand that nothing can exist
independently of sensory
On 01 May 2014, at 20:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What generates Platonia?
Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can
generate the comp-relevant
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 7:21:19 PM UTC-4, yanniru wrote:
I say that human beings (first-person) experience reality only in terms of
words,
You think that we were born with words?
many words with some measure of meaning and some without any meaning at
all. Even the physics you
On Thursday, May 1, 2014 9:07:13 PM UTC-4, stathisp wrote:
On 2 May 2014 04:42, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com javascript:wrote:
On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What generates Platonia?
Nothing
On Friday, May 2, 2014 11:15:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 May 2014, at 20:42, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What generates Platonia?
Nothing generates Platonia,
On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What generates Platonia?
Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can
generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or equivalent.
I say that human beings (first-person) experience reality only in terms of
words, many words with some measure of meaning and some without any meaning
at all. Even the physics you mentioned are conveyed to the public as words,
and the math that is conveyed between physicists is expressed in words,
On 2 May 2014 04:42, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday, April 18, 2014 3:23:13 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What generates Platonia?
Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can
generate the
On 16 Apr 2014, at 20:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
What generates Platonia?
Nothing generates Platonia, although addition and multiplication can
generate the comp-relevant part of platonia, that is the UD or
equivalent.
Elementary arithmetic cannot be justified by anything less complex
On 15 Apr 2014, at 21:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:21:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Apr 2014, at 21:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:44:37 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
That my sun in law might not be a zombie/doll. Comp
On 15 Apr 2014, at 19:10, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Numbers are not creative, they are recursive.
Universal number are complete with respect of recursiveness, and this
is arguably creative, and that is why Emil Post used the term
creative to describe them. They can refute all normative
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:46:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Apr 2014, at 21:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:21:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Apr 2014, at 21:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:44:37 PM UTC-4, Bruno
On Wednesday, April 16, 2014 4:46:52 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Apr 2014, at 21:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
It seems like I just gave a perfectly legitimate, clear, and common
sense challenge, to which your response has no relation. You're talking
about remote and
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 2:26:21 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Craig illustrates well that consciousness is in the true part, not in the
representation, but you need both to have a local particular person,
relatively to some universal number or system.
I agree that a local person
On 14 Apr 2014, at 21:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:44:37 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
That my sun in law might not be a zombie/doll. Comp assumes that the
brain is Turing emulable at some level of description.
What does the brain being Turing emulable mean
On Tuesday, April 15, 2014 1:21:41 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 14 Apr 2014, at 21:47, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:44:37 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
snip
That my sun in law might not be a zombie/doll. Comp assumes that the
brain is Turing emulable
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:44:37 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Apr 2014, at 00:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:24:03 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Apr 2014, at 20:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:16:47
continued
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 12:44:37 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 13 Apr 2014, at 00:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
and say that it is computation which is more likely derived from
awareness rather than the other way around, and therefore
computation in and of itself
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 13 Apr 2014, at 19:43, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
If you guys want to argue to infinity these similar points (all really
particular too at both end, of course), than sure: my apologies. I just
took Bruno by his
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:24:03 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We know that we cannot make our legs stand by arguing with them or
proving that standing can occur, we must exercise direct sensory-motive
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:32:19 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Craig Weinberg
whats...@gmail.comjavascript:
wrote:
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:24:03 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
We know that we cannot make our legs stand by
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
On Sunday, April 13, 2014 9:32:19 AM UTC-4, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 12:46 AM, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.comwrote:
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:24:03 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
On 13 Apr 2014, at 00:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:24:03 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Apr 2014, at 20:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:16:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On
On 13 Apr 2014, at 00:46, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Can sense not be allowed to represent itself in your court of
argument?
That is a very good idea.
That is quite close to what happens with the definition by Theatetus
of (rational) knowledge by saying that is a (rational) belief
If you guys want to argue to infinity these similar points (all really
particular too at both end, of course), than sure: my apologies. I just
took Bruno by his word of I'll just say if I see an argument or not. and
felt that was better than to have this thread keep ballooning with nobody
else in
On 13 Apr 2014, at 19:43, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
If you guys want to argue to infinity these similar points (all
really particular too at both end, of course), than sure: my
apologies. I just took Bruno by his word of I'll just say if I see
an argument or not. and felt that was
On Saturday, April 12, 2014 2:24:03 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 11 Apr 2014, at 20:30, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:16:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:42:08 AM UTC-4,
On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:42:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Craig,
I have already commented that type of non-argument. Once we get
closer to a refutation of your attempt to show that your argument
against comp is not valid, you
On Friday, April 11, 2014 12:16:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 10 Apr 2014, at 20:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:42:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Craig,
I have already commented that type of non-argument. Once we get
closer to a
On Thursday, April 10, 2014 6:42:08 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
Craig,
I have already commented that type of non-argument. Once we get closer to
a refutation of your attempt to show that your argument against comp is not
valid, you vindicate being illogical,
I don't vindicate
On 07 Apr 2014, at 21:33, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:13:09 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm not saying that I know it, I'm saying that it makes more sense.
But then why are we discussing?
To make more sense of
On 07 Apr 2014, at 22:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Another part 2
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:13:09 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I keep explaining that arithmetic seen from inside escapes somehow
the mathematics accessible to the
On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 4:58:40 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Apr 2014, at 21:33, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:13:09 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm not saying that I know it, I'm saying that it makes
On Wednesday, April 9, 2014 5:42:18 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Apr 2014, at 22:01, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Another part 2
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:13:09 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I keep explaining that
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:13:09 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 4, 2014 2:07:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 2:34:06 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal
Another part 2
On Sunday, April 6, 2014 1:13:09 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I keep explaining that arithmetic seen from inside escapes somehow the
mathematics accessible to the machine.
No need to keep explaining, I
On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 4, 2014 2:07:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 2:34:06 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
I'm not confusing them, I'm saying that []~comp is not untrue
On 05 Apr 2014, at 19:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, April 4, 2014 2:07:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Logic is just required to be able to argue with others, and you do
use it, it seems to me, except that you seem to
On Friday, April 4, 2014 2:07:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 2:34:06 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Apr 2014, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno
On Friday, April 4, 2014 2:07:47 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Logic is just required to be able to argue with others, and you do use
it, it seems to me, except that you seem to decide opportunistically to not
apply it to
On 04 Apr 2014, at 03:40, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Thursday, April 3, 2014 2:34:06 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 02 Apr 2014, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I
On 02 Apr 2014, at 21:34, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only
occur in the context of a sense making experience.
Did I
On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only
occur in the context of a sense making experience.
Did I ever said the contrary?
Yes, you are saying that multiplication and addition laws prefigure
sense making and sense
On 01 Apr 2014, at 22:49, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Logic obeys its own incorrigibility also. Logic cannot be doubted
logically.
I would say that it is the contrary.
Logic + numbers leads to doubts and science only make the doubt
greater, augmenting the possibilities, and freedom degrees.
On Wednesday, April 2, 2014 1:00:54 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 01 Apr 2014, at 21:55, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I believe you, but all of the laws and creativity can still only occur in
the context of a sense making experience.
Did I ever said the contrary?
Yes, you are saying
On 25 March 2014 02:59, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If you are living, you already understand what living is.
Are you telling me a potato plant - which is undeniably alive - understands
what living is? If so, this seems to either elevate potatoes to conscious
beings, or else
On 23 Mar 2014, at 19:38, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 4:49:48 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Mar 2014, at 19:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Continued...
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:54:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2014, at 19:43, Craig Weinberg
On 22 Mar 2014, at 19:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Continued...
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:54:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2014, at 19:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 21, 2014 4:44:20 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2014, at 02:28, Craig Weinberg
On Sunday, March 23, 2014 4:49:48 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 22 Mar 2014, at 19:35, Craig Weinberg wrote:
Continued...
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:54:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2014, at 19:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 21, 2014 4:44:20 AM
Continued...
On Saturday, March 22, 2014 4:54:41 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2014, at 19:43, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Friday, March 21, 2014 4:44:20 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 21 Mar 2014, at 02:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I don't think logic can study reality, only
On 19 Mar 2014, at 18:45, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 5:02:15 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 17, 2014 2:18:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 17:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm
On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 17, 2014 2:18:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 17:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm mirroring back to you what my impression is of what you say to
me. I say it is obvious that machines are impersonal, cold,
On Wednesday, March 19, 2014 5:02:15 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 22:28, Craig Weinberg wrote:
On Monday, March 17, 2014 2:18:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 17:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm mirroring back to you what my impression is of what
Craig
Craig
Bruno
Edgar
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:09:27 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any
/935c9f6ad77f94164442956d8929da19/tumblr_mncj8t2OCc1qz63ydo10_250.gif
http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any
computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree
/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any
computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self awareness?
The computational reason is that there is no computation at all there.
There is no self
On 17 Mar 2014, at 17:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If someone said that they were agnostic about God, would I be wrong
in thinking that they do *not* assume God's presence or absence? To
say that you assume comp and are agnostic about it would seem to be
a contradiction.
You have a lot of
On 17 Mar 2014, at 17:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm mirroring back to you what my impression is of what you say to
me. I say it is obvious that machines are impersonal, cold,
mechanical, and that it is obvious that sophisticated technology can
be developed that will make them seem less
On 17 Mar 2014, at 18:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I don't think it needs to be an experience to compute though. In
real life it does need to be an experience, because I think that it
is the experience which underlies all computation and arithmetic
rather than the other way around. In the
On Monday, March 17, 2014 2:17:01 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 17:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
If someone said that they were agnostic about God, would I be wrong in
thinking that they do *not* assume God's presence or absence? To say that
you assume comp and are
On Monday, March 17, 2014 2:31:32 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 18:11, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I don't think it needs to be an experience to compute though. In real life
it does need to be an experience, because I think that it is the experience
which underlies all
On Monday, March 17, 2014 2:18:58 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 17 Mar 2014, at 17:50, Craig Weinberg wrote:
I'm mirroring back to you what my impression is of what you say to me. I
say it is obvious that machines are impersonal, cold, mechanical, and that
it is obvious that
On 15 Mar 2014, at 23:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any
computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree
video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any
computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self
awareness? Would VCRs which have 'seen themselves' in this way have
a greater chance of developing that awareness than those which
On 16 Mar 2014, at 05:35, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
On 16 March 2014 09:09, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself
/tumblr_mncj8t2OCc1qz63ydo10_250.gif
http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any
computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self awareness?
Would VCRs which have 'seen
On Saturday, March 15, 2014 6:09:27 PM UTC-4, Craig Weinberg wrote:
https://31.media.tumblr.com/935c9f6ad77f94164442956d8929da19/tumblr_mncj8t2OCc1qz63ydo10_250.gif
http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR
/tumblr_mncj8t2OCc1qz63ydo10_250.gif
http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any
computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self awareness?
Would VCRs
On Sunday, March 16, 2014 3:40:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 15 Mar 2014, at 23:09, Craig Weinberg wrote:
http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself
:
http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any
computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self
awareness? Would VCRs which have 'seen themselves
the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any
computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self
awareness?
The computational reason is that there is no computation at all
there. There is no self-representation, no introspection in the
computer science theoretical sense
?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any
computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self awareness?
Would VCRs which have 'seen themselves' in this way have a greater chance
https://31.media.tumblr.com/935c9f6ad77f94164442956d8929da19/tumblr_mncj8t2OCc1qz63ydo10_250.gif
http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any computational
/tumblr_mncj8t2OCc1qz63ydo10_250.gif
http://www.jesseengland.net/index.php?/project/vide-uhhh/
Have a look at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any computational
reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self awareness? Would VCRs
which
at this quick video (or get the idea from this_)
Since the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any
computational reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self awareness?
Would VCRs which have 'seen themselves' in this way have a greater chance
of developing that awareness than
the VCR can get video feedback of itself, is there any computational
reason why this doesn't count as a degree of self awareness? Would VCRs
which have 'seen themselves' in this way have a greater chance of
developing that awareness than those which have not? If not, what initial
conditions
98 matches
Mail list logo
