On Mon, Jan 13, 2014 at 9:47 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
I never said there is only one POSSIBLE world, I clearly stated there
is only one ACTUAL world and many actual simulations of that world in the
minds of biological organisms.
OK, but is the world you and I are familiar
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:09 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
It [entropy] is NOT the log of the number of ways a macro-state could
form. That would be ambiguous in any case (do different order of events
count as different ways?
Yes obviously.
the Boltzmann formula shows the
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:08 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
The simplest and by far most likely answer is to assume that the world we
appear to live in IS the real actual world
Maybe. But it could be argued that if the ability to perform vast
calculations is possible (and I can't
Anesthetic chemicals temporally destroy consciousness, and 115 years about
Meyer and Overton discovered a strong correlation between how potent a
chemical anesthesia was and how well it dissolves oils and lipids (fats and
waxes). Even today the reason for this connection is unclear but it still
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:23 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
I give a coherent definition of free will in my book on Reality. Free
will is simply the fact that some bounded system generates actions that are
not entirely determined by its environmental inputs.
OK, then the term
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote
One possible reason for the loss of consciousness I've proposed is it
simply stops the internal time sense. The other possibility of course is
that it disables the specific self-referential circuits that tell an
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
There are thousands of chemicals that are good organic solvents that
aren't anesthetics. I don't think that has anything to do with it...
Why do you think some people like to inhale cleaning products or airplane
glue
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
I give a fairly detailed answer to what quantum randomness is [...]
Basically nature must choose randomly
So randomness is random.
when it aligns the separate spacetime networks
I don't see how bringing in spacetime
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 9:54 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I think that one possible explaination is that neurochemistry is a very
fragile thing. And solvents, being reactive, can easily throw a wrench into
the whole thing.
But why does anesthesia just disrupt consciousness?
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 12:41 AM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
Rational agents are entirely predictable.
Rational agents are entirely deterministic but that does NOT mean they're
predictable. It would only take you a few minutes to write a program to
look for the first even
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 7:51 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
nobody would buy an argument of a lawyer saying that his client is not
guilty, because his client is just a bunch of particles obeying to the SWE.
I would buy the argument that mass murderer Charles Manson is the way a
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 4:17 PM, Russell Standish li...@hpcoders.com.auwrote:
If a rational agent can compute its utility to determine its next course
of action, then so can any observer with access to the same
environmental information.
Yes, but only by going through the same process the
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 3:50 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I would buy the argument that mass murderer Charles Manson is the way a
bunch of particles obey the Schrodinger Wave Equation, but I'll be damned
it I can see what that has to do with his guild or innocence; that bunch of
On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 8:45 PM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
I think Bruno gave a good definition of 'free will' as unpredictability
(even by oneself).
Bruno's definition? For well over 20 years I have been insisting here and
elsewhere that there are only 2 definitions of Free Will
On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Free Will is the inability to predict your own actions even in a
stable environment.
Yes, that's (almost) my definition.
It can't be unless you've recently changed your definition. You said on May
11, 2010:
I don't
On Thu, Jan 23, 2014 at 12:18 AM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
You do the same error with free will than with God. You decide to
take the most gibberish sense of the word to critize the idea, instead of
using the less gibberish sense, to focus on what we really try to talk and
share about.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:52 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I said almost. I defined free-will not really by an inability, but by
the knowledge of that inability.
It doesn't matter, even with that definition your statement below is still
utterly ridiculous:
I don't see how the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 4:41 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
You attack the straw man, again.
Billions of people believe in this straw man , and that is exactly why
using the word God is totally irresponsible if you're not talking about a
intelligent conscious being who created the
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 2:53 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
I think you guys need to provide your definitions of God and compare
them.
I use the exact same definition that BILLIONS of people on this planet use:
the word God refers to an intelligent conscious being who created the
universe.
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!
I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship that I see around here is just
nuts and stifles original thought . The idea that we can solve today's
cutting edge scientific
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
book is really informative about Einstein's religion.
Rather than read what Jammer had to say try reading what Einstein himself
had to say about God:
it was,
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 2:43 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I use the exact same definition of life that MILLIONS of people on this
planet once used: the word Life refers to some organic matter filled with
elan vital.
Fine. Organic matter is matter that operates according to the
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:55 AM, meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Refer to my discourse on solving the hard problem.
Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse that clearly
and unambiguously explains exactly what the hard problem is. Exactly
what is it that you expect
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Einstein illustrates that you can believe in a non personal God.
So you believe this non personal thing that has no purpose or goal and can
not be understood as having any attribute as anthropomorphic as
intelligence or
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:26 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
On 26 Jan 2014, at 19:58, John Clark wrote:
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Platonist Guitar Cowboy
multiplecit...@gmail.com wrote:
GREEK PHILOSOPHERS ARE IGNORAMUSES!
I agree, all this Greek ancestor worship
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 2:23 AM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
There are undecidable statements (about arithmetic)... There are true
statements lacking proof.
Yes.
There are also false statements about arithmetic the proof of whose
falsehood is impossible;
A proof is a FINITE
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
But Jason I want to ask you a direct question, and this isn't rhetorical
I'd really like an answer: If there is no all encompassing purpose or a
goal to existence and if the unknown principle responsible for the
in America.
John K Clark
On 28 January 2014 05:18, John Clark johnkcl...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
John should read the book by Jammer on Einstein's religion. 2/3 of that
book is really informative about Einstein's religion
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 3:51 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
The expansion of the universe was discovered in the 1920s
Yes, Hubble observed that the universe was expanding in the early 1920s,
but only in the late 1990s was it discovered that the universe was not just
expanding but
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 4:48 PM, LizR lizj...@gmail.com wrote:
After all my lessons in logic, I feel duty bound to point out that
Einstein only said that he didn't believe in a personal God.
No, Einstein had more to say on the subject than just I do not believe in
a personal God. Besides not
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:38 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
If there is no all encompassing purpose or a goal to existence and if
the unknown principle responsible for the existence of the universe is not
intelligent and is not conscious and is not a being then do you think it
On Mon, Jan 27, 2014 at 2:35 PM, Brian Tenneson tenn...@gmail.com wrote:
You could always just add it and its negation to the list of axioms
(though not at the same time, of course) and see where that leads,
Axioms should be simple things that are self evidently true, neither
Goldbach's
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 2:47 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
Forget about solving it, I would much rather read a discourse that
clearly and unambiguously explains exactly what the hard problem is.
In a nutshell, the difficulty is that a complete 3p explanation of the
brain seems
On Tue, Jan 28, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
A proof is a FINITE number of statements establishing the truth or
falsehood of something;
Not establishing the truth, but establishing the theoremhood.
I stand corrected; although it would be true if the axioms in
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 3:37 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
atheists are christians.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard
that one before, at least I never heard it before I was 12.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
NO ROOM CAN BE CONSCIOUS.
And we know that because we can say it in all capital letters, or possibly
from the teachings of two of your favorite subjects, astrology and
numerology.
*Except within the fictional
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Please read Lao-tseu or Plotinus.
I have read Lao-tseu but as for Plotinus I've had my fill of ancestor
worship for one day.
and if you read AUDA, you will see how machine car refer to truth
without using a truth
On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
the external objective environment (the weather, a syringe full of
drugs, a punch to the face) can cause a big subjective change.
I have no doubt that this is true. The point is that IF you have a
complete 3p theory of
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 4:36 PM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
A is traveling at near light speed most of the trip. That's why B sees
A's clock slow
Yes. And from A's point of view he's standing still and B is traveling at
near light speed, so A sees B's clock running slow. Both
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I don't need a proof because I have something better, I have direct
experience of the subjective.
Nice for you.
Indeed.
But that does not invalidate the point that you can't prove this to an
other person,
I can't even prove
On Fri, Jan 31, 2014 at 8:19 AM, Edgar L. Owen edgaro...@att.net wrote:
At all past times, the universe at all distances was expanding at the
same rate that we can observe it expanding only at a SINGLE distance.
But it hasn't always been expanding at the same rate. The universe is 13.8
On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:49 PM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I could study anthropology or I could study literature or I could study
history but I can't study theology because there is nothing there to study.
There is no field of inquiry called theology, there is only glop.
On Thu, Dec 27, 2012 at 6:21 AM, Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
we cannot do without 1p and 2p
Especially 2p, most posts on this topic contain a extraordinary large
amount of pee pee.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 8:23 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
There is no field of theology, removing the fairy tale aspect of it
would be like removing the skin of a toy balloon.
To say that there is no field of theology is equivalent to say I know
the answer to the fundamental
On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
Speaking of confusion, I am using the word theology, as you admit in
the above, as it has been used for the last 1500 years. If you insist on
redefining common words (like God and theology) and give them your own
private meaning then
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
The astronomer Giordano Bruno would not have been surprised to hear
that the invention of science was a fight against theology, he was burned
alive by the church for suggesting that the bright points of light you see
I sincerely hope that nobody believes I'm picking on Catholics because
Protestant thinking is every bit as brain dead dumb as the Pope's. Martin
Luther knew perfectly well that religious ideas cannot survive the
slightest amount of rational analysis without completely falling apart, but
his
On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Genesis doesn't say anything about God being grand and complex as far as
I know.
It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent being
was complex it certainly should have. And Darwin provided
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
It certainly says God is grand and if it didn't say that a omnipotent
being was complex it certainly should have.
Ah, so we are talking about what you think Genesis should have said
rather than what it actually
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Craig. The concept of divine simplicity exists in several
religions
And in those religions how did a simpleton God make life? Darwin provided
the mechanism by which Evolution did it, so those religions
On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
how do you define the word religion?
re·li·gion [ri-lij-uhn]
1* n.* A theological fungus that thrives best in the dark and when fed by
bullshit.
2 Believing what you know ain't so.
3 The boast of the man who is too lazy to
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Other than Luther's ancient views on astronomy,
How about Luther's views on geology? How about his view that the Earth was
less than six thousand years old, do you agree with that?
as a modern Lutheran
Which apparently is
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
the Bible provided western man with a completely new, revolutionary view
of existence
New?! The Bible is just a rehash of other Bronze age myths that it
plagiarized from older religions.
The Persian God Mithra, popular in 600 BC,
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
the ancient jews in the BC era knew nothing
Not far from the truth.
of the ancient myths,
If they knew anything at all it was useless crap like that.
“There is little notice of the Persian god [Mithra] in the Roman world
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 meekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
With faith you have any belief you want.
Brent
³We were convinced that the people need and require this faith. We have
therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not
merely with a few theoretical
On Sat, Jan 26, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
1. Luther hated jews, but he had nothing to do with the extermination of
the jews.
By his own words Luther advocated stupidity, and now you admit he was a
hate filled racist demagog; so the man was stupid and the man was evil. So
I
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
Germany has always been antisemitic
Thanks to that pioneering antisemitic crusader, Martin Luther.
Hitler just organized the killing jews,
And the writings of Luther and Hitler on the Jews are almost
indistinguishable, if you
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Without religion, science is pseudo-religion
That's OK with me. Religion is bullshit, so pseudo-bullshit is better than
pure, triple distilled, extra virgin, investment grade bullshit.
How would you define grand for a
On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
I have no conflict being a scientist when I deal with science, and being
a Christian when I deal with the Bible.
As a Christian how do you deal with the fact that the God of the old
testament was such a petty repellent piece of
On Sun, Jan 27, 2013 at 9:47 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
*MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection involves organisms trying to adapt.*
*MISCONCEPTION: Natural selection acts for the good of the species.*
*MISCONCEPTION: The fittest organisms in a population are those that are
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
I am very glad with all your posts on religion, as they confirm my theory
according to which (strong) atheists are (strong) Christians in disguise.
Wow, calling a guy known for disliking religion religious, never heard that
one
On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 4:42 PM, Jason Resch jasonre...@gmail.com wrote:
Your rhetoric may work in other places where you argue with religious
people
I wish it had but no. Such is the awesome virulence of the religious mind
virus that there is nobody to my certain knowledge in which my
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
God is not himself created
So the God hypothesis can not answer the question of why there is something
rather than nothing.
since creator of all cannot create himself
Thus God is not omnipotent and is demoted to the status of
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 Richard Ruquist yann...@gmail.com wrote:
In my metaphysical string cosmology god is created by the
compactification of space dimensions.
Then God was created just like we were and it's rather silly to worship
Him; if you must worship something (and I have no idea why you
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 6:29 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
While I agree with your view, and Carlin's view on the toxic absurdity
of organized religion, I don't see the connection between a child's
tendency to accept the beliefs of their parents with the assumption of
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Unpopular religions are denounced as cults.
A religion is just a cult with good PR.
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List group.
To unsubscribe from
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 , Roger Clough rclo...@verizon.net wrote:
I define intelligence as the ability to make choices or selctions
completely on one's own.
Such as roulette wheels.
Adding free will to the requirements, it rules out computers
Because free will is gibberish and computers are
On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
John K Clark
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Everything List
In his book Summa Theologica that prototypical theologian Saint Thomas
Aquinas speculated on what heaven would be like, Just as santaklausologians
speculate on what Santa Klaus's workshop would be like. Aquinas said:
“That the saints may enjoy their beatitude and the grace of God more
abundantly
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:00 PM, Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.comwrote:
I'm not claiming that intelligence == mind.
Do you believe that your fellow human beings have minds? If so why?
Yes (weakly).
You believe that only weakly?! Do you really think there is a 49% chance
that you are
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote
we also realize intuitively that computers are unconscious
We? Speak for yourself. Maybe your spider senses start to tingle when you
encounter something with consciousness but I am not Spiderman.
without any logical analysis.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
People can pretend to be asleep or anesthetized or dead also.
True.
In that case, the criteria of behaving intelligently would not help you
determine whether they have a mind or not.
Also true. The Turing Test
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
You believe that other people have minds when they are sleeping or under
anesthesia or dead!??
Do you believe that you have a house when you aren't standing in it?
Yes. Do you believe that other people have minds when they
On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 ameekerdb meeke...@verizon.net wrote:
Evolution can only move species to local maxima of fitness.
That is true and is a severe limitation of Evolution, a limitation a mind
designed by a intelligence, like a computer, would not have. You seem to be
saying that a mind
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
If geometry did not exist. Could you invent it with mathematics alone?
Mathematicians have invented geometries of 5, 6, 7, or even a infinite
number of dimensions as in Hilbert space even though they have no tactile
experience
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:30 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
Consciousness might be the unconscious
Okey dokey, and if you allow that X is not X you can prove or disprove
anything you like.
Consciousness accelerates the growing of intelligence
Then it would be easier to make a
On Sat, Feb 9, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
They [mathematicians] are just elaborating existing concepts of
geometry, not creating it from mathematical scratch.
But all those concepts of geometry, like the trigonometric functions, can
be derived from one
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:16 AM, Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote
The Watson program is competent, but I doubt it makes sense to say it is
intelligent.
Just like with God and atheist it looks like we're back at the tired
old game of redefining words. Using the normal meaning of
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
all those concepts of geometry, like the trigonometric functions, can be
derived from one dimensional numerical sequences with no pictures or
diagrams involved and if told that a particle with N degrees of freedom
changes in a
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Bruno Marchal marc...@ulb.ac.be wrote:
So if Watson isn't intelligent he's something better than intelligent.
It is competent in jeopardy.
And the enormously impressive thing about Watson is that unlike Chess
Jeopardy is not a specialized game, you could get asked
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
So far, nobody has been able to figure out a learning algorithm as
generic as the one our brains contains.
The developers of Watson have come very close to doing exactly that.
there is definitely room for generalists.
Then
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
Then why can't a one dimensional Turing machine do geometry,
It can solve geometry problems,
Yes.
but it can't generate geometric forms.
Can you generate geometric forms? Your fingers can draw a triangle but are
you
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 Telmo Menezes te...@telmomenezes.com wrote:
there aren't as many brain surgeon-level fields that require maniacal
focus for competence as
people seem to think.
I would maintain that for the last 200 years every major advance in science
or mathematics has come from
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
* *Wouldn’t Simulated Intelligence be a more appropriate term than
Artificial Intelligence?
Yes that euphemism could have advantages, it might make the last human
being feel a little better about himself just before the Jupiter
On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
* *Wouldn’t Simulated Intelligence be a more appropriate term than
Artificial Intelligence?
Yes that euphemism [Simulated Intelligence] could have advantages, it
might make the last human being feel a little better about
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
all that says is that the geometry which we experience in the universe
does not arise from my conscious control
I thought you were the fellow who said consciousness was behind everything.
a universe which is purely
On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
With complex numbers you can make a one to one relationship between the
way numbers add subtract multiply and divide and the way things move in a
two dimensional plane. What more could you want arithmetic to do in support
of
On Sun, Feb 17, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I would assume that geometric truths don't contradict arithmetic truths.
And arithmetical truths don't contradict geometrical truths, and a 3D
geometrical machine can provide answers to arithmetical questions, and a 1D
Miguel Nicolelis http://www.nicolelislab.net/
You could have all the computer chips ever in the world and you won’t
create a consciousness.
It must be grand being a hard problem theorist because it's the easiest
job in the world bar none, no matter how smart something is you just say
yeah but
On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
The laws of physics as you understand them forbid any form of
consciousness
The laws of physics as I understand them neither forbids nor demands any
form of consciousness.
The only thing you know about the brain is the way
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
What physical mechanism is there available that could allow for
experience?
The laws of physics as I understand them neither forbid nor demand any form
of consciousness, they simply have nothing of interest to say on the
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
unlike the other sciences or even art mathematics does not require
experimentation.
But they require thinking,
Obviously.
which you are saying is nothing but the brain.
What to you think with, your elbow?
The act of
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 8:25 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
What to you think with, your elbow?
my point was that you have a double standard about which brain
activities represent nothing but evolutionary driven illusions
Illusions? Evolutionary drive is what made you the
On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
A successful evolutionary outcome doesn't have anything to do with the
veracity of the content of a signal.
If the interpretation your brain performs on a sequence of impulses that
come from your eyes is not compatible with the
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
If the condition of being threatened by a predator is delivered to me as
a flashing red light or the lilt of angelic chimes in my ear it doesn't
make any difference whatsoever.
But it makes a very big difference to
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
it's just blather. = ad hominem
It is not ad hominem if it really is blather. I would define blather as a
sound or a sequence of ASCII symbols with zero informational content
because it means nothing, as in a burp, or because it
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
I guess you are serious then that you think that a computer can tell
whether an mp3 is supposed to be music or graphics.
If the computer can not tell the difference between a picture file and a
music file then it will have a
On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
It is not ad hominem if it really is blather. I would define blather
as a sound or a sequence of ASCII symbols with zero informational content
because it means nothing, as in a burp, or because it means something self
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.com wrote:
when a computer is operating correctly it can most certainly tell the
difference between a audio and a video file,
Absolutely false.
How so?
It can tell the difference between one file format and another,
Well that's all
On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Craig Weinberg whatsons...@gmail.comwrote:
Even if it could [ tell the difference between a audio and a video file]
that would only represent a more advanced file analysis function, not any
kind of audio or video sensitivity.
Please explain the difference
601 - 700 of 6405 matches
Mail list logo
