Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Wednesday, February 28, 2018 at 2:08:43 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 26 Feb 2018, at 18:02, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 24 Feb 2018, at 00:36, Lawrence Crowell

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

> On 26 Feb 2018, at 18:02, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 24 Feb 2018, at 00:36, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> >> >> On Friday, February 23, 2018

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Monday, February 26, 2018 at 5:53:05 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 24 Feb 2018, at 00:36, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 11:12:32 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: >> >> >> On 23 Feb 2018, at 17:15, Lawrence Crowell

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

> On 24 Feb 2018, at 00:36, Lawrence Crowell > wrote: > > > > On Friday, February 23, 2018 at 11:12:32 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 23 Feb 2018, at 17:15, Lawrence Crowell > > wrote: >> >> The MH spacetime in the case

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

rely geographical, a bit like Smullyan sais explicitly in his book “Forever Undecided”. I was expecting finding quick-kly the many-world aspect, but I got the formal logic of physics, not a long way from a theorem à-la Gleason. OK, it is not much, but it is the only theory which explain why the

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

it disingenous that you talk of testing your theory by comparing with experience and quantum mechanics and finding it agrees over a tiny part of their domain and this is confirmation. But when your theory leads to an absurdity you obfuscate the fact with mysticism and redefining consciousness

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 2:42 PM, Brent Meeker wrote: ​> ​ > Which is why mice are more conscious than you are and spiders are more > conscious than mice. ​I don't know about you but I lack the ability to directly detect the consciousness of spiders or mice of or even in

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

e know that hyper-computations do > not escape incompleteness. It escapes PA and ZF, but it does not lead to > effective way to emulate something not Turing emulable, but I would need more > time to assess this, and I judge from an early draft I saw on this subject. > > Then y

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

ill be the neural-cyber interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. Why would you suppose that when electronics have a signal speed ten million times faster than neurons?  Presently neurons have an advantage in connection density and power dissipation; but I see no reason they

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

, but I would need > more time to assess this, and I judge from an early draft I saw on this > subject. > > Then you say in your blog “Physics, on the other hand, ultimately attempts > to model reality.” But that is the main axiom of Aristotle metaphysics > which is doubted at

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

scape incompleteness. It escapes PA and ZF, but it does not lead to effective way to emulate something not Turing emulable, but I would need more time to assess this, and I judge from an early draft I saw on this subject. Then you say in your blog “Physics, on the other hand, ultimately attempts t

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

Markov chains of game events to >>>> increase their data base for playing the game. There is not really >>>> anything about "knowing something" going on here. There is a lot of hype >>>> over AI these days, but I suspect a lot of this is meant to

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Thursday, February 22, 2018 at 6:38:15 AM UTC-6, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > > On 21 Feb 2018, at 20:40, Brent Meeker > wrote: > > > > > > > > On 2/21/2018 1:32 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> I guess you mean enumerable here. I don’t see what physical bounds have >

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

ething" going on here. There is a lot of hype over AI >>> these days, but I suspect a lot of this is meant to beguile people. I do >>> suspect in time we will interact with AI as if it were intelligent and >>> conscious. The really big changer though I think will b

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

le people. I do suspect in time we will interact with AI as if it were intelligent and conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. Why would y

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

AI as if it were intelligent and conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. Why would you suppose that when electronics have a signal speed ten million times faster than neurons?  Presently neurons hav

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On 2/22/2018 4:38 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote: The mechanist answer to this is “yes”. The more you have neurons, the less conscious you are. Which is why mice are more conscious than you are and spiders are more conscious than mice. Indeed. I know it is counter-intuitive, but we were warned by

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

pancy between the Nature’s physics and the physics in the “head of the number”, but we have tested this as far as possible, and found none. > So that must have consequences when saying yes to the doctor. Why? >> The mechanist answer to this is “yes”. The more you have neurons, the less >

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

his is meant to beguile people. I do > suspect in time we will interact with AI as if it were intelligent and > conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber > interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. > > > Why would you suppose that whe

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

meant to beguile people. I do suspect in time we will interact with AI as if it were intelligent and conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. Why would you

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

) available for them. But they are bounded in the physical sense, and not just potentially.  So that must have consequences when saying yes to the doctor. Brent -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

were intelligent and >> conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber >> interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. >> >> >> Why would you suppose that when electronics have a signal speed ten >> million times faster than

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

is is meant to beguile people. I do >> suspect in time we will interact with AI as if it were intelligent and >> conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber >> interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. > > Why would you suppose that

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

>> conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber >> interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. > > Why would you suppose that when electronics have a signal speed ten million > times faster than neurons? Presently neurons have

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

ll be the neural-cyber >>> interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. >> >> Why would you suppose that when electronics have a signal speed ten million >> times faster than neurons? Presently neurons have an advantage in >> connection d

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

s, but I suspect a lot of this is meant to beguile people. I do suspect in time we will interact with AI as if it were intelligent and conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. Why would you suppose that

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

ys, but I suspect a lot of this is meant to beguile people. I do > suspect in time we will interact with AI as if it were intelligent and > conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber > interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. > > &

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 3:05:53 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 2/19/2018 12:37 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > *I viewed it. Very impressive what they can do. However, I'd be MORE > impressed, indeed HUGELY impressed with the existence of consciousness, if > without an

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:56 AM, Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: *​> ​I think it may come down to computers that obey the Church-Turing > thesis,* > ​It states that a human can compute a function of ​ positive integer ​s ​if and only if a Turing Machine (aka a

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On 2/19/2018 12:37 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: *I viewed it. Very impressive what they can do. However, I'd be MORE impressed, indeed HUGELY impressed with the existence of consciousness, if without an algorithm explicitly programming it, the computer would REFUSE to do as commanded.

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

-cyber interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. Why would you suppose that when electronics have a signal speed ten million times faster than neurons? Presently neurons have an advantage in connection density and power dissipation; but

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 9:26 PM, Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: *​> ​Computers such as AlphaGo have complex algorithms for taking the rules > of a game like chess and running through long Markov chains of game events > to increase their data base for playing the

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

these days, but I suspect a lot of this is meant to beguile people. I do >> suspect in time we will interact with AI as if it were intelligent and >> conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber >> interlink that will put brains as the primary int

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

ent wrote: >> >> >> On 2/18/2018 6:11 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >>> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 4:25:07 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote: >>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> > >>> > >>>

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

t Meeker wrote: >> > >> > >> > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: >> > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG >> > > >> > > https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligenc

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

> On 19 Feb 2018, at 02:28, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Lawrence Crowell > > > wrote: > > ​> ​That is a canned. It is only a question because we recognize it as such,

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

> On 19 Feb 2018, at 00:26, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Lawrence Crowell > > > wrote: > > ​> ​One thing a computer can not do is ask a question. > > You've never had a

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

0, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com <> wrote: > > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG > > > > > > https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligence-singularity-les

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

as if it were intelligent and > conscious. The really big changer though I think will be the neural-cyber > interlink that will put brains as the primary internet nodes. > > > Why would you suppose that when electronics have a signal speed ten > million times faster than neurons?

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

t;> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 4:25:07 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish >>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > On 2/17/2018 4

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 6:19:28 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

com wrote: > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG > > > > https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligence-singularity-less-30-years-away <https://www.zerohedge.com/new

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

: > > > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG > > > > https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/fat

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

t will put brains as the primary internet nodes. Why would you suppose that when electronics have a signal speed ten million times faster than neurons?  Presently neurons have an advantage in connection density and power dissipation; but I see no reason they can hold that advantage. Brent -- Yo

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

:50:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 2/17/2018 5:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 6:19:28 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>>>&

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

rote: >> >> On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 4:25:07 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On 2/18/2018 12:46 PM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: One thing a computer can not do is ask a question. I can ask a question and program a computer to help solve the problem. In fact I am doing a program to do just this. I am working a computer program to model aspects of

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

Standish wrote: On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human i

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

Computers such as AlphaGo have complex algorithms for taking the rules of a game like chess and running through long Markov chains of game events to increase their data base for playing the game. There is not really anything about "knowing something" going on here. There is a lot of hype over

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 7:51 PM, Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: *​> ​That is a canned. It is only a question because we recognize it as > such, not because the computer somehow knows that.* > How would the computer behave differently if is did ​ ​"​ somehow knows

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 3:15 PM, wrote: > It can only do what it has been programmed to do. I can't act independent > of its program > ​ Suppose you know ​ absolutely nothing about Chess, you're not given a teacher, you ​ are not ​ even given a book on Chess, all you're

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 5:26:04 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote: > > On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Lawrence Crowell < > goldenfield...@gmail.com > wrote: > > *​> ​One thing a computer can not do is ask a question.* >> > > You've never had a computer ask you what your password is? > > ​John K

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

6, Russell Standish wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human i

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Sun, Feb 18, 2018 at 9:11 AM, Lawrence Crowell < goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote: *​> ​One thing a computer can not do is ask a question.* > You've never had a computer ask you what your password is? ​John K Clark​ -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

gt;> > >> > >> > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG >> > > >> > > >> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligenc

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 10:50:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/17/2018 5:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

>> > >> > >> > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG >> > > >> > > >> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligenc

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On 2/18/2018 6:11 AM, Lawrence Crowell wrote: On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 4:25:07 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote: On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > But what is the

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 6:19:28 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG https://www.zerohedge.com/news

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

t, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG >>> > > >>

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >> > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG >> > > >> > > >> https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligence-singularity-less-30-years-away >> &g

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Sunday, February 18, 2018 at 4:25:07 AM UTC-6, Russell Standish wrote: > > On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > > > > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > But what is the criterion when

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

.com wrote: >> >> >> >> On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 6:19:28 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: >>> >>> But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intell

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Sat, Feb 17, 2018 at 05:19:22PM -0800, Brent Meeker wrote: > > > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG > > > > https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligenc

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

...@gmail.com wrote: But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligence-singularity-less-30-years-away <https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligence-singular

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 10:50:13 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 2/17/2018 5:44 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 6:19:28 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On 2/17/2018 5:44 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 6:19:28 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On Saturday, February 17, 2018 at 6:19:28 PM UTC-7, Brent wrote: > > > > On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrays...@gmail.com wrote: > > But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG > > > https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligenc

Re: Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

On 2/17/2018 4:58 PM, agrayson2...@gmail.com wrote: But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligence-singularity-less-30-years-away Intelligence is multi-dimensional.  Computers already do arithmetic

Singularity -- when AI exceeds human intelligence

But what is the criterion when AI exceeds human intelligence? AG https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-02-16/father-artificial-intelligence-singularity-less-30-years-away -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubs

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

the non-linguistic half, when separated, is self-aware. My intuition is that it's not. I agree. It's difficult to say how self-awareness can be implemented except via some kind of symbolism. I could be based on self-images, but language seems like a more compressed way of storing useful

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

On 10/4/2017 7:01 AM, Terren Suydam wrote: In this case the pronoun problems can be resolved by dint of the fact that the language processing areas of the brain are largely localized to one half. It's an interesting question to me whether the non-linguistic half, when separated, is self

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

is something that definitely has been extensively studied. Yes, for example the way many people look like they are in a trance when watching TV. Good point. I will look into Milton Erikson, thanks. As an obvious example, think of the well-known video of the basketball game where you're asked to count

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

superficial. https://aeon.co/ideas/when-you-split-the-brain-do-you-split-the-person If the conclusions are valid, I would say they put emergentism in trouble... While the research the article refers to is interesting, I don’t see why it should have any bearing on the question of consciousness.

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

int of the fact that the language processing areas of the brain are largely localized to one half. It's an interesting question to me whether the non-linguistic half, when separated, is self-aware. My intuition is that it's not. In a paper which will be published, I suggest that the "

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

Hi Telmo, On 04 Oct 2017, at 09:09, Telmo Menezes wrote: On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: On 03 Oct 2017, at 15:11, Telmo Menezes wrote: I think this is quite interesting, although the article is a bit superficial. https://aeon.co/ideas/wh

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

iment. Cheers, Telmo. In this case the pronoun problems can be resolved by dint of the fact that the language processing areas of the brain are largely localized to one half. It's an interesting question to me whether the non-linguistic half, when separated, is self-aware. My intuition is that it'

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: I think this is quite interesting, although the article is a bit superficial. https://aeon.co/ideas/when-you-split-the-brain-do-you-split-the-person If the conclusions are valid, I would say they put emergentism in trouble... Cheers,

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

on hearing a trigger word. Post-hypnotic amnesia leaves them unaware of the existence of the trigger, but they respond to it with the suggested action nonetheless. But when asked why, they don't reply with "I have no idea" or "I can't remember". Instead, they confabulate

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

t of the surgery? Exactly, I also thought this had some parallels to the duplication experiment. Cheers, Telmo. > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 9:11 AM, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> > wrote: >> >> I think this is quite interesting, although the article is a bit >>

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

tegration in brain activity. Check this paper, for >> example: >> >> >> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5547073/pdf/41598_2017_Article_6854.pdf > > > Thanks. >> >> >> >> > In point of fact, since none of us are 100% fully integr

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

Hi Stathis, On Wed, Oct 4, 2017 at 4:42 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stath...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 8:11 am, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: >> >> I think this is quite interesting, although the article is a bit >> superficial.

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

Hi Bruno, On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 8:47 PM, Bruno Marchal <marc...@ulb.ac.be> wrote: > > On 03 Oct 2017, at 15:11, Telmo Menezes wrote: > >> I think this is quite interesting, although the article is a bit >> superficial. >> >> https://aeon.co/ideas/when-you-

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 8:11 am, Telmo Menezes <te...@telmomenezes.com> wrote: > I think this is quite interesting, although the article is a bit > superficial. > > https://aeon.co/ideas/when-you-split-the-brain-do-you-split-the-person > > If the conclusions are val

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

On 03 Oct 2017, at 15:11, Telmo Menezes wrote: I think this is quite interesting, although the article is a bit superficial. https://aeon.co/ideas/when-you-split-the-brain-do-you-split-the-person If the conclusions are valid, I would say they put emergentism in trouble... Really? May

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

ple, someone is told under hypnosis that they will perform a certain > action on hearing a trigger word. Post-hypnotic amnesia leaves them unaware > of the existence of the trigger, but they respond to it with the suggested > action nonetheless. But when asked why, they don't reply with "

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

the article is a bit > superficial. > > https://aeon.co/ideas/when-you-split-the-brain-do-you-split-the-person > > If the conclusions are valid, I would say they put emergentism in > trouble... > > Cheers, > Telmo. > > -- > You received this message because you are

Re: When you split the brain, do you split the person?

of the existence of the trigger, but they respond to it with the suggested action nonetheless. But when asked why, they don't reply with "I have no idea" or "I can't remember". Instead, they confabulate something plausible. And this in fact is what we all do at least some of t

When you split the brain, do you split the person?

I think this is quite interesting, although the article is a bit superficial. https://aeon.co/ideas/when-you-split-the-brain-do-you-split-the-person If the conclusions are valid, I would say they put emergentism in trouble... Cheers, Telmo. -- You received this message because you

Re: Leibniz: When God calculates, the world is made

On 07 Aug 2015, at 08:26, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote: Leibniz' note on his Dialogs: When God calculates and thinks things through, the world is made. Cum Deus calculat et cogitationem exercet, mundus fit. I have found it in M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe. OK

Leibniz: When God calculates, the world is made

Leibniz' note on his Dialogs: When God calculates and thinks things through, the world is made. Cum Deus calculat et cogitationem exercet, mundus fit. I have found it in M. Heller, Ultimate Explanations of the Universe. Evgenii -- You received this message because you are subscribed

RE: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

From: everything-list@googlegroups.com [mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Craig Weinberg Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 8:40 PM To: everything-list@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it On Monday

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

: *Subject:* Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it On Monday, October 28, 2013 10:10:45 PM UTC-4, cdemorsella wrote: *From:* everyth...@googlegroups.com [mailto:everyth...@googlegroups.com] *On Behalf Of *Craig Weinberg *Sent:* Sunday

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

the nature of our experience actually is. I think that people are falling for the prefrontal cortex's story about its own verbal cognition and not looking at the deep creative mind and surface sensations. Some people do that. But even machine's can't do that when looking inward

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

On 30 Oct 2013, at 02:29, LizR wrote: On 30 October 2013 14:26, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 8:40:52 PM UTC-4, Liz R wrote: On 30 October 2013 13:24, Craig Weinberg whats...@gmail.com wrote: On Tuesday, October 29, 2013 6:52:12 PM UTC-4, Liz R

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

) then you must accept that it is ontologically impossible that there could be anything *else*, by definition. I want my proof to be mechanically checkable. I play the game of science, you don't. I have no problem with that, except when you draw negative conclusion. Humans are used to make

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

On Thursday, October 31, 2013 12:06:52 PM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 30 Oct 2013, at 18:01, Craig Weinberg wrote: On Wednesday, October 30, 2013 4:52:49 AM UTC-4, Bruno Marchal wrote: On 29 Oct 2013, at 19:15, Craig Weinberg wrote: That assumes that being alive implies

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

. Incompleteness means that whatever rules are used to make a mathematical system create their own blind spots when it comes to proving those rules. You are the only one that I know of who interpret Gödel's incompleteness as an affirmation of arithmetic supremacy rather than an indictment of its

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

a mathematical system create their own blind spots when it comes to proving those rules. You are the only one that I know of who interpret Gödel's incompleteness as an affirmation of arithmetic supremacy rather than an indictment of its limitations on discovering its limitation. But Gödel

Re: Neural activity in the brain is harder to disrupt when we are aware of it

is a real scientist, in that sense, as he was sincerely disappointed by the LARC confirmation of the Standard model showing the Higgs Englert Brout boson. We learn nothing when we are shown true. Bruno On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 12:43 AM, Stathis Papaioannou stat...@gmail.com wrote

<    1   2   3   4   5   >