On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 1:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 3:14 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/9/2013 12:40 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
But as a rule-of-thumb it is better to tentatively assume things we cannot
see don't exist.
I meant to ask: Why?
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
How could a pseudo-religion, fake by definition, be superior to
anything?
Well, I'd rather be a fake moron that a real moron, wouldn't you?
And why
On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
How could a pseudo-religion
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 10:58 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 12:03 PM, John Clark johnkcl
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 7:40 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 2:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 at 2:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/10/2013 12:11 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On May 10, 2013, at 1:24 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:07 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, May 10, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Religion is a set of beliefs which cannot be proved.
Not only can strongly held religious beliefs not be proven to be correct
they can often be proven
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 5:52 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 at 9:35 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/11/2013 12:27 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
I used to participate in the mailing list years ago and this was a
recurring theme -- quantum
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you, such that
you developed with different atoms, does that mean someone else would have
been born in your place and you
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 11:14 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 11, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Nothing can truly be proven nor disproven,
Then you must believe that the word proof should be expunged from the
English language as there would
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:37 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 9, 2013 at 4:21 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
You keep assuming that because I don't vow allegiance to the MWI faith
that I reject it. I said I liked it, I'm just not compelled to accept it
so
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 1:50 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2013 10:33 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, May 12, 2013 at 12:05 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/12/2013 9:00 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
If your mom ate something different while pregnant with you
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 12:03 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 5/17/2013 2:39 AM, Roger Clough wrote:
The documented fact that people have had near death
experiences after death, after electrical activity in the brain
ceases
There are no such documented facts. First, EKG's
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 1:45 AM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 6:48 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, May 18, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I don't think D-Wave would be very good at factoring numbers, but
that's
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G59zIL2nacI
Jason
--
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
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 10:14 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 4:19 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Even without solving protein folding problems, regenerative medicine is
predicted to enable us to regrow any organ on-demand by 2025.
Organs
On Sun, May 19, 2013 at 9:29 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, May 19, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
Protein folding may grant us immortality, cryptography may save us from
spending an eternity in hell :)
Excellent, I wish I'd said that. But Quantum
On Fri, May 17, 2013 at 4:57 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
**
So, Jason,by this reasoning, a sufficiently advanced technology, then, in
indistinguisable from Resurrection.
If used for such purposes. Even if technology is not used for the explicit
purpose of resurrection, say it is only used
to an identical Earth, but
humans all have elephant tricks instead of noses. Or a Jason Resch,
belonging to a species that has rectangular crystal panels built in their
stomachs and backs (see thru). I am shooting for ridiculous incarnations of
J. Resch, in order to illustrate the unlikeliness
On May 26, 2013, at 6:12 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.au
wrote:
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 05:05:28PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 26 May 2013, at 13:29, Evgenii Rudnyi wrote:
The absence of a neocortex does not appear to preclude an
organism from experiencing affective
On Sun, May 26, 2013 at 10:05 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Understood, Jason. I became familiar with this digital universe concept,
first, through Hans Moravec, in Mind Children. I wonder how possible it is
to discover that we are part of an ancestor simulation?
If computationalism is true
On Tue, May 28, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 27 May 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:
Bruno:
do you indeed exclude the other animals from being selfconcious?
?
No, not at all. My current feeling (for what is worth) is that
consciousness begins with the
From the video: What we do is we use the story of math, which is very good
and very complete
I think that summarizes the error of fictionalism. To believe math is a
human created invention requires believing that everything we can ever know
about math comes from the starting assumptions we
On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be
wrote:
On 11 Jun 2013, at 23:18, John Mikes wrote:
Laughing stock: how can so many excellently educted and
On Jun 12, 2013, at 3:23 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/12/2013 11:57 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:52 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/12/2013 2:20 AM, Telmo Menezes wrote:
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Bruno Marchal
marc...@ulb.ac.be
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 3:34 PM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
Indeed, Dr. Marchal. But what comes to my mind would be (I suppose) to
create an equation and see if it can then become, somehow, energy, or
matter to thus, prove that the universe has a arithmatic basis. I
understand that Max Tegmark
I think it is worth nothing the difference between active and passive
attacks.
Active attacks being those where traffic is modified inflight by the
eavesdropper or where there is a specific target. If you are specifically
targeted I agree with Telmo there is nothing you can do, as every
the computing power of the human brain. All the hard
problems humans struggle with in trying to figure out the laws of physics,
etc. will seem like child's play, and new sources of puzzles and realms of
exploration will be required.
Jason
-Mitch
-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch jasonre
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 6:01 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/15/2013 3:24 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
Coincidentally I came across this wikipage of Freeman Dyson quotes today:
- My first heresy says that all the fuss about global warming is
grossly exaggerated. Here I am
themselves (not just their
representatives).
Jason
Bruno
-Original Message-
From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, Jun 15, 2013 6:24 pm
Subject: Re: On Global WarmingThe sun is getting a little hotter
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Jun 2013, at 17:28, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 16 Jun 2013, at 15:08, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
I think Dyson is correct. My resentment
One question that comes to my mind is how computationalism might lead to
the phenomenon of interference. How is it that infinite programs going
through a state can interfere?
Might interference be something local to the geography of this particular
universe, or is it something comp predicts to
On Fri, Jun 21, 2013 at 9:04 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John, PGC,
On 21 Jun 2013, at 02:24, Platonist Guitar Cowboy wrote:
On Thu, Jun 20, 2013 at 11:08 PM, John Mikes jami...@gmail.com wrote:
Let me interject in *-*marked *BOLD ITALICS* lines into the texts of
the
On Sat, Jun 29, 2013 at 2:17 AM, Evgenii Rudnyi use...@rudnyi.ru wrote:
Quote from Peter Byrne, The Many Worlds of Hugh Everett III: Multiple
Universes, Mutual Assured Destruction, and the Meltdown of a Nuclear Family
p. 25 Nancy about Everett: This is a guy who at the tender age of 12
wrote
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2013 6:34 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
With regard to your's and Brents' coments, how would we demonstarte string
theory? A super-giant CERN hadron collider?
No. You don't demonstrate physics models, you makes
On the subject of reality, featuring John Conway, Max Tegmark, Leonard
Susskind, and Nick Bostrom:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM
Jason
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:40 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/30/2013 8:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:00 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/29/2013 6:34 AM, spudboy...@aol.com wrote:
With regard to your's and Brents' coments, how would we
I would say Buddhism is closer to idealism than materialism:
“Mind precedes all phenomena, mind matters most, everything is mind-made.”
-- Gautama Buddha
Jason
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Materialism and Buddhism
Materialism, since it contains no
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 3:10 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/1/2013 7:20 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Jul 1, 2013 at 12:40 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 6/30/2013 8:09 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Sun, Jun 30, 2013 at 2:00 AM, meekerdb meeke
On Jul 2, 2013, at 5:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2013 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
But what is the basis for the assumption that it's possible to
derive a unique set of physical laws mathematics alone?
It's not an assumption, it's a working assumption by those
On Jul 2, 2013, at 5:25 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2013 3:08 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
But what is the basis for the assumption that it's possible to
derive a unique set of physical laws mathematics alone?
It's not an assumption, it's a working assumption by those
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2013 8:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If we compare the percentage of possible programs that are supportive of
conscious observers in relation to all programs of the same length, we can
derive something like chaitin's
On Wed, Jul 3, 2013 at 1:16 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2013 10:58 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/2/2013 8:25 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
If we compare the percentage of possible programs
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:53 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/8/2013 1:11 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 08 Jul 2013, at 02:45, meekerdb wrote:
On 7/7/2013 6:56 AM, Bruno Marchal wrote:
On 07 Jul 2013, at 07:28, meekerdb wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 12:07 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the fact that e^i*PI +1 = 0 surprises almost everyone when they
first hear of it.
This one is very interesting, but the fact that Pi was a poor choice for
the constant makes the equation considerably more ugly
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibniz
Computation[edithttps://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gottfried_Wilhelm_Leibnizaction=editsection=22
]
Leibniz may have been the first computer scientist and information theorist.
[65]
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 2:20 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jul 8, 2013 at 5:16 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think the fact that e^i*PI +1 = 0 surprises almost everyone when
they first hear of it.
This one is very interesting, but the fact that Pi
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
Why does that make the word less usefull? I think its a very useful
word. If someone tells me they are an atheist I then know that they do not
belive in God.
But you don't know what God the atheist doesn't believe
in.
Jason
--- Original Message ---
From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
Sent: 10 July 2013 8:35 AM
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:33 PM, chris peck
chris_peck...@hotmail.com wrote:
Why does that make the word less usefull? I
confident there are particular selections of the above words that you
would admit to believing in.
Jason
--- Original Message ---
From: Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com
Sent: 10 July 2013 8:35 AM
To: Everything List everything-list@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Hitch
On Tue, Jul 9
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.comwrote:
there are many words like that which we use without any fuss.
The word 'game' is a famous example
I assumed bounded memory due to the limited amount of matter and energy
available to build the computer. For instance I've seen it said that the
total information content of this universe is about 10^90 bits. If a
civilization gathered all the mass and energy available in their universe to
On 1/27/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
According to the RSSA, *nothing* happens from your POV when you turn 50.
Given that you are already alive, you are going to experience the moments
of
your life in order and each one will last the same amount of time, however
many
On 1/28/07, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Consciousness *seems* to be continuous even if at a fundamental level time
or brain processes are discrete. Also, although I agree that there is no
necessary connection between observer moments, there *seems* to be a
connection, in
On 1/28/07, Brent Meeker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I don't think this is the way to look at it. It's true that QM predicts
an uncountably infinite number of branchings, even for an universe
containing only a single unstable particle. But these branchings don't
produce different copies of
John M mentioned in a recent post that many on the Everything List may have
conflicting or poor understandings of all the various terminology used on
the list. Hal Ruhl brought up the fact that someone had previously tried to
maintain an acronym list and FAQ for the Everything List. I thought
On 2/11/07, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason,
I am not against a wiki for the list, but I think it could lead to some
difficulties. I have already asked more than one time what are people's
main assumptions, without much success (only Hal Finney answered). For
my part I am just
On 2/10/07, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason doesn't currently allow file uploads. I tried to upload a copy
of my book's cover art, but had to link externally instead. Up to him
whether he turns this feature on or not, I guess...
I've just enabled file uploading, it was
At the very least could it be said the AI is conscious of the question?
Would this awareness of even a single piece of information be sufficient to
make it conscious?
Jason
On 6/2/07, Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Various projects exist today aiming at building a true Artificial
On 9/26/07, Hal Finney [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason writes:
A given piece of data can represent an infinite number of different
things depending on the software that interprets it. What may be an
mp3 file to one program may look like snow to an image editor.
I'm doubtful that you
On 4/29/07, Jason [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Two things in my mind make personal identity fuzzy:
1. The MWI of quantum mechanics, which if true means each person
experiences a perhaps infinite number of histories across the multi-
verse. Should personal identity extend to just one branch or
On 10/13/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
12th October, 2007
Marc Geddes
Auckland
New Zealand
---
This is Marc Geddes ,
I am publically requesting to form a social contract with SAI (Super
Intelligence).I am aware of the existence of SAI and SAI-space and
am of
On 11/2/07, Sko-D [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
A quick thought experiment with Tegmarks mathematical universe raises
the issue of the observers relation to the platonic world of math. I
also introduce MiT professor Seth Lloyd's ideas on the universe.
Imagine that one of the many universes is a
Gene,
I appreciate the logic you employed in answering this question. Q asking
Why was I born here? is more or less equivalent to asking Why am I Q?.
In this case however Q is ignoring the fact that it is Q's brain pondering
the question and therefore Q's brain that will also be experiencing
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 7:32 PM, Michael Rosefield
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Surely consciousness is both granular (much of what we are conscious of is
pre-processed by the brain and body, and not part of our direct experience.
This gives a huge amount of leeway for underlying ambiguity) and
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 8:16 PM, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The situation is surely more subtle. To recognise a physical process
as a computation requires an observer to interpret it as such. One of
the key features of conscious is the ability to recognise a certain
On Thu, Mar 27, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
An OM is a state of a machine. In as far as the machine is embedded
in space, the the OM is spread across space. Successive OMs involve
state change, ie must differ by at least a bit. Therefore, OMs must
also be
The Prestige is an excellent movie. It forced me to seriously consider the
questions of identity, personhood and consciousness that it raised and
ultimately it set me on the trajectory of joining this list. I would
explain more fully the relevance I see of this movie to the everything list,
but
creation never seemed to take off, but one dedicated individual with the
spare time could change that :-)
Jason
On Sun, May 4, 2008 at 6:12 PM, Russell Standish [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Jason Resch set it up. I assume he's still lurking on the everything
list. Are you still there Jason?
On Sun
The episode Parallels dealt specifically with the many-worlds
interpretation; Data explained that there was a theory that postulated
everything that can happen, does happen and used that to explain a rift
where multiple Enterprises were leaking in from parallel universes. See
Uv,
One of the concerns people have with free will or the lack thereof is that
if physics is deterministic, one's future actions can predicted beforehand,
without them even having to exist. However, an interesting consequence of
computationalism is this: One's future actions cannot be predicted
On Tue, Sep 9, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
2008/9/10 Jason Resch [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Uv,
One of the concerns people have with free will or the lack thereof is
that
if physics is deterministic, one's future actions can predicted
beforehand,
without
I've cleaned up the spam pages and blocked the users from posting. Let me
know if/when there are recurrences of spam.
Thanks,
Jason
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 2:04 PM, Jason Resch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Currently the wiki is configured to force users to login before creating
pages. I
I would say time doesn't go forward it is only a subjective illusion that it
moves forward because whatever observer moment you find yourself
experiencing only has memories of past events. Therefore a conscious
observer about to be injected with a poison will forever exist in that
moment, just as
I've thought of an interesting modification to the original UDA argument
which would suggest that one's consciousness is at both locations
simultaneously.
Since the UDA accepts digital mechanism as its first premise, then it is
possible to instantiate a consciousness within a computer. Therefore
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To accept this I have to assume I = the world, and that world is not
turing-emulable. But then comp is false.
Bruno,
I have seen you say this many times but I still don't understand why it is
so, perhaps I don't know
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 11:10 AM, Jason Resch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:22 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
To accept this I have to assume I = the world, and that world is not
turing-emulable. But then comp is false.
Bruno,
I have seen you say
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jason,
Le 04-nov.-08, à 23:21, Jason Resch a écrit :
although I agree with Brent, if the simulated world in the computer is
entirely cut off from causal effects of the physical world where the
computer is running
2008, at 03:27, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Nov 5, 2008 at 4:52 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi Jason,
Le 04-nov.-08, à 23:21, Jason Resch a écrit :
although I agree with Brent, if the simulated world in the computer is
entirely cut off from causal effects of the physical
On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 12:23 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 10 Nov 2008, at 17:34, Jason Resch wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS I think I see the point that you are still missing. I will have to
explain that whatever
, Jason Resch [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
On Mon, Nov 10, 2008 at 5:39 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
PS I think I see the point that you are still missing. I will have to
explain that whatever the physical universe is, in the case I am Turing
emulable, the physical universe
, Nov 19, 2008 at 12:50 PM, Jason Resch [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 5:59 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Does everyone accept, like Russell, that, assuming COMP and MAT, Alice
is not a zombie? I mean, is there someone who object? Remember we are
proving
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 1:55 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 19 Nov 2008, at 20:17, Jason Resch wrote:
To add some clarification, I do not think spreading Alice's logic gates
across a field and allowing cosmic rays to cause each gate to perform the
same computations
On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 12:03 PM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The state machine that would represent her in the case of injection of
random noise is a different state machine that would represent her normally
functioning brain.
Absolutely so.
Bruno,
What about the state
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 3:45 AM, Kory Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
However, the materialist-mechanist still has some grounds to say that
there's something interestingly different about Lucky Kory than
Original Kory. It is a physical fact of the matter that Lucky Kory is
not causally
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 5:45 AM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
A variant of Chalmers' Fading Qualia argument
(http://consc.net/papers/qualia.html) can be used to show Alice must
be conscious.
Alice is sitting her exam, and a part of her brain stops working,
let's say the part
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:54 PM, Kory Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Nov 21, 2008, at 9:01 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
What you described sounds very similar to a split brain patient I
saw on a documentary.
It might seem similar on the surface, but it's actually very
different
On Sat, Nov 22, 2008 at 8:52 PM, Stathis Papaioannou [EMAIL PROTECTED]wrote:
2008/11/23 Kory Heath [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
If we apply the Conway's Life rule to all the cells, it seems like the
creatures in the grid ought to be conscious. If we don't apply the
Life rule to any of the cells,
On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 9:30 AM, Torgny Tholerus [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Jason Resch skrev:
I am not sure how related this is to what you ask in your original
post, but as for a model (and candidate TOE) of physics which is
discrete, there is a theory known as Hiem Theory
( http
On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 11:33 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
All this is a bit complex because we have to take well into account
the distinction between
A computation in the real world,
A description of a computation in the real world,
And then most importantly:
A
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 9:53 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
and that by virtue of this imposed order, defines relations between
particles. Computation depends on relations, be it electrons in silicon,
Chinese with radios or a system of beer cans and ping-pong balls;
Here you
On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:19 AM, Bruno Marchal [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hmmm... It means you have still a little problem with step seven. I
wish we share a computable environment, but we cannot decide this at
will. I agree we have empirical evidence that here is such (partially)
computable
On Jul 10, 2013, at 7:24 AM, chris peck chris_peck...@hotmail.com
wrote:
To Jason:
Atheism, in its naivety, rejects all these possibilities without
even realizing it has done so.
How can you possibly speak for atheists generally in this regard?
My point is that if one takes atheism
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:51 PM, Johnathan Corgan jcor...@aeinet.comwrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 8:50 AM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
My point is that if one takes atheism to be the rejection of all
conceptions of god, then because those ideas are conceptions of god from
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 2:08 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 1:59 AM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 1:58 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/9/2013 11:06 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 11:53 PM, chris peck chris_peck
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 11:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
On 7/10/2013 11:49 PM, Jason Resch wrote:
The same logical that says bad things happen because all things happen
also promises all good things happen as well. As life gains greater
control over its environment
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:59 AM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If we call that new number tau (t). Then Euler's identity becomes:
e^(t * i) = 1
There is no disputing matters of taste but I think the original
try the same with
Pi, as you will find ln(e^(Pi*i)) = Pi*i, but ln(e^(t*i)) = 0.
Jason
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
If you want to see all the constants at once
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:23 PM, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 3:31 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
1 is in the modified version I provided: e^(t*i) - 1 = 0
I only see a -1. 1* X is always equal to X but -1*X is never equal to X
unless X=0
On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 2:37 PM, luizfelipecs...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
My name is Luiz Felipe, I am 38 years old, Brazilian, graduated
in engineering and i am crazy about science and philosophy.
Welcome to the list Luiz.
Recently, after reading and watching documentaries about general
701 - 800 of 2377 matches
Mail list logo
